Are They Really "prophets, Seers & Revelators?"

[MiserereNobis]

I think another thing that gets people is the issue of "public revelation", i.e. the belief that there is to be no more public revelation, though "private" revelations, such as those you mentioned, still occur, God still speaks to His children, etc.  Some LDS would say that they believe that "public revelation" is supposed to continue, but perhaps this is another terminology issue, where the Catholic and LDS are not speaking of the same thing when they talk about "public revelation".  What do you think "public revelation" is referring to?  I've defined it before as what is necessary to be saved, which is personified in Jesus Christ.  So, all that is necessary to receive eternal life has already been revealed, and the "requirements" for eternal life don't change (i.e. tomorrow the Pope can't announce that washing in the blood of a lamb is necessary for salvation).  What do you think? 

 

But yes, it is interesting that Catholicism does have prophets and prophetesses (even though they may not be referred to as such, functionally they are), and that inspiration from God through the Holy Spirit is an important concept in various aspects of Catholicism (i.e. Councils, Papal Infallibility, personal inspiration, etc). 

 

 

Here is a relevant passage from the Catechism:

 

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

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

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

 

I like your definition and agree.  Public revelation refers to what is necessary for salvation.  All of that was revealed by Christ and in Christ and Christ's new, definitive, and everlasting Covenant.  There will be no more revelation to supersede or change that Covenant -- that is why it is everlasting.

 

I like how the Catechism, though, points out that this revelation is not completely explicit, which is why we need the Church and guidance from God to "grasp its full significance."

 

It helps to see the Catechism's contrast with "private revelations."  They are not necessary, they are not part of the deposit of Faith that was given to the Apostles and passed on ever since, but they do help us live the deposit of Faith better "in a certain period of history."  This seems to connect to the LDS idea that their prophets tell them what God wants of them in this specific time.

 

The last part of the passage quoted shows that we cannot accept any public revelation that changes what Christ gave the Apostles.  I agree with you -- this means that the way to salvation is the same now as it was on the day of Pentecost when Holy Mother Church was born.

Edited April 14, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[canard78]

No, I did not read in haste. This is exactly what you said:

 

The context was the problem. There was no reason for you to tell the story of choosing a new "prophet" as being "almost identical" to selecting a pope unless your intent was to equate the two events. Yes, you said "new apostle" and put "prophet" in quotes, but to someone outside the church, the distinction would be totally unclear.

In fact, Miserere Nobis ended up saying this:

 

No, the "actuality of the situation" is not the same as all. Popes are chosen by conclave whereas the President of the church- "The Prophet" is chosen by seniority, and the common belief, which I have no problem believing myself, is that God can therefore influence the choice directly. THAT is a big difference!

The fact that new apostles are called in the same way that new bishops- Catholic and Mormon, new cardinals and new Elder's quorum presidents is irrelevant to the question. All these are called by others in higher authority praying for guidance and making the selection though discussions and impressions by the spirit. So yes, in that way the churches are virtually identical.

But so what? In an executive board room, minus the prayer perhaps, the process would be identical. This is the way junior leaders are called to senior leadership everywhere. The fact that churches do it the same way is irrelevant. I would suppose Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims also do it the same way.

But calling an LDS prophet- president is different from all these processes. THAT is the point.

 

But I know how a church president is called. 

 

I was pointing out how a new apostle is called. An apostle is sustained as a "prophet, seer and revelator." So it's still an accurate description of how a new prophet is called, but not an accurate description of how a new president of the church is called. When President Hinckley died and President Monson became the new President of the church he didn't become a prophet, seer and revelator. He already was one. He had been one for for decades.

 

President Monson was "called/elected" president based on longevity. On that basis we could say that God had a direct hand in "calling home" more senior people to ensure President Monson was the next president of the church. In other words we're suggesting God "kills" (I suppose "calls home" is more sensitive) the apostles He doesn't want as President and keeps alive the one he does. That's how a new president is selected. I can of course see that there is a difference between how the leader of the Catholic church (the pope) and the leader of our church (the president) is called.

 

A new prophet, seer and revelator (a new apostle - they are synonymous) is called by a group of 14 men sitting around, discussing it and then praying for confirmation as far as I can see. As such, I don't see a distinction on that basis.

[mfbukowski]

Here is a relevant passage from the Catechism:

 

 

I like your definition and agree.  Public revelation refers to what is necessary for salvation.  All of that was revealed by Christ and in Christ and Christ's new, definitive, and everlasting Covenant.  There will be no more revelation to supersede or change that Covenant -- that is why it is everlasting.

 

I like how the Catechism, though, points out that this revelation is not completely explicit, which is why we need the Church and guidance from God to "grasp its full significance."

 

It helps to see the Catechism's contrast with "private revelations."  They are not necessary, they are not part of the deposit of Faith that was given to the Apostles and passed on ever since, but they do help us live the deposit of Faith better "in a certain period of history."  This seems to connect to the LDS idea that their prophets tell them what God wants of them in this specific time.

 

The last part of the passage quoted shows that we cannot accept any public revelation that changes what Christ gave the Apostles.  I agree with you -- this means that the way to salvation is the same now as it was on the day of Pentecost when Holy Mother Church was born.

I think that, using other terms, this would work in practice for LDS.

 

We - at least I- don't see any need for the idea of "everlasting truth" however since practically speaking I don't know what that even means.

 

All "truths" are expressed in human language, and those languages and their interpretations change though the ages. We cannot possibly understand the gospel as it was "originally" uttered by Christ with the nuances of meaning in each phrase he spoke in Aramaic.  Those actual words don't even exist anymore- they floated away on the air as soon as he spoke them.  All we have is interpretations of those words written by others 50 or 100 or even longer after He said them.

 

So to me the concept of "eternal truth" might be a comforting notion, but it really doesn't make sense.  All we have is linguistic interpretations of other men's recollections of the gist of what might have been said.

 

To me, that is why an "open canon" is so important- it acknowledges that "truth"- at least as we understand it- needs to be re-interpreted for each generation, or at least for a few generations every couple of hundred years.

 

Yet that is acknowledged in the quoted passage in mentioning the "sensus fidelium".  So to me from my perspective the passage is confusing.  "Sensus fidelium" in a sense is a nod to "private revelation"  but on a mass level. 

 

It is the private revelation of billions which suddenly becomes "public revelation" though re-interpretation of doctrine.

 

I see little practical difference there to a belief in an "open canon".  The admission is there that interpretations change over centuries but yet there is an attempt to call that "eternal truth" anyway.

 

I would just prefer to call a spade a spade.

[mfbukowski]

Well, to be fair, Mormons don't honor anyone's baptisms, so I think it's a little strange to feel slighted that we don't honor yours

In the final analysis of course your church doesn't think we are Christian and mine thinks you are apostates. So really I don't feel slighted at all. I kind of have been aware of these things for a while now.  

I guess I was trying to point out similarities between the two and to say that some of the differences are purely semantic.  That, by nature, is a semantic discussion.  I don't think it goes nowhere.  I'm hoping that people on this board can better understand how the Catholic Magesterium works and that ideas like modern-day prophet and modern-day revelation might have parallels in Catholicism.  My ultimate point is to claim that the LDS church might not be as unique as some Mormons think it is, in practice, when it comes to those ideas of modern-day prophet and modern-day revelation.

 

As far as neo-Platonism goes, well, we've been there and done that, eh?

Totally agree on all points.

When I protested about "semantic" problems on the thread, I was not referring to THIS discussion regarding the differences or similarities between Catholicism and Mormonism, but the larger semantic question allegedly raised on this thread about whether or not our leaders "really are" prophets.

I see fewer and fewer substantive threads lately.

[mfbukowski]

But I know how a church president is called. 

 

I was pointing out how a new apostle is called. An apostle is sustained as a "prophet, seer and revelator." So it's still an accurate description of how a new prophet is called, but not an accurate description of how a new president of the church is called. When President Hinckley died and President Monson became the new President of the church he didn't become a prophet, seer and revelator. He already was one. He had been one for for decades.

 

President Monson was "called/elected" president based on longevity. On that basis we could say that God had a direct hand in "calling home" more senior people to ensure President Monson was the next president of the church. In other words we're suggesting God "kills" (I suppose "calls home" is more sensitive) the apostles He doesn't want as President and keeps alive the one he does. That's how a new president is selected. I can of course see that there is a difference between how the leader of the Catholic church (the pope) and the leader of our church (the president) is called.

 

A new prophet, seer and revelator (a new apostle - they are synonymous) is called by a group of 14 men sitting around, discussing it and then praying for confirmation as far as I can see. As such, I don't see a distinction on that basis.

OK no problem. We disagree- we have before and will again. No biggie.

My concern is that non members would think that the pope and church president were essentially called in the same way.

We agree on that- they are not called the same way. That was my only point.

[why me]

So once again, whether right or wrong, the Brethren's views on, say, SSM match up perfectly with their demographic. That does not make them wrong. Old white guys can be right about things too. However, it doesn't make their position any great "miracle" or a compelling example of "revelation,, because just about any group of 15 old white men (even if they were non-LDS) would come to the same "revelation."

I think that if we take 15 old white men, 15 old black men and 15 old african men, I do believe that most would be against same sex marriage. And most would have conservative values. It is not about race but about religious upbringing.

[canard78]

OK no problem. We disagree- we have before and will again. No biggie.

My concern is that non members would think that the pope and church president were essentially called in the same way.

We agree on that- they are not called the same way. That was my only point.

 

No worries, I agree with you that church presidents are definitely not called in the same way as a pope.

[canard78]

I think that if we take 15 old white men, 15 old black men and 15 old african men, I do believe that most would be against same sex marriage. And most would have conservative values. It is not about race but about religious upbringing.

 

I feel at an impasse. I could deal with unpopular doctrine, anachronistic scripture passages, odd translation techniques, even odder marriage practices... if I was convinced in the ability of prophets to speak for God. If that were not so easily disputed, even refuted, then none of the secondary 'stuff' would matter so much.

 

The problem is that I tie myself up in knots.

 

I have this imaginary gollum-esque dialogue with Canard-A and Canard-B:

 

A: "The only safety we have as members of this church is to … learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet."

B: OK... so who is his prophets and where can I find those commandments of the Lord given through his prophets?

A: Well... every 6 months we are invited to raise our right hand the following: "It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day... It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators."

B: Ahah... so we have 15 prophets? So I can listen to what they say right?

A: Yes, no... maybe. "...it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church." (D. Todd Christofferson, April 2012).

B: So... does that make what he said doctrine or not? He said it in General Conference, but was it just his "well-considered opinion" that not everything a leader says is doctrine. Doesn't that statement, by definition, cancel itself out from being authoritative?

A: What? You're confusing me... It's repeated on the church newsroom too so maybe that's official.

B: The newsroom is the source of doctrine now? So not the 15 prophets and their predecessors?

A: No, course not. But... for what it's worth, the newsroom article says that  "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

B: OK, I think I'm getting somewhere. So what you're saying is that actually general conference talks are not doctrine.

A: They might emphasise doctrine, but they aren't, in and of themselves, doctrine.

B: Hmmm. So when an apostle, in general conference, says that the words of the prophet are "as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself," is he emphasing doctrine or sharing a well-considered opinion? Because it's a pretty important distinction.

A: Good question. Umm... it says in D&C 1:38 that "...whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

B: Interesting. Is that the same as the more direct statement in Gospel Principles that says "When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking"?

A: I suppose so.

B: Great. So when a prophet speaks for God... it's the same as if God Himself were speaking.

A: Yup! We're getting somewhere. I like you Canard-B.

B: Yes, I suppose. So that means, by implication, that a prophet sometimes speaks for God and sometimes speaks for himself. In other words, sometimes we get his own well-considered opinions. Not official and not binding.

A: Yes. Joseph Smith even said: "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."

B: Wow. And when is that?

A: What?

B: When is a prophet acting, or speaking as a prophet versus not speaking as a prophet? When is he speaking as if God were speaking and when are we just getting the opinion of a man? How can I tell the difference?

A: When... ummm... When... He's repeating the things that are officially binding in the scriptures and other official declarations? Maybe?

B: So when a prophet reads the scriptures or other official declarations, it's doctrine. Otherwise it's not doctrine. 

A: Right.

B: So nearly everything said or written in conference, manuals and Ensign articles is not doctrinal unless it's quoting scripture or official declarations?

A: By your logic yes.

B: My logic? It's the church's logic!

A: I guess so.

B: So... is the only safety found in following the commandments given by the Lord through his prophet?

A: If they're from the Lord, yes. If they're not then maybe not.

B: Right. And so sometimes a prophet speaks (even in general conference) and it is not as if the Lord is speaking? 

A: Correct.

B: So unless they are saying things found in scripture/official declaration I get the option of ignoring or accepting their "well-considered opinions?"

A: Apparently. Having said that, you need a bit more than just a scripture 'back-check.' We're asked to study their words and seek personal confirmation of their veracity.

B: Sounds good. So really the church is teaching me to use their words as a framework of instruction and then find out for myself, through personal interaction with the heavens whether their words, opinions and repetition of scripturally based doctrine applies to me?

A: It seems so.

B: Which, by implication, means that some of it wont?

A: By implication, yes.

B: And does everyone else at church view it that way too, or am I going to sound like a heretic?

A: Ah...

[mfbukowski]

I think that if we take 15 old white men, 15 old black men and 15 old african men, I do believe that most would be against same sex marriage. And most would have conservative values. It is not about race but about religious upbringing.

In fact the black community was one of our major allies during the Prop 8 campaign. Blacks overwhelmingly voted against same sex marriage.

[mfbukowski]

I feel at an impasse. I could deal with unpopular doctrine, anachronistic scripture passages, odd translation techniques, even odder marriage practices... if I was convinced in the ability of prophets to speak for God. If that were not so easily disputed, even refuted, then none of the secondary 'stuff' would matter so much.

 

The problem is that I tie myself up in knots.

 

I have this imaginary gollum-esque dialogue with Canard-A and Canard-B:

 

A: "The only safety we have as members of this church is to … learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet."

B: OK... so who is his prophets and where can I find those commandments of the Lord given through his prophets?

A: Well... every 6 months we are invited to raise our right hand the following: "It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day... It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators."

B: Ahah... so we have 15 prophets? So I can listen to what they say right?

A: Yes, no... maybe. "...it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church." (D. Todd Christofferson, April 2012).

B: So... does that make what he said doctrine or not? He said it in General Conference, but was it just his "well-considered opinion" that not everything a leader says is doctrine. Doesn't that statement, by definition, cancel itself out from being authoritative?

A: What? You're confusing me... It's repeated on the church newsroom too so maybe that's official.

B: The newsroom is the source of doctrine now? So not the 15 prophets and their predecessors?

A: No, course not. But... for what it's worth, the newsroom article says that  "With divine inspiration, the First Presidency... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

B: OK, I think I'm getting somewhere. So what you're saying is that actually general conference talks are not doctrine.

A: They might emphasise doctrine, but they aren't, in and of themselves, doctrine.

B: Hmmm. So when an apostle, in general conference, says that the words of the prophet are "as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself," is he emphasing doctrine or sharing a well-considered opinion? Because it's a pretty important distinction.

A: Good question. Umm... it says in D&C 1:38 that "...whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

B: Interesting. Is that the same as the more direct statement in Gospel Principles that says "When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking"?

A: I suppose so.

B: Great. So when a prophet speaks for God... it's the same as if God Himself were speaking.

A: Yup! We're getting somewhere. I like you Canard-B.

B: Yes, I suppose. So that means, by implication, that a prophet sometimes speaks for God and sometimes speaks for himself. In other words, sometimes we get his own well-considered opinions. Not official and not binding.

A: Yes. Joseph Smith even said: "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."

B: Wow. And when is that?

A: What?

B: When is a prophet acting, or speaking as a prophet versus not speaking as a prophet? When is he speaking as if God were speaking and when are we just getting the opinion of a man? How can I tell the difference?

A: When... ummm... When... He's repeating the things that are officially binding in the scriptures and other official declarations? Maybe?

B: So when a prophet reads the scriptures or other official declarations, it's doctrine. Otherwise it's not doctrine. 

A: Right.

B: So nearly everything said or written in conference, manuals and Ensign articles is not doctrinal unless it's quoting scripture or official declarations?

A: By your logic yes.

B: My logic? It's the church's logic!

A: I guess so.

B: So... is the only safety found in following the commandments given by the Lord through his prophet?

A: If they're from the Lord, yes. If they're not then maybe not.

B: Right. And so sometimes a prophet speaks (even in general conference) and it is not as if the Lord is speaking? 

A: Correct.

B: So unless they are saying things found in scripture/official declaration I get the option of ignoring or accepting their "well-considered opinions?"

A: Apparently. Having said that, you need a bit more than just a scripture 'back-check.' We're asked to study their words and seek personal confirmation of their veracity.

B: Sounds good. So really the church is teaching me to use their words as a framework of instruction and then find out for myself, through personal interaction with the heavens whether their words, opinions and repetition of scripturally based doctrine applies to me?

A: It seems so.

B: Which, by implication, means that some of it wont?

A: By implication, yes.

B: And does everyone else at church view it that way too, or am I going to sound like a heretic?

A: Ah...

I can sympathize, but my advice is to just let it go. Logic is in the mind of the beholder because every syllogism is composed of ambiguous words. Logic depends on definitions, which depend on what someone FEELs is the "right" definition.

You get to pick your own to a large extent because no one is a better authority on it than you.

My Rx:

Dust off the good old Perry Scheme as quoted by Kevin innumerable times, read number 9 again and again until the pain subsides and peace comes.

If God can talk to you, he can talk to Thomas Monson, and what is more important, He can tell you if what Thomas Monson thinks is good for Canard IS IN FACT good for Canard.

If the spirit tells you it is not good for Canard, you must follow that voice in your ear and gut no matter what. If necessary, sustain the truth with your feet.

Preach the gospel continuously, if necessary, use words, and I will add, the feet Those old feet got you into this situation and they can get you out.

But what that old gut tells you is what you have to stick to.

Problem solved.

[Pahoran]

What it means to me is that they are prophets, seers and revelators.

 

From Moses until John the Baptist, there were hundreds of prophets in Israel.

 

Hundreds.

 

And in the Bible we have the writings of only a few of them.

 

Most of what they said and wrote is lost forever.

 

And that's okay, because most of it would have been the same kind of fairly ordinary and unspectacular material that we get today.

 

Material that is all too easy to overlook.

 

Regards,
Pahoran

[why me]

What it means to me is that they are prophets, seers and revelators.

 

From Moses until John the Baptist, there were hundreds of prophets in Israel.

 

Hundreds.

 

And in the Bible we have the writings of only a few of them.

 

Most of what they said and wrote is lost forever.

 

And that's okay, because most of it would have been the same kind of fairly ordinary and unspectacular material that we get today.

 

Material that is all too easy to overlook.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Nice to have you back. And you are right. People don't seem to realize that what we have in the bible are what certain people viewed as being important. Likewise for the New Testament. I think that lds leaders have guided the lds rather well in how to do life. These leaders seem to have given their inspiration humbly and not in spectacular fashion and yet, on the mark in how life should be lived.

Edited April 14, 2014 by why me

[canard78]

I can sympathize, but my advice is to just let it go.

 

Logic is in the mind of the beholder because every syllogism is composed of ambiguous words. Logic depends on definitions, which depend on what someone FEELs is the "right" definition.

You get to pick your own to a large extent because no one is a better authority on it than you.

My Rx:

Dust off the good old Perry Scheme as quoted by Kevin innumerable times, read number 9 again and again until the pain subsides and peace comes.

If God can talk to you, he can talk to Thomas Monson, and what is more important, He can tell you if what Thomas Monson thinks is good for Canard IS IN FACT good for Canard.

If the spirit tells you it is not good for Canard, you must follow that voice in your ear and gut no matter what. If necessary, sustain the truth with your feet.

Preach the gospel continuously, if necessary, use words, and I will add, the feet Those old feet got you into this situation and they can get you out.

But what that old gut tells you is what you have to stick to.

Problem solved.

 

Indeed. In the end it's between me and God... anyway:

 

People are often unreasonable, illogical and self centered;

Forgive them anyway.

 

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;

Be kind anyway.

 

If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;

Succeed anyway.

 

If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;

Be honest and frank anyway.

 

What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;

Build anyway.

 

If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;

Be happy anyway.

 

The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;

Do good anyway.

 

Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough;

Give the world the best you've got anyway.

 

You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and your God;

It was never between you and them anyway.

 

[why me]

In fact the black community was one of our major allies during the Prop 8 campaign. Blacks overwhelmingly voted against same sex marriage.

That was my point with the race card of old white men. Mormonnewb seems to have forgotten that black southern baptists are not exactly supporting SSM. Nor are the africans living in africa. This is not just about old white guys hanging out in salt lake near the shady pines nursing home.

[mormonnewb]

That was my point with the race card of old white men. Mormonnewb seems to have forgotten that black southern baptists are not exactly supporting SSM. Nor are the africans living in africa. This is not just about old white guys hanging out in salt lake near the shady pines nursing home.

When did this thread become out SSM? My point was simply that the views of the Brethren on just about EVERY issue match up with the views of their race, age and gender demographic. In other words, if you take any random 15 old white guys and asked them a question about a current social issue, it would match up with the church's current official (or unofficial) stance. Now, in truth, the same would likely be true if you took a random group of 15 old white WOMEN, although you might get SOME variation in regards to, say, Ordain Women (although probably not much). Likewise, 15 old BLACK men would probably match up well with the Brethren, although they might have some different ideas about church welfare, whether the priesthood ban was ordained of God, etc.

Once again, the fact that the Brethren see things in line with their peers has no bearing on whether they are PSRs. It just doesn't make their stances "remarkable" in any way. But there is nothing to say that HF must "show off" by accomplishing His purposes in miraculous fashion. He often uses ordinary means to accomplish the extraordinary. It's the prerogative of a divine being.

[Ran]

Here is a relevant passage from the Catechism:

 

 

I like your definition and agree.  Public revelation refers to what is necessary for salvation.  All of that was revealed by Christ and in Christ and Christ's new, definitive, and everlasting Covenant.  There will be no more revelation to supersede or change that Covenant -- that is why it is everlasting.

 

I like how the Catechism, though, points out that this revelation is not completely explicit, which is why we need the Church and guidance from God to "grasp its full significance."

 

It helps to see the Catechism's contrast with "private revelations."  They are not necessary, they are not part of the deposit of Faith that was given to the Apostles and passed on ever since, but they do help us live the deposit of Faith better "in a certain period of history."  This seems to connect to the LDS idea that their prophets tell them what God wants of them in this specific time.

 

The last part of the passage quoted shows that we cannot accept any public revelation that changes what Christ gave the Apostles.  I agree with you -- this means that the way to salvation is the same now as it was on the day of Pentecost when Holy Mother Church was born.

 

 

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave the most thorough presentation I've read on this subject in "Public Revelation and private revelations – their theological status" in his theological commentary to "The Message of Fatima" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2000).

 

[why me]

 

 

  All of that was revealed by Christ and in Christ and Christ's new, definitive, and everlasting Covenant.  There will be no more revelation to supersede or change that Covenant -- that is why it is everlasting.

 

I like how the Catechism, though, points out that this revelation is not completely explicit, which is why we need the Church and guidance from God to "grasp its full significance."

 

It helps to see the Catechism's contrast with "private revelations."  They are not necessary, they are not part of the deposit of Faith that was given to the Apostles and passed on ever since, but they do help us live the deposit of Faith better "in a certain period of history."  This seems to connect to the LDS idea that their prophets tell them what God wants of them in this specific time.

 

The last part of the passage quoted shows that we cannot accept any public revelation that changes what Christ gave the Apostles.  I agree with you -- this means that the way to salvation is the same now as it was on the day of Pentecost when Holy Mother Church was born.

And yet we have Paul giving all sorts of advice to the early church as if he were an apostle with a prophet's voice. Unfortunately we don't see what exactly the apostles were doing after christ was murdered. What we do have is what is in the bible and of course, the bible would need to be incomplete since it was culled. Lets face it, Paul was rather active and he must have done more than what is in the bible. Likewise for christ. We have so little of him in the bible that he must have been much more active than what the bible contains. Even during his ministry he lived at least a thousand days and what do we have of him?

 

To think that god has now abandoned the church and cut off all revelation would be rather sad. If that were a fact, we would be lost for sure. The pope has just stated to catholics that satan is very much alive and hell is a real place. To have god end revelation would more or less say to us on earth: good luck. How to fight the forces of evil without revelation?

 

So, god was not in contact with the apostles through revelation? I have a hard time believing that. I underlined in your above post the reason why I responded.

[Ran]

And yet we have Paul giving all sorts of advice to the early church as if he were an apostle with a prophet's voice. Unfortunately we don't see what exactly the apostles were doing after christ was murdered. What we do have is what is in the bible and of course, the bible would need to be incomplete since it was culled. Lets face it, Paul was rather active and he must have done more than what is in the bible. Likewise for christ. We have so little of him in the bible that he must have been much more active than what the bible contains. Even during his ministry he lived at least a thousand days and what do we have of him?

 

To think that god has now abandoned the church and cut off all revelation would be rather sad. If that were a fact, we would be lost for sure. The pope has just stated to catholics that satan is very much alive and hell is a real place. To have god end revelation would more or less say to us on earth: good luck. How to fight the forces of evil without revelation?

 

So, god was not in contact with the apostles through revelation? I have a hard time believing that. I underlined in your above post the reason why I responded.

 

 

"God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son."

—Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 8

 

How does your description of the Catholic view of revelation as having been ended, "cut off" or ceased contact interact with the above quote?

Edited April 15, 2014 by Ran

[why me]

"God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son."

—Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 8

 

How does your description of the Catholic view of revelation as having been ended, "cut off" or ceased contact interact with the above quote?

We also need to remember that the gospels were written after Paul. And that the gospels were also written for faith promotion---to have something written down for people to refer to. i do believe that god was speaking through paul. If not, why follow anything that he has to say. Of for that matter peter and james. I certainly hope that we are not rudderless now. Also, for catholics the visitations of mary would be extremely important and what she had to say to the inhabitants of the world.

 

I was commenting on what the catholic poster posted about revelation has ended.

Edited April 15, 2014 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

I was commenting on what the catholic poster posted about revelation has ended.

 

You totally misunderstood.  The whole point of my posting on this thread is to say that the definitions that Mormons and Catholics use for "revelation" is different and, in practical terms, we act the same way, as if God is leading our Churches.  Please go back and reread my posts, especially the one you responded to.  Catholics believe that God is always speaking to His Church.  We just don't call it revelation.

 

Actually, your response is one of the reasons I posted the things I did.  Mormons appear to misunderstand the Catholic Church's take on revelation and think that we believe that God will never speak to the world again.  That is SO not true.  In fact, I dare say (given the amount of time and the number of Catholics), we have WAY more visions and whatnot in our history than in the LDS history.  There are countless Saints and others who have had visions of angles and Jesus and Mary and other Saints.  Add to that our 21 Ecumenical Councils and countless Papal encyclicals and you can see that we are a Church that very much believes that God is leading us through what Mormons would call revelation.

[wenglund]

Question: When you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers and revelators, what does that mean to you?

 

Until recently, I never gave this question much thought because of all of the doubts I've had about the Church, I have always been 100% sure that I was not its leader.  And since I had no ties to the Rigdons, Strangs or Jeffs, I was very comfortable with sustaining the Brethren as being the "duly appointed" leaders of this Church.

 

However, I think that most of you see their positions as prophets, seers and revelators as more than just being our version of, say, Executive Vice Presidents.  But rather you view the Brethren as modern-day embodiments of Samuel, Daniel, John the Beloved, etc.

 

I'm having trouble with making this connection because their roles seem so different than from the prophets of old; or even from the "prophets of new" like Joseph Smith.  JS brought forth a new book of scripture and a restoration of the Gospel.  He made prophesies about future events.  He exclaimed previous unknown truths (e.g., God is corporeal, the Godhead is three separate personages, Adam-Ondi-Ahman, etc.).

 

I don't see our current prophets, seers and revelators doing these types of things and up until now, it really hasn't bothered me.  I just assumed that we were in a different phase of the Church and that now, HF had chosen wise men who are able administrators to lead the Church.  And this made sense to me.  It requires much different skills to run a church of, say, 1,500 people than it does to turn a church of 15 million people.

 

The problem with my view of our current prophets, seers and revelators is that it does not provide me with the same sense of confidence that it seems to provide for many of you.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I tend to agree with the Brethren's counsel.  In fact, I will even give them the benefit of the doubt in cases in which I don't have strong feelings about the matter.  For instance, I obey the Word of Wisdom despite lacking any deep conviction that HF has decreed Red Bull to be better for my immortal soul than coffee.  I comply because wise men encourage it and I have no reason to believe that I will be worse off without these things.  But I might be just as willing to take that attitude with advice given by my earthly father and he is an outright heathen (and proudly so).

 

So what is it that you see in the Brethren that makes their words end in your head with, "Thus sayeth the Lord"?   As opposed to, in my head, where it might end "Thus sayeth the EVP of Northern Europe"?

 

And, by the way, I'm not being snarky.  I SINCERELY want to know what I'm missing here.  Obviously, there is something that many of you have seen or heard throughout the years that makes their position as prophets, seers and revelators more than just titles to you.  Or perhaps, you've found some other way to define those terms that still allows you to have confidence that they are more than just wise men with the best of intentions.  Either way, I'd LOVE to have that assurance myself so please help me to know what you know.

 

I read this in the serious and non-snarky way in which you intended, and I am very glad you raised this question because I think it factors significantly in a number of issues under discussion on this and other boards--not the least of which are the questions of women and the priesthood and homosexuality.

 

I suspect that there is an inverse relationship: the less some members trust/have faith in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators, particularly compared to themselves and popular culture, the more those members will be inclined to follow pop cultural trends in contravention to the Brethren. And, vice versa.

 

In other words, the more some members view Church leaders and the Church itself as little different from other members and religions, the more their beliefs will align with the world, and vice versa.

 

If so, this raises the question of why stay in the Church?

 

If some members believe they and popular culture know as well or better than the Brethren whether women ought to have the priesthood nowadays and how homosexuality ought to be viewed morally and in terms of legal marriage, this is their prerogative.

 

However, there are already churches that profess the same. If, in their minds, the Brethren have no special dispensation or authority or pipeline to God, any more than the average member of this or any other church, then what value is there in their remaining in the church rather than seeking out like-minded faith traditions?

 

I don't get it?

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Edited April 15, 2014 by wenglund

[ChristKnight]

And yet we have Paul giving all sorts of advice to the early church as if he were an apostle with a prophet's voice. Unfortunately we don't see what exactly the apostles were doing after christ was murdered. What we do have is what is in the bible and of course, the bible would need to be incomplete since it was culled. Lets face it, Paul was rather active and he must have done more than what is in the bible. Likewise for christ. We have so little of him in the bible that he must have been much more active than what the bible contains. Even during his ministry he lived at least a thousand days and what do we have of him?

 

To think that god has now abandoned the church and cut off all revelation would be rather sad. If that were a fact, we would be lost for sure. The pope has just stated to catholics that satan is very much alive and hell is a real place. To have god end revelation would more or less say to us on earth: good luck. How to fight the forces of evil without revelation?

 

So, god was not in contact with the apostles through revelation? I have a hard time believing that. I underlined in your above post the reason why I responded.

 

That's not what he said.  Further, neither the poster nor the Catholic Church  teaches that "God has now abandoned the church and cut off all revelation".  Both the poster and the Catholic Church teach that God has not abandoned the church (perhaps that is part of the reason why Catholics reject any notion of a total apostasy of Christ's Church).  The underlined portion in his post is talking about a technical term, "public revelation".  Catholicism makes a distinction between "public revelation" and "private revelation" (which is not necessarily "personal" revelation), with definitions that are not necessarily the same as what one finds in the LDS Church, as was being discussed.  I think that it is because you're not familiar with those Catholic understandings that you made the above erroneous comment.

 

Suffice it to say that Catholicism teaches the importance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, the connection of the Church with Jesus Christ, the inspiration of Councils, Papal Infallibility, a history filled with various saints who have had visions and visitations of Christ, Mary, angels, etc (who could be termed prophets and prophetesses), that the Spirit guides the Church into all Truth, etc.  While there may be some traditional Christian churches that believe that all revelation and/or miracles have ceased, I think it is clear that the Catholic Church has maintained that Heaven is open, God speaks, inspiration and guidance through the Spirit continues, Heavenly visions and visitations occur, etc.

 

 

I was commenting on what the catholic poster posted about revelation has ended.

 

Again, that's not what he was talking about.  Perhaps you should go back and review the posts on what the technical term "public revelation" means in Catholicism.  As mentioned before, I think that this is why LDS and Catholics frequently talk passed each other on this, since they aren't talking about the same thing when we say "public revelation" or "private revelation".

[mormonnewb]

I read this in the serious and non-snarky way in which you intended, and I am very glad you raised this question because I think it factors significantly in a number of issues under discussion on this and other boards--not the least of which are the questions of women and the priesthood and homosexuality.

 

I suspect that there is an inverse relationship: the less some members trust/have faith in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators, particularly compared to themselves and popular culture, the more those members will be inclined to follow pop cultural trends in contravention to the Brethren. And, vice versa.

 

In other words, the more some members view Church leaders and the Church itself as little different from other members and religions, the more their beliefs will align with the world, and vice versa.

 

If so, this raises the question of why stay in the Church?

 

If some members believe they and popular culture know as well or better than the Brethren whether women ought to have the priesthood nowadays and how homosexuality ought to be viewed morally and in terms of legal marriage, this is their prerogative.

 

However, there are already churches that profess the same. If, in their minds, the Brethren have no special dispensation or authority or pipeline to God, any more than the average member of this or any other church, then what value is there in their remaining in the church rather than seeking out like-minded faith traditions?

 

I don't get it?

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

 

Thanks for getting the point of the question (I guess we share snark-to-snark telepathy).  As for your question, why stay LDS but rather seek out "like-minded faith traditions"?

 

Believe it or not, this is the most like-minded faith traditions that I have found ... SO FAR.  Do I think it is perfect?  Of course not.  Nor did I think that the other denominations I've joined -- Baptists, AME or CME (Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter) -- were perfect.  Nor do I think that my wife is perfect (unless she happens to be standing over my shoulder at this very moment, and then I'm kidding, Baby Cakes).  Nor do I think my children are perfect.  And so on and so on.

 

The idea that I must belong to a perfect organization is strange to me and not even logically consistent.  How could this Church have been perfect BEFORE I joined?  And how could it be perfect now when the vast majority of God's (second favorite) children are not part of "His church"?  One of the beautiful things about our Church is that it is built on the premise that we don't know everything YET and that we have prophets, seers and revelators to bring us greater light and knowledge, which we will presumably act upon to become more and more like the Savior for whom our church is named.  Imperfection is baked into the cake of Mormonism.

 

But I agree that it would be an easier journey if I had greater confidence that we were "on the right track."  So, perhaps you could share what gives you such confidence that we are getting all of the prophesies, revelations and whatever it is that seers see, that we need.

[CV75]

So, perhaps you could share what gives you such confidence that we are getting all of the prophesies, revelations and whatever it is that seers see, that we need.

Are you getting what you need?

[CV75]

I feel at an impasse. I could deal with unpopular doctrine, anachronistic scripture passages, odd translation techniques, even odder marriage practices... if I was convinced in the ability of prophets to speak for God. If that were not so easily disputed, even refuted, then none of the secondary 'stuff' would matter so much.

Perhaps you might consider that the prophets speaking for God is by far the secondary stuff, and the exercise of the keys is by far the primary stuff. For example, are you convinced that your baptism is acceptable to God, that your partaking the Sacrament is also, and that you have received the Holy Ghost from Him? Are you convinced that you have been endowed with power by virtue of your temple ordinances, and that your family relationships are sealed on earth and in heaven?

 

And if not convinced, at least satisfied or happily/optimistically hopeful?