Robert F. Smith writes online book

[_MCB]

All Churches that teach against speaking directly with God, yet claim they are God's Churches, are false Churches -

I would be a sorry sight if God had never spoken to me.

[_Nightlion]

Private revelations that claim to change doctrine would be rejected immediately. Revelation given to the Church, in the form of the Magisterium, are for the purposes of guiding the Church. Not for creating new doctrines.

All new revelations are actually based on previously existing doctrine, so, therefore are not new. They must be logically consistent, based upon previous conclusions.

Mormonism is a hodgepodge of heresies that have been previously rejected by the Catholic Church. It is therefore not internally consistent. And there is nothing new or original about it, although they say it is a restoration of what that only existed in early Christianity. In a way, it is, but Christianity rejected Gnosticism.

John Henry Cardinal Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine."

Getting it.

Pretty much true up until I fixed it in 1984 with my New Mormon Theology: The Wonders of Eternity, that combed through LDS scripture and set it in order with the roll of God's eternal round. I added nothing that was not already there for all the blind to see, just lost in an adolescent mindset that never matured.

If you want a bucket load of new doctrine and unfolded mysteries that plumb all heights and depths you ought to petition the LDS Church to dig it out of their buried historical archives and "let my people go." Or I might eventually get it BACK up online someday. Since both my websites were sabotaged and fried and my rich and deep wealth of information suddenly was no more freely available.

[_MCB]

Since both my websites were sabotaged and fried and my rich and deep wealth of information suddenly was no more freely available.

Do you still have access to your synchronization of LDS theology? If so, could you start a thread on it? This might be interesting.

[_Nightlion]

Since both my websites were sabotaged and fried and my rich and deep wealth of information suddenly was no more freely available.

Do you still have access to your synchronization of LDS theology? If so, could you start a thread on it? This might be interesting.

Let me go see if I still have a copy hosted elsewhere,

[_hans castorp]

What an interesting thread!

Terryl Givens makes much of the importance of "dialogic revelation" in the Book of Mormon as a paradigm of one's relationship to God. I've always thought that, though he does acknowledge some instances in the Bible and in 19th-century Protestantism, he exaggerates its novelty. I remember a conversation I had with my wife (then an Episcopalian) when we were engaged. She was astonished that my prayers weren't conversations, that I rarely, if ever, had heard God responding to me. I think such things are a part of the experiences of many people.

Re private vs public revelation: The Catholic church does distinguish between private and public revelation, the difference being, as noted above, that only public revelation is binding on the faithful. Thus no Catholic is required to believe in the revelations reported by the saints. But there are ambiguities here; for example, the church has established liturgical celebrations based on private revelations: the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy Sunday among others. And Karl Rahner, in discussing the revelations at Fatima, which are addressed to the whole church and ask for specific actions, has questioned whether the distinction really makes any sense in such cases.

No one can doubt, I think, that the phenomenal growth of Pentecostal and charismatic groups over the last century answers a need for direct, personal religious experience. I think it parallels the secularization of the mainline denominations and the emphasis, even among Catholics, on social issues. Attempts to translate religion into purely or even mostly secular categories leave people with spiritual needs that will be satisfied one way or the other, be it in charismatic phenomena or syncretistic, ecstatic religions like Santeria.

[_MCB]

The Catholic church does distinguish between private and public revelation, the difference being, as noted above, that only public revelation is binding on the faithful.

Another thing which is a continuum. Each private revelation needs to be carefully tested against the application of its practical implications, as well as conformity with doctrine. A very conservative process. Those which are acceptable through this process become devotions for the faithful, and are generally not very unique. Therefore, no new revelation.

I think it parallels the secularization of the mainline denominations and the emphasis, even among Catholics, on social issues. Attempts to translate religion into purely or even mostly secular categories leave people with spiritual needs...

Balance for everything. There was a time in my life when I had a regular appointment at Perpetual Adoration. That discipline helped me with my internal spirituality, and every hour was worth it. I began to appreciate a more contemplative lifestyle.

[_Darth J]

Mormonism is a hodgepodge of heresies that have been previously rejected by the Catholic Church. It is therefore not internally consistent.

The above is a non sequitur.

And there is nothing new or original about it, although they say it is a restoration of what that only existed in early Christianity.

See also: Roman Catholicism

In a way, it is, but Christianity rejected Gnosticism.

http://gnosticschristians.com/

http://www.gnosticchristianity.com/

http://www.thepearl.org/Welcome_to_the_pearl.htm

Wait, let me guess: these people are not true Scotsmen.

MCB, let's suppose that Mormons decided to start praying to statues of Joseph Smith, under the theory that Joseph Smith would then forward their prayers on to Elohim. Would Mormons thus be worshiping Joseph Smith?

___Yes ____No

Or let's suppose that Salt Lake City became literally its own country, with Thomas S. Monson as its ruler, because no Mormon prophet should be subject to earthly governments. You would be okay with that, right?

___Yes ___No

[_madeleine]

But there are ambiguities here; for example, the church has established liturgical celebrations based on private revelations: the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy Sunday among others. And Karl Rahner, in discussing the revelations at Fatima, which are addressed to the whole church and ask for specific actions, has questioned whether the distinction really makes any sense in such cases.

Fatima's message was to the whole church but it doesn't reveal new doctrine. The first was a vision of hell, the second and third are prophecies. The Roman Curia approves visions such as these, which gives them a sort of certification the indicates they are free from doctrinal and moral errors. Approval does not mean a requirement to accept them personally. Fatima has very strong reasons for Catholics to believe them, which is why so many (millions) have personally accepted them.

Divine Mercy also doesn't contain any new doctrines. It is a devotion to the Divine Mercy of Jesus, which, would compare to other devotions such as the rosary. No one is required to adhere to either devotion. Divine Mercy Sunday doesn't require that anyone is practicing the devotion. A liturgy focused on the Divine Mercy of Jesus is very Catholic already.

[_CaliforniaKid]

“You saw hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If they do what I will tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace. The war is going to end. But if they don't stop offending God, another and worse one will begin in the reign of Pius XI. When you shall see a night illuminated by an unknown light (the night of the 25th to 26th of January, 1938), know that this is the great sign God will give you that He is going to punish the world by means of war, hunger, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays. If they listen to My requests, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, she will scatter her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.
“In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.”

To say that the above is non-public, non-binding, and wholly unoriginal seems like a real stretch. Maybe it is those things in the eyes of the institutional Church. But surely not in the eyes of a devotee.

[_MCB]

hodgepodge of heresies...It is therefore not internally consistent.

non Sequitur?

Wait, let me guess: these people are not true Scotsmen.

In a conversation with Lulu and Samantha, we distinguished Gnosticism from Christian Gnosticism by keeping the label on the first, but calling the second "Christian Mysticism," defined as that which stays within the confines of traditionally defined Christianity. I guess you missed that.

You would be okay with that, right?

Contrary to US Constitution. Other than that, so long as they did not try to force other governments and people to become subject to them, I wouldn't fight such an enclave.