Is New Revelation Necessary/Scriptural

[abqfriend]

The stones keep coming!-guess I need a helmet-along with many other Christians who feel some things good came out of the ancient councils and creeds of the church.
You also state we "Catholics do not hear from God." and that- he only exists in our imagination? --so God only speaks to LDS members? So- God is only present in members of the LDS? and not to Catholics?-is that what the LDS church teaches its members?
I doubt it
-I am here as a Catholic on this site learning about the LDS Church-and what little I do know--I doubt what you are saying is a doctrine of the LDS Church.
I guess I had better study my Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants more deeply to better understand more about the teachings of the LDS Church-thanks for enlightening me.

-inquiring minds want to know.
-Carol

Originally Posted by masterlee

I would be pleased to admit that statement, providing they were inspired in thier decisions. Personally, I believe that these counsels were man made. God had nothing to do with it. If they were inspired, then why didn't they come to the right conclusions. In the councils, we are told that God has no body, parts or passions. This is to say that God is nothing--for the only thing that can exist under those requirements is nothing. They tell us that God is three beings but one as well. I hold that the Godhead trio are one/united in power, purpose and likeness, but to say that they are both one and three is ridiculous. The number of inconsistencies is astonishing for a group that claims they have God's sanction.[u]Perhaps the reason you Catholics do not hear from God has something to do with the fact you worship a god without a body, parts and passions--one that cannot speak for he only exists in your imagination/U].

[a-train]

Personal revelation is the lifeblood of our walk with the LORD.

[candyprpl]

Originally Posted by abqfriend

The stones keep coming!-guess I need a helmet-along with many other Christians who feel some things good came out of the ancient councils and creeds of the church.
You also state we "Catholics do not hear from God." and that- he only exists in our imagination? --so God only speaks to LDS members? So- God is only present in members of the LDS? and not to Catholics?-is that what the LDS church teaches its members?
I doubt it
-I am here as a Catholic on this site learning about the LDS Church-and what little I do know--I doubt what you are saying is a doctrine of the LDS Church.
I guess I had better study my Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants more deeply to better understand more about the teachings of the LDS Church-thanks for enlightening me.

-inquiring minds want to know.
-Carol

You are so right!!! I hate seeing the stones fly. It gets us nowhere! We are all God's children and I'm sure He is not pleased with us when we enter into such contentious conversations.

[masterlee]

I accede the point. Truth is had by ALL the children of God. Anything respectable comes from God. If you are ready to accept all new revelation, as long as it comes from Christ, I am more than willing to admit God speaks to you, whether through a medium or directly. Inteligence, or the ability to learn, is the form light takes in matter. You could say that light, inteligence and matter are synonymous. The fact that we live is proof that God made us. He formed us spiritually before he formed us physically. He gave us each talents, knowledge, inteligence and personality--all of our gifts. In this God talks to us all. But to have true communication is supposed to be a two way thing. God imparts knowledge unto us in exchange for faith and obedience to his word. But which church teaches the true word of Christ in THESE days? Every church teaches some truth, but only one can teach the full truth. Perception interpretes the truth. The goal is to view it in God's own way. For this we should not be content to accept other peoples word for it, we should seek to attain this knowledge for ourselves. And once we have it we should not cease to live by it's precepts for the rest of our days.

[BenRaines]

Personally I believe that people of all faiths can hear and communicate with God. The LDS do not have an exclusive right to that. There are many good people in the world and many trying to find a way back to their Heavenly Father.

I think that there will be many LDS who are surprised when final judgment comes and they are judged as they have judged.

Ben Raines

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by BenRaines

Personally I believe that people of all faiths can hear and communicate with God. The LDS do not have an exclusive right to that. There are many good people in the world and many trying to find a way back to their Heavenly Father.

I think that there will be many LDS who are surprised when final judgment comes and they are judged as they have judged.

Ben Raines

I do agree but we must be sure we understand the difference between inspiration and revelation by covenant.

The Traveler

[Islander]

Originally Posted by abqfriend

I am Roman Catholic on this site. While there were many disagreements at the Council of Nicaea as other councils, let's not throw stones at history or those that made it. Much good-in my opinion was accomplished at this and other Church Councils.
To say the council had "nothing sacred or spiritual about it"-is an afront to many Christians in general and me specifically.
We may disagree on doctrine-but let's not throw stones at others or put one's slant on the history of the Church.
Throwing stones never brings people together-it just keeps them apart.
-Carol

Carol:

I suggest you read my posts slowly and carefully. Also, it may be a good idea to assess my statements from a historical standpoint rather than theological in order to understand what I am trying to say. I am not criticizing The Roman Catholic Church, I am making an observation about the nature of the proceedings, which in the words of the historians and theologians that attended the Councils, reported being a contentious gathering. We must be careful not to bring into the argument our own wishes, desires and bias as we examine history. It was what it was and sacrad or reverent those meetings were not. It is hard to imagine now, but there were riots on the streets, pamphlets thrown about and arguing all over the Turkish town even before the 318 bishops arrived.

It was (the council) one attempt to bring order and organization to the liturgy and practice of the Christian rites. It is evident, according to the historical accounts, that there were many sects and factions holding on to dissenting theologies and doctrines. Thru consensus and simple majority voting certain texts were accepted, other rejected and a general creed was adoted as a compromise as to define Christianity at that moment in time in history. It was an attempt, among many subsequent, to rid the incipient church of perceived heresy, to bring order and coherence to the faith.

Yes indeed, good came from those historical meetings, but we must look and study them in context. But without any romanticism or attributing to them a veil of sacredness since according to the eyewitness, there was none.

[candyprpl]

Islander,
I agree with what you are saying, just a little worried about the way you are saying it.

When we are talking about history (and it's simply my opinion) we need to be careful who might identify with this history and how what we say, affects them. Even facts can hurt.

[abqfriend]

The more I am on this site-I find some members quick to criticize the early church and the Catholic Church in particular. Indeed some criticism is merited-but what about the good that was done-little or nothing said-is this what the LDS Church teaches in it's teachings and doctrines? More importantly-is that what it's members believe?
Here are some "neutral" web sites on the Council of Nicaea and related councils-I think there was controversy and disagreement-but much good came out of them.
The world was much different in 300-400 A D than it is today-one must take into consideration the geopolitical climate of the day and the state of the Christian Church at the time of the councils.

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Council of Nicea
Council of Nicaea - LoveToKnow 1911

--Carol

Originally Posted by Islander

Carol:

I suggest you read my posts slowly and carefully. Also, it may be a good idea to assess my statements from a historical standpoint rather than theological in order to understand what I am trying to say. I am not criticizing The Roman Catholic Church, I am making an observation about the nature of the proceedings, which in the words of the historians and theologians that attended the Councils, reported being a contentious gathering. We must be careful not to bring into the argument our own wishes, desires and bias as we examine history. It was what it was and sacrad or reverent those meetings were not. It is hard to imagine now, but there were riots on the streets, pamphlets thrown about and arguing all over the Turkish town even before the 318 bishops arrived.

It was (the council) one attempt to bring order and organization to the liturgy and practice of the Christian rites. It is evident, according to the historical accounts, that there were many sects and factions holding on to dissenting theologies and doctrines. Thru consensus and simple majority voting certain texts were accepted, other rejected and a general creed was adoted as a compromise as to define Christianity at that moment in time in history. It was an attempt, among many subsequent, to rid the incipient church of perceived heresy, to bring order and coherence to the faith.

Yes indeed, good came from those historical meetings, but we must look and study them in context. But without any romanticism or attributing to them a veil of sacredness since according to the eyewitness, there was none.

[masterlee]

I do not disagree with you, when you say there was good too. Everybody, including athiests, pagans, arabs, hindooists, whatever, all have much that is good in them. Latter Day Saints don't hold a monoploy on revelation/inspiration. But I still believe that we, Latter Day Saints, have direct authority by the almighty to spread the word of God in it's most potent, truest form. That is where all others are lacking: they are not prophets. Prophesy is the gift most diligently sought after by richeous, charitable men. On rare occasions this gift is given unto members of other faiths, simply because of the humble faith and obedience to the law that they know. This includes men like Jules Verne, Muhammed and Nostredamus, in my simple opinion. But despite all this they remained flawed, perhaps even to the point that they took the credit of their discoveries for themselves, rather than giving credit to where it's due. Everything they had was given to them of God. The LDS church is perfect; but it's members also are flawed. So if we err in our doctrine it isn't because we are wrong--it's because our teachers are human. In some ways, the members of our church can be the most wicked, vile imposters imaginable: because we know the truth and yet some of us discard it for the sins we know are wrong. There is not another church on the face of the Earth that has been blessed and nurtured than ours; and yet, some of us have a blatant disregard for the ways of God, that we know is true, that we remain in sin still. In my opinion, that is the reason why some of us will not enter through the gate of heaven.