Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea no not for me. As a believing Latter-day Saint I believed I felt the witness of the spirit. I bore a fervent a testimony as anyone did or has.  It is just when I discovered the witness was to distortion, a mythical narrative and lies I came to understand this witness in a different way. As I have read more about such experience by people all across the religious spectrum I have had the way I understand  this now reinforced.

I'm not disbelieving you, there are always exceptions. But by your standards, most all religions are fantastical and mystical lies. From dragons to asuras. So, I think for many, not you per se, it's the enlightenment, the practical and effective application of its teachings that can go far to overlook what may otherwise be seen as absurd.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Given that they have not experienced what you or I have I pay their conclusions little heed

Yet you know what your experiences were, and say others cannot understand you, but they cannot comprehend your experiences.

Inconsistent

No one can know anyone else's experience, just their reports about them.

Others must accept them as stated. That

That's why "your truth" vs " my truth" can make sense otherwise you end up in Israel.

It becomes a moral issue.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet you know what your experiences were, and say others cannot understand you, but they cannot comprehend your experiences.

Inconsistent

No one can know anyone else's experience, just their reports about them.

Others must accept them as stated. That

That's why "your truth" vs " my truth" can make sense otherwise you end up in Israel.

It becomes a moral issue.

I admire your statements in this post.

[Smiley McGee]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No one can know anyone else's experience, just their reports about them.

Others must accept them as stated.

I imagine there’s a clarification coming, but “as stated” this is a terrible idea. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

I imagine there’s a clarification coming, but “as stated” this is a terrible idea. 

I think it's clear.

Statement:

Party 1 :  "God is in the form of the Sacred Wolf."

Statement:

Party 2: "Ok, that's YOUR truth, mine is that He is an embodied Human, glorified beyond our understanding.

That's my truth.  We disagree.  Have a nice day."

Both accept that what they stated as truth is vastly different from the other, and so far apart that discussion is a waste of time.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

I imagine there’s a clarification coming, but “as stated” this is a terrible idea. 

I think there is a difference between "accept" or "receive" and "agree with."

[Navidad]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

and so far apart that discussion is a waste of time.

That is your truth! I can't agree with it, but I accept it as your truth. It is not my truth. By far and away, more truths are your truths and my truths than are thee Truth. 

[Smiley McGee]

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think there is a difference between "accept" or "receive" and "agree with."

Yep, I think that’s where my misunderstanding occurred.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

One of the interesting issues here is what you describe as an "emotional experience," which Latter-day Saints believe can be spiritual experiences.

Correct.  But perhaps the better word is feelings. Latter-day Saint equate feeling (and emotions) with personal revelation.

 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, I concede that people can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

Yes it is quite common.  How do you know the difference?

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

See also this FAIR article:

This article by Latter-day Saint Jeff Lindsay also has some good points on this issue.  A few highlights (emphases added):

In my own experience, I have had several experiences which, in my view, were plainly "spiritual" and not emotional.

Experience #1: Right after high school I joined the Army (National Guard) and spent 12 months studying Russian at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA.  At the end of my training, I submitted my mission papers and was called to serve in Taiwan, where I spent the next two years learning Mandarin.  By the end of my mission my Russian had become rusty.  When I returned home my sister recommended that I sign up with ILP ("International Language Program"), an outfit that specialized in sending Americans overseas to teach English.  She had taught English in China and had a wonderful experience, and she said they would definitely find me useful because of my past training in Russian.  She gave me the sign-up papers and told me that I was a shoo-in.

I was pretty excited at this prospect, as I liked the idea of polishing up my Russian for 4-6 months, then returning and studying Chinese at BYU.  I would graduate with pretty decent training in two pretty useful languages.  Despite my enthusiasm, I never went.  I never even filled out the application.  I kept intending to do so, but then I would forget.  I prayed about the matter, and eventually I concluded that I had likely been experiencing the "stupor of thought" described in D&C 9:9.  I decided to put the application aside and proceed with enrolling at BYU, to start in the 1996 Winter semester.  On the first day of classes, I went to my Biology Class and there met a girl.  We became friends, then we started dating, then we started talking about marriage.  We got married, and I have been very happy to be her husband ever since.

In hindsight, I don't think I would have crossed paths with her except in that particular Biology Class.  It was the last of her GE requirements, and she was majoring in Elementary Education.  Meanwhile, I was just starting my GEs and was majoring in Chinese.  I was living off-campus, she was in the dorms.  I was from Utah, she was from Washington State.  We had no friends or acquaintances or family in common.  The likelihood of me singling her out, or she singling me out, on a campus with 32,000 students seems . . . remote.  So yeah, I suspect my only chance at meeting her required me to be at BYU in Provo, rather than teaching English in Russia, in January 1996.

I had a host of good reasons to go to Russia, and I wanted to go, and I had the means and opportunity to go.  My "emotions" would have had me going to Russia.  The "Spirit," though, had me stay where I was and, in short order, meet my wife.

Experience #2: A few years ago I had the opportunity to purchase what may well be the last piece of property in Utah that is adjacent to the Provo River (at the end of my back yard).  I currently own a house on a separate parcel that also backs to the river, but Provo City has spent years hinting that they want to widen the road, and thus condemn and take my house and its beautiful back yard (including the river).  The owner of this other parcel (the adult daughter of the former owner, now deceased) did not want to market the property, so she asked me and the only other interested party - a couple I did not know - to submit competing bids.  I was very interested in buying it, as it A) was a bigger lot than my current one, B) would allow me to build a new house (my current one is nearly 60 years old), C) the price was very reasonable, D) I had the money, and so on.  So I submitted an initial bid, then a second (counter) bid, then a third.  I went to submit a fourth, and at that point . . . I had to stop.  I remember feeling very frustrated, to be constrained in this way.  I tried to complete the email, and the impression came again, even stronger.  I needed to stop.  I needed to not buy this property.  So I didn't.  I spoke with my wife, then we withdrew from the bidding, and the other bidding couple won (I now know this couple, as they are in my ward, and we are very good friends).  

I don't know why this happened.  I had every reason to buy it.  My "emotions" would have had me continuing to bid (and, frankly, I think I would have won).  Instead, the "Spirit" had me - in grumpy and begrudging fashion - withdraw from the process.

I have had other spiritual experiences as well.  And emotional ones.  And I think there have been times where I have conflated the two.  Differentiating them can be an important skill set.

Thanks,

-Smac

Those are all wonderful examples. I have had similar experiences.  Both as a believer and a non believer.  For what reasons do you equate these to revelation from God?  

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet you know what your experiences were, and say others cannot understand you, but they cannot comprehend your experiences.

Inconsistent

No one can know anyone else's experience, just their reports about them.

Others must accept them as stated. That

That's why "your truth" vs " my truth" can make sense otherwise you end up in Israel.

It becomes a moral issue.

Of course it’s a moral issue. Why do you think people like Teancum and me left the church?

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course it’s a moral issue. Why do you think people like Teancum and me left the church?

For the beer, sex and coffee, of course. 

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

For the beer, sex and coffee, of course. 

I don’t think leaving the church has affected my sex life with my wife, but I do drink more coffee and the occasional beer. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But perhaps the better word is feelings. Latter-day Saint equate feeling (and emotions) with personal revelation.

You can't separate them.

The revelation BY DEFINITION IS PERSONAL

How does one find a spouse or equivalent?

A political party?

To attend university A or B?

If there is a bear chasing you, do you shoot or run?

How do you know the right thing to do in THIS particular decision?

We again are not talking about the boiling point of water= science.  We are talking about reason mixed with hunches and following one's gut.

I've never yet had a single revelation about the composition of Pluto!  Guess I'm not praying enough!

Edited October 12, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think leaving the church has affected my sex life with my wife, but I do drink more coffee and the occasional beer. 

Both of which, frankly, I miss.

But I need to learn discipline to wash clothes on Friday, not when I feel like it.

Discipline for its own sake can be valuable 

It's one of my ways to continue learning that.

Edited October 12, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

For the beer, sex and coffee, of course. 

You forgot rock n roll!

😉

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

By far and away, more truths are your truths and my truths than are thee Truth. 

So tell me about "thee truth" we see through a mirror darkly, which is all we can know for now, since we are not yet in "face to face" mode?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

In terms of forgetting, I was speaking only of personal experience.  I have learned from keeping a daily prayer journal after practicing meditative prayer that not only do I forget about entire experiences, but I also forget the general sense of the spirit when I am not practicing meditative prayer.  It is not quite the same as brain memories, but rather spiritual memory.   Feelings can be like that in general.  It is easy to forget how things feel the further time gets from those experiences without re-experiencing it.  There might be a brain memory of positive feelings surrounding an event, but it can be hard to remember the depth and clarity of what that actually felt like.    

There have been times when I am not practicing meditative prayer and have questioned my faith and the existence of God at all.  While I remember having spiritual experiences in general, I started questioning what it was that I actually experienced and wondered if I misinterpreted things.  When I get back into the practice, I am always surprised at how I could ever question.  But then sometimes I do...again.    I think there is definitely re-framing as you say, but there is also forgetting.  At least that has been my experience and it seems to be a common experience among believers.  Jesus used the word "remember" a lot.  He initiated spiritual practice to keep us in remembrance.  There is definitely a difference. 

I am reading a book by Sam Harris called Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.  What you describe it common across religious and non religious meditative practices. Harris argues that religion is not needed for a higher sense of self awareness that religion seems to stake a claim on as the arbiter and owner of such things. 

 

Here is his preface to the book:

D

Quote

 

ear Reader—

I have been waiting for more than a decade to write Waking Up. Long before I saw any reason to criticize religion (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation), or to connect moral and scientific truths (The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying), I was interested in the nature of human consciousness and the possibility of “spiritual” experience. In Waking Up, I do my best to show that a certain form of spirituality is integral to understanding the nature of our minds.

There is no discrete self or ego living like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. And the feeling that there is—the sense of being perched somewhere behind your eyes, looking out at a world that is separate from yourself—can be altered or entirely extinguished. Although such experiences of “self-transcendence” are generally thought about in religious terms, there is nothing, in principle, irrational about them. From both a scientific and a philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are.

My hope is that Waking Up will help readers see the nature of their own minds in a new light. A rational approach to spirituality seems to be what is missing from secularism and from the lives of most of the people I meet. The purpose of this book is to offer readers a clear view of the problem, along with some tools to help them solve it for themselves.

I sincerely hope you find it useful.

Sam Harris

 

19 hours ago, pogi said:

How can you be sure that you haven't forgotten what you can't remember?   

I have experienced doubt and have questioned everything.  I have forgotten and remembered and forgotten again... 

Good point.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course it’s a moral issue. Why do you think people like Teancum and me left the church?

Well my mind reader was having wi-fi problems I guess.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So tell me about "thee truth" we see through a mirror darkly, which is all we can know for now, since we are not yet in "face to face" mode?

I am with you about "thee truth." Having said that, many on both our sides of the debate are committed to having "thee truth." I am skeptical.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Correct.  But perhaps the better word is feelings. Latter-day Saint equate feeling (and emotions) with personal revelation.

Yes, that would be a fair characterization, as this leaves room for both conclusions as to the source.

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes it is quite common.  How do you know the difference?

I had a friend ask me that a few years back.  Here is what I wrote in response (slightly tweaked) :

Quote

A) Consider the Circumstances/Source of the Feeling

A person may be able to determine whether a particular feeling derives from the Spirit or from mere emotional response to stimuli by looking at the source or circumstance of the feeling.  How did the feeling come about?  For example, every day there are sports fans all around the world who scream and shout in support of their particular team.  Are these people being influenced by “the Spirit?”  Generally not.  Sporting events are exciting, emotional.  My point in saying “consider the source” is to look at it from God’s perspective.  Does God communicate important and fundamental truths to His children through the emotional response they experience at a football game?  Probably not. 

So a person can, to some extent, differentiate “emotion” from “the Spirit” by examining the circumstances in which the experience occurred.  This is particularly helpful when you consider the teachings of the LDS Church.  For example, D&C 9:8 states: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”  Elder Oaks put it this way: “We should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in his own time and in his own way. … We cannot force spiritual things … In most cases, ‘his own way’ is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light, but what the scriptures call ‘the still small voice’ (1 Kgs. 1 Kings 19:12; 1 Ne. 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). … We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper” (“Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, Mar. 1997, 10–12).

B) Consider the Apparent Purpose of the Feeling

Another way to distinguish “emotion” from “the Spirit” is to look at the experience from God’s point of view, and this time try to ascertain the *purpose* of the feeling.  That is, if God is trying to communicate with you, is He doing so in circumstances which have a discernible purpose?  Or is the feeling more properly attributed to a mundane response to emotive stimuli?  

If the feeling is inducing you toward particular thoughts or behaviors, are those thoughts/behaviors congruent with conducive to God’s will?  If yes, then it could be the Spirit, but if not, then the feeling is likely just an emotive response.  I think this principle is described well in Moroni 7:16-17:

Quote

 

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

 

C) Consider the "Four-Legged Stool"

I am a big fan of personal revelation.  But it is not the sole means of discerning the will of God.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

If one leg of this "stool" is wobbly, if it is at odds with the other legs, then some serious introspection is in order.  For me, the one most likely to be "wobbly" is my own understanding of what I have construed to be "Personal Revelation."

So far, these have worked pretty well for me.

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Those are all wonderful examples. I have had similar experiences.  Both as a believer and a non believer.  For what reasons do you equate these to revelation from God?  

The above examples (me going to Russia, etc.) are illustrative.  

A friend recently told me that what Latter-day Saints describe as "the Spirit" is really nothing more than wishful thinking, or ascribing personal preferences to God (along the lines of "you're just telling yourselves that God is saying what you want to hear").  I can't buy into this reasoning, as I have had too many experiences where I have been constrained from doing something I want to do.  I have been prompted to do, or not do, things that conflict with my expectations, preferences, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

I came home from school one day at the beginning of my senior year. I had a letter from a relatively unknown (to me) Evangelical college in the Midwest offering me a "presidential" scholarship equal to 1/2 of the tuition and room and board cost for my first year. My father, a rather well-known Bible teacher and writer in our tradition, assured me that was "God's Will" for my life. We had little money as a family. I was a bit skeptical at that time, but off I went the next year as a result of this revelation of God's will for my life.

I wasn't so sure until I walked into freshman English and saw the most beautiful young lady I had ever seen. I sat down in the empty seat next to her and have been doing the same for the last 56 years. I served a mission while president of the foreign missions fellowship of the college. That changed my life forever. I also discovered there my aptitude and enjoyment of psychology, history, and religious studies - the three disciplines that have molded my life ever since.

So, I guess my dad was right. The letter was the revelation of God's will for the rest of my life! So, please don't say that non-LDS Christians don't believe in new or additional revelation to the scripture, especially when looking back in hindsight! Would I have been just as happy had I gone somewhere else, or nowhere? I don't know. Those four years certainly molded my life in many ways. I wasn't feeling it my first semester there so much, but the feelings developed and confidence replaced doubts. Revelations and God's will (our term) are tricky things. Now, I wonder what my wife would say? Hmmm. I will have to ask her about how she found out that attending that college was God's will for her? I hope it involves an empty seat in Dr. Nichols English class! 😄

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I came home from school one day at the beginning of my senior year. I had a letter from a relatively unknown (to me) Evangelical college in the Midwest offering me a "presidential" scholarship equal to 1/2 of the tuition and room and board cost for my first year. My father, a rather well-known Bible teacher and writer in our tradition, assured me that was "God's Will" for my life. We had little money as a family. I was a bit skeptical at that time, but off I went the next year as a result of this revelation of God's will for my life.

I wasn't so sure until I walked into freshman English and saw the most beautiful young lady I had ever seen. I sat down in the empty seat next to her and have been doing the same for the last 56 years. I served a mission while president of the foreign missions fellowship of the college. That changed my life forever. I also discovered there my aptitude and enjoyment of psychology, history, and religious studies - the three disciplines that have molded my life ever since.

So, I guess my dad was right. The letter was the revelation of God's will for the rest of my life! So, please don't say that non-LDS Christians don't believe in new or additional revelation to the scripture, especially when looking back in hindsight! Would I have been just as happy had I gone somewhere else, or nowhere? I don't know. Those four years certainly molded my life in many ways. I wasn't feeling it my first semester there so much, but the feelings developed and confidence replaced doubts. Revelations and God's will (our term) are tricky things. Now, I wonder what my wife would say? Hmmm. I will have to ask her about how she found out that attending that college was God's will for her? I hope it involves an empty seat in Dr. Nichols English class! 😄

The Book of Mormon makes it clear that spiritual inspiration from God can come to man outside of the framework of the restored church of Christ and the restoration of priesthood authority and power. In the following verses from Nephi’s great vision of the future destiny of God’s kingdom on earth, it’s plainly revealed that many received inspiration and empowerment from God prior to the restoration of the true church of Christ, so what you’re saying fits right in with the restored gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations. (1 Nephi 13)

But clarification is needed with regard to your assertion that non-LDS Christians believe in “new or additional revelation to the scripture.” The actual fact is that non-LDS Christians believe the Bible is the one and only scriptural revelation of God to man, and that it cannot be added to or taken away under penalty of perdition. This means that whatever the true nature of the inspiration of which speak might be, it cannot be said, with propriety, that non-LDS Christians would consider such inspiration to be additional revelation to the scriptures. 

 

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

But clarification is needed with regard to your assertion that non-LDS Christians believe in “new or additional revelation to the scripture.” The actual fact is that non-LDS Christians believe the Bible is the one and only scriptural revelation of God to man, and that it cannot be added to or taken away under penalty of perdition. This means that whatever the true nature of the inspiration of which speak might be, it cannot be said, with propriety, that non-LDS Christians would consider such inspiration to be additional revelation to the scriptures. 

Thanks for the thoughtfulness of your reply. I would suggest one difference in my  understanding from yours. Non-LDS Christians definitely do believe in "additional revelation to the scriptures" as you put it. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I have never heard any non-LDS Christian state there there is no "additional revelation beyond the scriptures."

Having said that, I agree with  you that a non-LDS Christian would say that "the Bible is the one and only scriptural revelation of God to man . . . " No question about that. There is a difference however for the non-LDS Christian between special and general revelation, and scriptural revelation. That is an important distinction with a difference.

For example via and in response to prayer, God reveals to humans outside of scripture. However, those revelations are not "scriptural revelations." They are valid and significant, but not scripture --- they are "additional revelation that are not scriptural, but are valid for the recipient, family, or possibly even a specific community of believers. I see more and more Evangelical churches identifying a mature spiritual leader in that church as a prophet (small p and not in the OT sense of foretelling). That is a special role to help the pastor determine God's revealed will for the congregation. "New or additional revelation" to the scriptures are fine. "New or additional scriptural revelation" for all of Christianity as a whole - nope! Big difference. Just want to clarify that for the common good. Thanks and best wishes.

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that would be a fair characterization, as this leaves room for both conclusions as to the source.

I had a friend ask me that a few years back.  Here is what I wrote in response (slightly tweaked) :

So far, these have worked pretty well for me.

The above examples (me going to Russia, etc.) are illustrative.  

A friend recently told me that what Latter-day Saints describe as "the Spirit" is really nothing more than wishful thinking, or ascribing personal preferences to God (along the lines of "you're just telling yourselves that God is saying what you want to hear").  I can't buy into this reasoning, as I have had too many experiences where I have been constrained from doing something I want to do.  I have been prompted to do, or not do, things that conflict with my expectations, preferences, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think context of when you received the feeling, as I would argue it's not random when I'm deep in prayer, and if the feelings convey information, it can be used as a mode of communication. Just as sounds when not random but intelligible becomes more than just sounds but a language to people. Then in my darkest hour, I prayed, I received a feeling of peace stronger than any feeling I ever had, I somehow knew everything would be okay, that information made it seem like communication to me from a God who heard me.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

But clarification is needed with regard to your assertion that non-LDS Christians believe in “new or additional revelation to the scripture.” The actual fact is that non-LDS Christians believe the Bible is the one and only scriptural revelation of God to man, and that it cannot be added to or taken away under penalty of perdition. This means that whatever the true nature of the inspiration of which speak might be, it cannot be said, with propriety, that non-LDS Christians would consider such inspiration to be additional revelation to the scriptures. 

I know it bugs LDS when non-LDS tell them what their beliefs and doctrines are. You're kinda doing the same thing here.

I've written quite a few posts on the meaning of "revelation" in Catholicism. While it is true that the Bible will not be added to (the book will literally stay the same size), there have been and can/will be doctrines and dogmas defined that hold the same level of requirement of belief as the doctrines in the Bible. Remember, Catholicism has the Bible, tradition, and the Magisterium (the pope and the bishops in communion with him) as the foundation. The Magisterium has declared dogmas many times over the centuries. The most recently declared dogma was in 1950: the Assumption of Mary. Notice the wording used when this dogma was infallibly declared by Pope Pius XII:

"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

The pope is claiming revelation by the authority of Christ through the priesthood authority of the Apostles that he holds as the successor of Peter.

This is indeed "additional revelation to the scriptures." It's just not added to the Bible (the book), but it holds the same weight.

Edited October 13, 2023 by MiserereNobis