Is New Revelation Necessary/Scriptural

[Traveler]

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]

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.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Islander

[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

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.

Edited August 20, 2008 by abqfriend

[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.

[Islander]

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.

Point well taken. Again, I try but not always succeed to be diplomatic and careful.

I tend to be a man of few but precise words. It is not always possible to state a point delicately enough.

I do appreciate your advise on the matter. Thank you.

[candyprpl]

Point well taken. Again, I try but not always succeed to be diplomatic and careful.

I tend to be a man of few but precise words. It is not always possible to state a point delicately enough.

I do appreciate your advise on the matter. Thank you.

Everyone seems to get defensive and upset about history that has impacted their lives, directly or indirectly. It's just human nature, I suppose.

[VisionOfLehi]

I found this today, hadn't read it before, and I feel that it fits the original question.

1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

[Hemidakota]

2 Corinthians chapter 3 - thanks.....

[Traveler]

Everyone seems to get defensive and upset about history that has impacted their lives, directly or indirectly. It's just human nature, I suppose.

Just a note: History is little more than a point of view. The battle of the Alamo as a hostory lesson is quite different in classes taught in the USA as compared to what is taugh in Mexico. There is still had feelings among many Mexicans that some of the American heros stole land from the Mexicans that owned it and killed anyone that objected or attempted to defend their porperty or their rights - causing the war in the first place.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

I always have a hard time in reading someone own view of history, when in fact, it was not how it really happen.

[Traveler]

I always have a hard time in reading someone own view of history, when in fact, it was not how it really happen.

In reality all history, religion, politics and some other things are really biased opinions dependent on the particular point-of-view. If someone is not willing to admit their point of view; it is my biased opinion that their view is not at all accurate and should not be believed, perhaps not even considered. When news programs claim "no spin zone", "That's the way it is" or anything else that ignores the fact of their bias - you can know you are not dealing with an honest person or institution.

In general if a person is not willing to admit their bias but are willing to maintain an argument – I chock it all up to insanity (no other logical explanation that I can imagine). And if there is anything I have learned in life – it is useless to attempt a meaningful (or accurate) discussion with the insane. Attempting a meaningful discussion with the insane is just another kind of insanity. (and yes this includes the bipolar that refuse to recognize their problem).

The Traveler