|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Continuous revelation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
It would be good to discuss how this concept is used in progressive theology and feminist theology as well. Not exactly the same, but similar. Probably shows up in other theologies as well that I'm not thinking of.
Also, the idea of the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit is common to most branches of Christianity, Orthodox, Catholic, and the thousands of Protestant denominations. It's hardly unique to the LDS. Wesley
- True, (although in Mormonism, as in others, it goes beyond just "being guided by the Holy Spirit" to direct communication with divine messengers), but generally Protestant fundies sure don't like continuous revelation. B 22:51 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Direct communication with divine messengers (esp. angels) shows up in most Christian traditions; it's far from unique to Mormonism. What most Christians dislike is new revelation that contradicts earlier revelation. Wesley 23:34 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, Wesley, please don't point out to me a third time somthing I've understood since childhood regarding what is "hardly unique to the LDS" or "far from unique to Mormonism". It's quite patronizing and condescending, especially after having explicitly acknowledged that by stating "as in others". But besides that, fundamentalists do not get uptight merely over revelation that contradicts earlier revelation; they would be very reluctant to expand their canon. For them the Bible is it, period. If they claim revelation, they would be unlikely to give it status equal to anything in the Bible. B 00:13 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
After rereading this thread, I apologize for sounding condescending; I see now that your statements had already acknowledged the (weak?) point I was making. And yes, I agree with you that for most Christians the Biblical canon is closed; further revelation would be expected to build on top of what is already revealed in the Bible, not add to or replace that foundation. Wesley 16:20 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, please overlook my defensiveness. You do make a point though...this article does need more rounding out as now it only states the LDS view generally. If the article is not likely to be expanded much it should probably be moved to "Continuous Revelation (Mormonsim)". I've not been brave enough to write a broader article partly because, like Great Apostasy, while the underlying concept is probably common to various sects, the phraseology may be unique to only one or a few sects. If this article is to be well developed, I think we need to determine how widely the article's phrase is used, and what is the most basic/common formulation of this concept among various sects. B 18:30 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Use of "continuous" and "continuing" in LDS terminology
The words "continuous" and "continuing" are not synonymous. The leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have repeatedly made it clear that the doctines of their faith teach continuing revelation, and not continuous revelation. Therefore this article has been incorrectly titled, or at least this sub section has been incorrectly placed under it. Original comment by User:The fiddler, moved from article.
- See here for a conference talk by General Authority James E. Faust on the use of the term "continuous revelation." Tijuana Brass 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Bahá'í not here!
Bahá'í don't belong to here. Their revelation system is progressive, not continuous. LDS have a prophetic institution that, according to their system, is entitled to continuous or continuing revelation (which is not distinguishable in my language), i.e. updating, improving and rewriting the system simply because they're prophets. Bahá'í don't have this in their system. They have one last prophet for this millenium, and that's Bahá'u'lláh, STOP. Nobody have the right to update and make prophesies (according to their view) for at least 1000 years into the future. Bahá'í is very well written about in the article of Progressive revelation (Bahá'í) so it need not a section in this article too — a link to there will be enough. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The lead part describes continuous revelation as God's revealing of divine principles to humanity, which cannot be true in case of Buddhism (terma is not described in the article) and Taoism. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)