Modern-Day Prophets

[Polaris]

It's only odd because your misunderstanding. The level of authority did play "some" role in canonization. But it should be obvious to you that not all the apostles writings were canonized and some weren't even apostles. The selection process is complex and something that you should perhaps consider picking up a book on. After all, we do share the same Bible... .

True, but Herma's declaration concerning the end of revelation is quite significant. Why wouldn't something that influential and that profound make it's way into canonized scripture? The only conclusion I can draw is that at the time it wasn't considered to be undeniably inspired of God.

Oh really? Tell me, have you added the latest revelations of your Presidents to the Book of Mormon? If not why not?

There actually have been several revelations from recent prophets that have been canonized.

A question for a question....ok..:areyoucra
I take "all things" to mean all things God wanted us to know and what we could handle in our limited state.

OK, I can accept that interpretation (it's pretty close to the one I gave in my earlier response). But it still doesn't imply that God will never have more to teach us. Our state of understanding, acceptance, and need can change and therefore merit additional instruction from God.

 

[dan]

Oh really? Tell me, have you added the latest revelations of your Presidents to the Book of Mormon? If not why not?

This is a misleading question. That would be the equivelant of your pope adding a chapter to the book of Acts.

We have canonized the words of several of our prophets, but we don't go around tweaking books written thousands of years ago.

You may feel that the Bible qualifies as one of those books in an of itself, but the Bible has always been a collection of canonized books, not canon itself, and not a book itself. You could accurately compare your Bible to our Standard Works. Each is comprised of a colection of canonized works. Our Book of Mormon was written by two men, a father and a son. It is not a collection, it is a single work. The collection remains open for addition. Your canon was tentatively closed until the council of Trent, when they added Revelation to the canon to close the door for reformers.

 

[Quiddity]

True, but Herma's declaration concerning the end of revelation is quite significant. Why wouldn't something that influential and that profound make it's way into canonized scripture? The only conclusion I can draw is that at the time it wasn't considered to be undeniably inspired of God.

Polaris, there was NOTHING undeniable inspired of God [written] that people could agree with at the time. When do you think the Bible was assembled [Hint 397 A.D.]. That should tell you volumes about how we Catholics see things. The early Church functioned on Oral Tradition in the early years. It didn't matter that it wasn't written in paper that God became man. Every Christian was aware this reality.

There actually have been several revelations from recent prophets that have been canonized.

They literally added it to the book of Mormon?

OK, I can accept that interpretation (it's pretty close to the one I gave in my earlier response). But it still doesn't imply that God will never have more to teach us. Our state of understanding, acceptance, and need can change and therefore merit additional instruction from God.

No, you can gain understanding, acceptance, etc. without further revelation. What you noted is exactly what we as Catholics believe. It's called "development of doctrine". Which can be easily misinterpreted as "progressive revelation".

Development of doctrine, presents no new information. It's simply a further understanding, clarification, and defining of a belief. Like the CANON.

 

[Quiddity]

This is a misleading question. That would be the equivelant of your pope adding a chapter to the book of Acts.

That's exactly what I'm asking. But since we don't believe in "progressive revelation" you can't really apply that to us, can you?

We have canonized the words of several of our prophets, but we don't go around tweaking books written thousands of years ago.

I didn't say tweaking, simply add to the Book of Mormon. Am I not being clear?

You may feel that the Bible qualifies as one of those books in an of itself, but the Bible has always been a collection of canonized books, not canon itself, and not a book itself. You could accurately compare your Bible to our Standard Works. Each is comprised of a colection of canonized works. Our Book of Mormon was written by two men, a father and a son. It is not a collection, it is a single work. The collection remains open for addition. Your canon was tentatively closed until the council of Trent, when they added Revelation to the canon to close the door for reformers.

I have no idea what you are saying here...

 

[Polaris]

Polaris, there was NOTHING undeniable inspired of God [written] that people could agree with at the time. When do you think the Bible was assembled [Hint 397 A.D.]. That should tell you volumes about how we Catholics see things. The early Church functioned on Oral Tradition in the early years. It didn't matter that it wasn't written in paper that God became man. Every Christian was aware this reality.

So how can you have so much confidence that Herma's declarations were inspired? If public revelation ended with the Apostles, how was he able to authoratively declare such a significant claim? You're own premise insists that he wasn't inspired through public revelation?

They literally added it to the book of Mormon?

Not to the Book of Mormon specifically, but to our collection of canonized works.

No, you can gain understanding, acceptance, etc. without further revelation. What you noted is exactly what we as Catholics believe. It's called "development of doctrine". Which can be easily misinterpreted as "progressive revelation".

Development of doctrine, presents no new information. It's simply a further understanding, clarification, and defining of a belief. Like the CANON.

True, to a point you can gain understanding without further revelation. But a church can't accurately claim to be actively led by God without continuing revelation. I presented the following in an earlier post and it seems relevant to this discussion:

Revelation (public revelation, progressive revelation, whatever you want to call it) serves three important purposes:
1. Establishment of new doctrinal truths.
2. Clarification and appropriate preservation of previously established truths.
3. General inspired guidance and leadership for God's people.

#1 - The Bible definitely gives us a good blueprint for how to live a happy and righteous life, but that doesn't mean God doesn't have more to teach us. Without some revelatory declaration from God himself stating otherwise, why should we assume that He no longer has important knowledge to share with us? What gives you or anyone else, other than God, the authority to declare that God has nothing more to reveal to us, especially when prophets like Amos and Isaiah have declared otherwise. Does it specifically say somewhere in the NT that God has no more beneficial truths to teach us?

#2 - It is true that the Bible contains many of the foundational truths pertinent to our salvation. But the Bible on its own introduces ambiguity regarding the truth. It is open to interpretation as is evidenced by the many denominational differences. Proper interpretation of the Bible itself requires revelation. Tradition isn't sufficient because man on his own is prone to error. Continued reveleation is necessary to preserve the purity of the Biblical truths. In addition to that, the Bible raises about as many questions as it answers. It is not a complete doctrinal reference guide. There are many doctrines that are briefly passed over without any depth or detailed explanations (eg. preaching of the gospel to the dead, baptism for the dead, marriage in general, etc). It is only through revelation to a prophet of God that can truly clarify such truths.

#3 - While the Bible contains many important teachings, it's by no means a complete, all-encompassing church leadership guide book. We face considerably different challenges than those presented in the first century. Times change, societies change, technologies change, the world changes, and the church needs to be able to adapt, respond, and grow accordingly. Did God really intend for the guidance of His church to be led by popular vote, or the best efforts of fallible men? I don't believe He did. The people of God have always been led by prophets and/or apostles who recieved continued revelation so that they could lead the people according to the will of God and not according to the will and limited understanding of man.

 

[Katzpur]

You know, all of this talk about public revelation and private revelation is very interesting, but I'd still like to get back to the idea that Jesus Christ did, in fact, appoint prophets and apostles. We've just about beaten the subject of apostolic succession into the ground on other threads recently, so the apostles' role aside, why did He say, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute (see Luke 11:49) if He had no intention of speaking to them -- in the form of "public revelation" -- once He and the apostles had died?

 

[may]

but the ones having insight will understand .......daniel 12;10

(Daniel 11:33) And as regards those having insight among the people, they will impart understanding to the many. And they will certainly be made to stumble by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plundering, for [some] days.​

(Daniel 12:3) "And the ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse; and those who are bringing the many to righteousness, like the stars to time indefinite, even forever.
(Matthew 13:11) In reply he said: "To YOU it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted.
(Matthew 24:45) "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? ...........its all happening in this time of the end......Amos was neither the son of a prophet nor a part of a group of prophets, he was but a sheepherder and a seasonal laborer so it seems that Jehovah uses who ever he chooses to get the message across, even a weighty message.

 

[uumckk16]

Good question. Obviously we can't know for sure what the ancient prophets were like, whether they really were men of integrity and honesty. I agree with nutshell that God, through the Holy Ghost, is the only one who can confirm spiritual truths to us.

Thanks for the response! It makes more sense to me now.

Also, you can often catch at least a glimpse of someone's character through the message they convey.

That's a good point. My question was just based upon the hypothetical assumption that the person was pretty darn slick, and therefore met the last 3 criteria (but obviously not the first). But yes, I agree with you.

Certain teachings just feel good, or just feel right. I believe that is how God helps us to recognize truth.

Funny, this is exactly what I believe. While I don't believe in the Trinity (and therefore the Holy Ghost), I do believe there is some truth to be found in many different places. The above statement is a perfect summary of my belief on how it is found!

Again, thanks for the response.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, is it open to me since you are making so much cause I am sorry but most of the time I just put in my two cents. but I'll ask. can I ?

 

[Polaris]

Katzpur raises a good point:

why did He say, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute (see Luke 11:49) if He had no intention of speaking to them -- in the form of "public revelation" -- once He and the apostles had died?

Another scriptural passage along the same vein is in Matthew 7:16-20 where Christ establishes the pattern by which we can identify true or false prophets - "by their fruits ye shall know them." Similar to Katzpur's question, why would Christ provide a pattern for identifying true prophets if there weren't going to be any more?

 

[Polaris]

Hi, is it open to me since you are making so much cause I am sorry but most of the time I just put in my two cents. but I'll ask. can I ?

Sure.

 

[Quiddity]

So how can you have so much confidence that Herma's declarations were inspired?

I never said they were inspired. Something can be true and not inspired.

If public revelation ended with the Apostles, how was he able to authoratively declare such a significant claim? You're own premise insists that he wasn't inspired through public revelation?

I think what I said above should answer your question.

Not to the Book of Mormon specifically, but to our collection of canonized works.

Then what were you getting at by mentioning this:
Polaris said,
The fact that there were no longer inspired men whose teachings were worthy of canonization is a good sign that the apostasy actually occurred.
Apparently you don't feel their were worthy men at the time of the Apostasy. But now that there is (in the LDS) the additions to the Book of Mormon are still not made. I don't get it.... .

Why would you ask that of the early Church if you guys don't do it now?

True, to a point you can gain understanding without further revelation. But a church can't accurately claim to be actively led by God without continuing revelation.

Why not???

Give me one good reason outside of your interpretation? Why should I take your word for it when signs of Apostasy have existed since the begining of time? Especially since the early Church showed no signs of such a catastrophic event. They continued to clarify and run the Church like any other day.

 

[Quiddity]

You know, all of this talk about public revelation and private revelation is very interesting, but I'd still like to get back to the idea that Jesus Christ did, in fact, appoint prophets and apostles. We've just about beaten the subject of apostolic succession into the ground on other threads recently, so the apostles' role aside, why did He say, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute (see Luke 11:49) if He had no intention of speaking to them -- in the form of "public revelation" -- once He and the apostles had died?

Because we believe God did exactly what He said he would in Luke 11:49. We don't disagree here. We just believe there would be an end to public revelation because John said he would come to teach you all things.

John 14:26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

On another note why would God have us submit to "progressive revelation" if the intention was to teach us all things?

I'm thinking "all things" haven't come in LDS thinking, correct?

 

[SoyLeche]

Apparently you don't feel their were worthy men at the time of the Apostasy. But now that there is (in the LDS) the additions to the Book of Mormon are still not made. I don't get it.... .

Why would you ask that of the early Church if you guys don't do it now?

There are still revelations being added to the church's cannon. The latest was added in 1978.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm thinking "all things" haven't come in LDS thinking, correct?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 

[Polaris]

I never said they were inspired. Something can be true and not inspired.

Well if God didn't inspire Herma's to make such a bold declaration then with what authority did he speak? Why should we trust such a statement? Was it his own opinion then? I would like to see the actual statement that you are making reference to if you have it handy.

Polaris said,
The fact that there were no longer inspired men whose teachings were worthy of canonization is a good sign that the apostasy actually occurred.
Apparently you don't feel their were worthy men at the time of the Apostasy. But now that there is (in the LDS) the additions to the Book of Mormon are still not made. I don't get it.... .

Why would you ask that of the early Church if you guys don't do it now?

We do. Several revelations have been canonized in recent years. They don't become part of the Book of Mormon, but that's not our only source of canonized works.

Give me one good reason outside of your interpretation? Why should I take your word for it when signs of Apostasy have existed since the begining of time? Especially since the early Church showed no signs of such a catastrophic event. They continued to clarify and run the Church like any other day.

Explain to me then how God ACTIVELY guides the church if not by revelation.

 

[Quiddity]

There are still revelations being added to the church's cannon. The latest was added in 1978.

When you say "cannon" I'm thinking you added it literally to the Book of Mormon.

 

[Quiddity]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Clear as crystal, thanks.

 

[Quiddity]

Polaris, I feel we are going in circles so I ask that you read this to get further clarificaion of where I'm coming from.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/inspirat.htm

~Victor

 

[Polaris]

Polaris, I feel we are going in circles so I ask that you read this to get further clarificaion of where I'm coming from.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/inspirat.htm

~Victor

Interesting article. So would you consider any non-Greek translation of the NT to be ipsisima verba or ipsisima vox?

I'm not so concerned with ipsisima verba as I am with the appropriate ipsisima vox. I just want the truth regardless of how it is worded. The problem is sometimes the ipsisima verba is somewhat ambiguous and without inspired help from God we may imply an incorrect ipsisima vox. That's the issue here. If Herma's declaration wasn't ipsisima verba, how can we know that his ipsisima vox was correct?

One other issue:

Truth is necessary for trust, not inspiration. When I get dressed in the morning I don't need a divinely inspired revelation telling me where my shoes are. I simply need to know the truth about where they are.

I don't agree with this principle. Sure for this dumbed-down example inspiration is not needed. But concerning spiritual truths that are based off ancient writings that can sometimes be ambiguous, the truth is not always obvious and requires inspired help from God to be able to merit any amount of reasonable trust.

Two final questions in attempt to stop this merry-go-round:

1. Why would Christ establish a pattern for identifying true prophets (Matt 7) if there weren't going to be any more of them?
2. With clear scriptural evidence that prophets and revelation are important why should we trust Herma's uninspired declaration that revelation and prophets should come to an end?