Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

Answers portal
Holy Bible
RESOURCES
Basics Archaeology Cosmology Translations JST "Adding" or "taking away" Complete? Inerrant? Closed canon? Mormonism and the Bible/ Lost scripture Textual criticism "Born again" Noah's Flood Heb. 7—Aaronic Priest Book of Mormon & Bible: Plagiarized from Bible? Keeping KJV errors? Translation method Dead Sea Scrolls
PERSPECTIVES
MEDIA
OTHER PORTALS
God Jesus Christ Holy Ghost Early Christianity Book of Mormon

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

==

Questions

==

"Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1-3) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price"

—Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries

Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Conclusion

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, it would have been more rational to assume that. Gladly we all can agree that visions and revelations didn't cease after Jesus accented. However, there is clearly no Biblical evidence that revelation and visions wouldn't be necessary after the death of the apostles. However, the available Biblical evidence does suggest continuing revelation. Critics must give a rational reason why revelation, all the sudden stop being necessary after the first century, and never again be necessary.

Detailed Analysis

 ^{[needs work]} Hebrews 1:13

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Critics provide no rational evidence or reason for this claim. The Bible does not teach that we only need the Bible, or that we only need 66 books, or that On-going divine revelation is not necessary after the first century.

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased when Jesus Christ ascended to heaven.

Matthew 28:19-20

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:15

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Why would new revelation be needed, if Jesus Christ already taught the gospel? Since we have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, then surely there would be no need for Paul's vision, John's vision of the last days, and even spiritual gifts, if God would have meant to cease revelation. Wouldn't the teachings of Jesus be enough as the Word of GOD? Wouldn't his perfect example be enough? If revelation was only for the original 12 apostles, then why did Jesus appear to Paul in a vision? Why did Paul received revelation? He was not part of the original 12 apostles, he neither was a eye witness of Jesus mortal ministry.

Critics should be careful with their accusations, because one can also argue that revelation ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, and that their is no need for books, like the Book of The Revelation of St John the Divine

Deuteronomy 18:15

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken

Daniel 9:24

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Why do we need revelation this days?

• 1) We see in the Bible that God always revealed new things to the people
• 2) Prophets and apostles in the Bible always had visions and revelations
• 3) New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression as a church and people, time and circumstances always change
• 4) So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
• 5) "Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy" ^{[citation needed]}

Is the Bible enough for our salvation?

The thing that leads to salvation, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has always been the same, and was taught since Adam. It was also taught by the apostles. One might ask, that if the Bible was the only thing needed for our salvation, then why did people in the 1st century didn't have the whole Bible? Not all 27 books existed for most of the 1st century. Let alone that there was no Bible for the first 3 centuries. What did people have prior to that? Why assume that word of God was completed at the end of the first century? Was the word of GOD incomplete prior to that?

If one is going to accept on-going revelation after Jesus ascended to heaven

• Then why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith had revelations that came from Jesus Christ?
• Why not accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was called by GOD, like Paul?
• Why not accept that the revelations of Joseph Smith are inspired by GOD? Surely Joseph Smith preached of Jesus Christ, like the New testament apostles did.
• Why not accept On-going divine revelation in modern times?
• What is the difference between the first century and today?
• What is the difference between thousands of years of revelations, as recorded in the Bible, and today?
• Are we all require to built an ark? because supposedly no new instructions are given?

==

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top

==

None

Further reading and additional sources responding to these claims