339 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

Joseph taught that a person cannot receive the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit without being baptized and having hands laid on you by someone with priesthood authority. He defined the biblical expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to mean the imparting of this constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. However, Acts 10 reveals that people can receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before being baptized. Therefore, this passage conflicts with Joseph's sacerdotal view of how one receives the permanent companionship of the Holy Spirit.

Zeta-Flux, on 14 November 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

Rob, you said: "Are you claiming that there is no significance to the fact that the Mormons participating in this thread have offered some half dozen explanations for the discrepancy between Acts 10 and Joseph Smith, none of which have included the possibility that Joseph flubbed?"  What specifically do you think Joseph flubbed.  I agree with you that the wording Joseph used and that used in Acts 10 is not parallel (i.e. there is a discrepancy) but what doctrine did Joseph teach that is at odds with Acts 10?

[PacMan]

Rob,

Quote

Well, your rather colorful description more reasonably applies to the Mormons on this forum who are desperately trying to scrutinize the language to justify distinctions between receiving the Holy Spirit and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit, or between receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (sense #1) and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (sense #2), and the like.

You mean, following the text?

Quote

The text says explicitly that they got the Holy Spirit, the same gift that God had given the Jewish disciples.

I have now concluded that from the abundant evidence from this thread, that you do not know what “explicit” means.  I recall having never read the word “got” in your cited passages.  That’s a good place to start in clarifying your views.

Quote

Are you claiming that there is no significance to the fact that the Mormons participating in this thread have offered some half dozen explanations for the discrepancy between Acts 10 and Joseph Smith, none of which have included the possibility that Joseph flubbed?

No, not this one.  This one isn’t complicated.  The text speaks of two things: the Holy Ghost, and the gift of.  You want to say that they are one and the same.  You’re wrong, but I accept the interpretation as reasonable.  If you don’t want to afford the same acceptance, I could hardly care less.  But your hubristic yet erroneous promulgation of what the text “explicitly” says is laughable.  Even so, had Joseph flubbed it then you can be darn well certain that he would have “fixed” it in his commentary, otherwise known as JST.  He didn’t.  It was sufficiently clear for him, as it is for anyone that hasn’t begged the question.  

Quote

I certainly agree that the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" was not used by the ancient (NT) church in the same way as it is used in the LDS Church. That's part of my point.

Are you serious?  You really believe that you can conclude how something was used by a complete congregation over many, many years from less than a dozen citations?  That’s part of the tremendous problem with orthodox Christianity.  The erroneous idea that we’ve got it all has led to completely untenable assertions like this.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Zeta-Flux, on 14 November 2010 - 09:32 PM, said:

The word "received" is used in Acts 10:47.  While I don't think Rob's reading is the only one possible, it isn't so easily dismissed as that.

Except there, it's not speaking of "the gift."

PacMan

[PacMan]

By the way Rob, and putting semantics aside, one of your complete incongruities is to peg what YOU believe Joseph as saying.  You could find a number of his quotes similar to baptism: That there's a necessary form, etc. for it to be efficacious.  But we (and Joseph) do not doubt the baptism of the children of Egypt as they descended into the dead sea.  Simply because one thing is a rule, does not preclude exceptions.  Frankly, I don't know what was given in Acts.  The semantics don't get you to your conclusion, but it certainly makes sense.  But it doesn't matter.  Not any more than effectuating baptisms for a hoard of people by marching them on dry ground.  

Don't be so narrow-minded as precluding a belief that God is the giver of the law and can administer it as he sees fit.  There's no falsity . . . just your over exuberance of straining at gnats.

PacMan

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 14 November 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

I asked you: "And look, for centuries Christians repented of their sins, had faith in  Jesus Christ, and were baptized, without the LDS Church and its  priesthood. Were those people who sincerely repented and believed in  Christ unworthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost? I think you'll have a  hard time making a plausible case that they were all unworthy. On the  other hand, if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why  didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could  receive the gift?" You replied:

If there was an answer to my question there, I missed it. I am aware of the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. However, you have not answered my question. To make it easier for you, I will break it up into simpler questions. Question #1: In your opinion, were there any sincere people who repented of their sins and believed in Christ between, say, AD 120 and 1820?

Of course there were. But your follow-up question: “if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why  didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could  receive the gift?” is not a valid one. It is like asking, “Were there no Jews during the 2,000 years prior to the advent of Christ who were worthy of the fullness of the blessings of the gospel of Christ in their lives? So why did Jesus not make His appearance among the Jews 1,000 years earlier than the time He did?” You don't have to be a genius to figure out that that is a daft question. Firstly, there is a right time and wring time for everything, and God knows the best times. Secondly, the fact that Jesus made His appearance in the world at the time that He did, did not mean that those who lived in earlier times, who would have been worthy of his ministry and gospel in their lives, had lost anything as a consequence. They are still as much the beneficiaries of His Atoning ministry as His contemporaries were, and in the eternal scheme of things no righteous person will ever be denied the fullness of the blessings that they would have been worthy of, and which they conformed their lives to. The worthy Christians who lived during the period of the Apostasy still had the influence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, as taught in the Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 20:

27 And after that ye were blessed then fulfilleth the Father the covenant which he made with Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—unto the pouring out of the Holy Ghost through me upon the Gentiles, which blessing upon the Gentiles shall make them mighty above all, unto the scattering of my people, O house of Israel.

And the specific sacrament of the “gift of the Holy Ghost,” as we tend to define it in LDS theology, that is bestowed by the laying on of hands, would eventually also be theirs through the vicarious ordinances performed in the Restoration. No blessing will eventually be denied them that they would have been worthy of.

Rob Bowman, on 14 November 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Joseph taught that a person cannot receive the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit without being baptized and having hands laid on you by someone with priesthood authority. He defined the biblical expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to mean the imparting of this constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. However, Acts 10 reveals that people can receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before being baptized. Therefore, this passage conflicts with Joseph's sacerdotal view of how one receives the permanent companionship of the Holy Spirit.

Wrong again. Even within LDS theology and practice those terms are not used consistently, any more than they are in the Bible. For example, the formula that we use when bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost during the performance of the sacrament is, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” not “Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. LDS are specifically instructed to use the former expression and not the latter. So, if it is the “gift” that is being bestowed, why shouldn't one use the latter expression rather than the former? As I said before, your mistake is that you are trying to match a theological distinction with a semantic one, and they do not match. Not only they do not match in the Bible, they do not match in LDS practice either. Once you realize that the distinction is theological and not semantic, the problem is resolved. You are not the only one who makes that mistake. LDS make that mistake too, which is why they have been getting themselves into a muddle trying to answer our question. But that is the correct answer to your question.

Another thing that you need to bear in mind is that those quotes form Joseph Smith published in his Teachings are not verbatim quotes. They are from rough notes taken by Church members who were present on those occasions. We do not always have the exact wording that Joseph used, and the context is also often missing. We don't know what else he said that would have clarified his message. So the bottom line is, you “flubbed,” Joseph Smith didn't!

Edited by zerinus, 15 November 2010 - 05:36 AM.

[Zeta-Flux]

Rob Bowman, on 14 November 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Zeta-Flux,

Joseph taught that a person cannot receive the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit without being baptized and having hands laid on you by someone with priesthood authority.

I agree he taught that.

Quote

He defined the biblical expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to mean the imparting of this constant companionship of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think he ever said that every time the Bible uses that expression, that is what it is talking about.  Can you point out where Joseph specifically defined the *biblical* expression to mean that?

Quote

However, Acts 10 reveals that people can receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before being baptized. Therefore, this passage conflicts with Joseph's sacerdotal view of how one receives the permanent companionship of the Holy Spirit.

I'll wait on you to demonstrate that Joseph equated his use of the phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost" with every instance of that same phrase in the Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

You wrote:

Zeta-Flux, on 15 November 2010 - 08:37 AM, said:

I don't think he ever said that every time the Bible uses that expression, that is what it is talking about.  Can you point out where Joseph specifically defined the *biblical* expression to mean that? ... I'll wait on you to demonstrate that Joseph equated his use of the phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost" with every instance of that same phrase in the Bible.

It only appears twice in the Bible, in Acts 2:38 and 10:45, and Joseph was commenting on Acts 10. How could he not have meant to be referring to its meaning in that text?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

My question presupposes for the sake of argument the LDS claim that it was Christ's intention that the church should always have apostles and prophets. If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth. You seem to concede that point.

I have to agree with you that the Mormon responses to the problem I raised about Acts 10 have been muddled. Where I would disagree with you is in exempting you from that muddle.

Finally, I see that you are willing to add yet another possible explanation to the pile, namely, that Joseph's comments have not been recorded accurately. You are once again confirming my observation that the Mormons in this discussion so far have been willing to entertain almost any explanation other than that Joseph himself was wrong.

zerinus, on 15 November 2010 - 05:34 AM, said:

Of course there were. But your follow-up question: “if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why  didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could  receive the gift?” is not a valid one. It is like asking, “Were there no Jews during the 2,000 years prior to the advent of Christ who were worthy of the fullness of the blessings of the gospel of Christ in their lives? So why did Jesus not make His appearance among the Jews 1,000 years earlier than the time He did?” You don't have to be a genius to figure out that that is a daft question. Firstly, there is a right time and wring time for everything, and God knows the best times. Secondly, the fact that Jesus made His appearance in the world at the time that He did, did not mean that those who lived in earlier times, who would have been worthy of his ministry and gospel in their lives, had lost anything as a consequence. They are still as much the beneficiaries of His Atoning ministry as His contemporaries were, and in the eternal scheme of things no righteous person will ever be denied the fullness of the blessings that they would have been worthy of, and which they conformed their lives to. The worthy Christians who lived during the period of the Apostasy still had the influence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, as taught in the Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 20:

27 And after that ye were blessed then fulfilleth the Father the covenant which he made with Abraham, saying: In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed—unto the pouring out of the Holy Ghost through me upon the Gentiles, which blessing upon the Gentiles shall make them mighty above all, unto the scattering of my people, O house of Israel.

And the specific sacrament of the “gift of the Holy Ghost,” as we tend to define it in LDS theology, that is bestowed by the laying on of hands, would eventually also be theirs through the vicarious ordinances performed in the Restoration. No blessing will eventually be denied them that they would have been worthy of.


Wrong again. Even within LDS theology and practice those terms are not used consistently, any more than they are in the Bible. For example, the formula that we use when bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost during the performance of the sacrament is, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” not “Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. LDS are specifically instructed to use the former expression and not the latter. So, if it is the “gift” that is being bestowed, why shouldn't one use the latter expression rather than the former? As I said before, your mistake is that you are trying to match a theological distinction with a semantic one, and they do not match. Not only they do not match in the Bible, they do not match in LDS practice either. Once you realize that the distinction is theological and not semantic, the problem is resolved. You are not the only one who makes that mistake. LDS make that mistake too, which is why they have been getting themselves into a muddle trying to answer our question. But that is the correct answer to your question.

Another thing that you need to bear in mind is that those quotes form Joseph Smith published in his Teachings are not verbatim quotes. They are from rough notes taken by Church members who were present on those occasions. We do not always have the exact wording that Joseph used, and the context is also often missing. We don't know what else he said that would have clarified his message. So the bottom line is, you “flubbed,” Joseph Smith didn't!

[Ahab]

Rob Bowman, on 15 November 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

... I see that you are willing to add yet another possible explanation to the pile, namely, that Joseph's comments have not been recorded accurately. You are once again confirming my observation that the Mormons in this discussion so far have been willing to entertain almost any explanation other than that Joseph himself was wrong.

I think the reason most (if not all) of us won't add that one to the pile is because we know Joseph well enough to know he didn't mean Cornelius didn't receive any gift at all from the Holy Ghost, even prior to his baptism.

Cornelius did receive "a" gift from the Holy Ghost, and the one he received from the Holy Ghost was truly one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that he did receive, although Cornelius still needed to receive "the" gift of the Holy Ghost we (LDS) and some other Chrisitans refer to as "the" gift of the Holy Ghost new converts to the Church are commanded and expected to receive which comes after the laying on of hands by those with God's authority.

[Hick Preacher]

Arab noted-

Quote

Cornelius did receive "a" gift from the Holy Ghost, and the one he received from the Holy Ghost was truly one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that he did receive, although Cornelius still needed to receive "the" gift of the Holy Ghost we (LDS) and some other Chrisitans refer to as "the" gift of the Holy Ghost new converts to the Church are commanded and expected to receive which comes after the laying on of hands by those with God's authority.

We all know that the Mormon Church believes that a universal Apostasy took place anciently, and that as a consequence, a special kind of Gift of the Holy Ghost a became extinct due to the loss of the Melchizidic priesthood.   This loss of priesthood is believed to also result in the degeneration of Church structure, as the ‘one true Church’.


The following cluster of citations provide insight into the role of the Melchizedic priesthood in Mormonism.

Quote

“The process of gaining exaltation consists on growing in knowledge until a state of godhood is reached.-

…A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.-

… The Holy Ghost is the revealer of saving knowledge.-

…In fact, the Melchizedik Priesthood is the key to the knowledge of God because it is and through that priesthood that men receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Mormon Doctrine pp. 426 & 427


In Mormonism having the Priesthood in everything so far as understanding saving religious knowledge is concerned. Knowledge gained by an individual members is thought to be facilitated by the Priesthood, and its processes and ordinances.  For this reason,   a Priesthood as a management system controls the means by which knowledge is imparted, (that knowledge then coming by the Gift of the Holy Ghost).

  This is a huge claim of Mormonism with grandiose implications.  This requirement of getting the Gift of the Holy Ghost with the proper authority, and only by Laying on of Hands is connected to the nature and structure of the Mormon Church and how Mormonism says that saving knowledge, and other blessings of obedience is conveyed from God to humans here on Earth.  


This claims is closely tied with having an exclusive Priesthood with exclusive authority, and the claim to have the one true Church organization.

Mormonism is a Church that has a strict hierarchical structure.  All individual members of the Church are tied to the top tiers of this hierarchy- and finally God, with an unbroken chain of authority.  This chain must remain unbroken in order for saving knowledge and blessings from God to be administrated to humans on Earth.

This authority is considered vital in Mormonism, and can seen as necessary for managing saving knowledge to members, and is a huge factor related to the nature of the organizational structure of the Mormon Church. The LDS Church is like a complex organism, and its parts must function in order for it to work. The function is to impart saving knowledge to members in a controlled manner.    In order to hold this organisation together and have to work in a coordinated manner.   The Priesthood and its workings is how the Mormon Church makes its critical saving  knowledge and information accessible to its members in an orderly manner- and how it regulates this sacred information.

Note this teachings

Quote

“Every man ordained to any degree of the priesthood has authority delegated to him.”

  “…this authority shall be done at the proper time and place, in the proper way and after the proper order. The power of directing these labors constitutes the keys of the priesthood.”

Mormon Doctrine p. 411

So it stands to reason, due to the structure and intended function of the Mormon Church, that 'The Gift of The Holy Ghost' would have to come by a Priesthood holder's authorized Laying on of Hands.



Independent congregational Evangelical Churches however are not so complex.  They have only a few tiers in a hierarchy. So having such a priesthood, and precise organizational requirements are not necessary to insure functionality.  So the formal Laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost is not an requirement needed as a reinforcer to suggest an unbroken chain of authority in a complex hierarchy.  

Evangelicals claim to have power and authority from God directly by the personal indwelling of God's Spirit .  This authority in Evangelical Christianity is regulated by the guidelines with in the written Word of God, that is the Bible, instead of a Priesthood.   In other words, Evangelicals emphasize the Word of God, and the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost as providing the keys of God’s authority among men and women upon the Earth.
    
Evangelicals put this power and authority to work by going in to the public to talk with people about Jesus Christ, and show them truths in the Word of God.  Evangelicals also believe that this power and authority indwelling with in them inspire good works and obedience to Jesus Christ and His commandments.

A hierarchy or network of communication using a priesthood and all the connections needed in a complex hierarchy are not needed in the Evangelical system.  People are thought to be directly in contact with the Holy Ghost, without the need of mediation.



This is not a full explanation, but the gist of the differences is hinted nevertheless.  In a simple organization, where inspiration is believed to come without the need of formal rituals, the protocols such as the   Laying of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost are not considered to be critical, because simple things are easier to control.  


Hick-

Edited by Hick Preacher, 15 November 2010 - 12:37 PM.

[cdowis]

Hickpreacher,

Good post.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 15 November 2010 - 12:27 PM, said:

In Mormonism having the Priesthood in everything so far as understanding saving religious knowledge is concerned.

Your misunderstanding of those quotes results in your attempt to tell us what we believe to be wrong.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention.  One doesn't need to have the "gift of the Holy Ghost" bestowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood to receive revelation.

Quote

Knowledge gained by an individual members is thought to be facilitated by the Priesthood, and its processes and ordinances.

"Facilitated", yes.  Required, no.

Quote

For this reason,   a Priesthood as a management system controls the means by which knowledge is imparted, (that knowledge then coming by the Gift of the Holy Ghost).

False.  We want people to receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost PRIOR to joining the church.

Knowledge is imparted by the Holy Ghost.  The scriptures are clear on this. You surprise me with this garbage.

Quote

This is a huge claim of Mormonism with grandiose implications.

If it were true, but it isn't.

Edited to add,
Excepting this sever disagreement, I found your post interesting.

Edited by Vance, 15 November 2010 - 01:52 PM.

[Ahab]

cdowis, on 15 November 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

Hickpreacher,

Good post.

Mine was better, and deserving of a rep point, or two.

I feel cheated.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 15 November 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

My question presupposes for the sake of argument the LDS claim that it was Christ's intention that the church should always have apostles and prophets.

A reasonable presupposition.

Quote

If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth.

Partially true.  The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles.  After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed.

Quote

Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth.

God doesn't force people to accept Him.  So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 15 November 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

Your misunderstanding of those quotes results in your attempt to tell us what we believe to be wrong.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention.  One doesn't need to have the "gift of the Holy Ghost" bestowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood to receive revelation.


"Facilitated", yes.  Required, no.


False.  We want people to receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost PRIOR to joining the church.

Knowledge is imparted by the Holy Ghost.  The scriptures are clear on this. You surprise me with this garbage.


If it were true, but it isn't.

Edited to add,
Excepting this sever disagreement, I found your post interesting.

According to the LDS teachings, how much saving knowledge can a person get, if they do not have the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?  Can they be saved in the celestial kingdom and achieve godhood it they do not get the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Added note:
I am approaching the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a bringer of knowledge, and the Priesthood as its manager.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 15 November 2010 - 01:56 PM.

[Ahab]

Vance, on 15 November 2010 - 01:50 PM, said:

God doesn't force people to accept Him.  So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

... and during the wait some people got the idea that since there weren't any more apostles living on the Earth that meant we don't need them any more.

Oops!

Thankfully misconceptions can be corrected.

[Hick Preacher]

Ahab, on 15 November 2010 - 01:38 PM, said:

Mine was better, and deserving of a rep point, or two.

I feel cheated.

one point then-




Hick-

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 15 November 2010 - 01:54 PM, said:

According to the LDS teachings, how much saving knowledge can a person get, if they do not have the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?

I don't think that is the right question to ask.  To me the question should be "when does the acquisition of saving knowledge begin?"

Quote

Can they be saved in the celestial kingdom and achieve godhood itf they do not get the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?

No. But for most of the people that have lived so far, that won't occur while in mortality. We can only assume that the Holy Ghost operates in the spirit world in the same fashion as in this world.  By the end of the Millennium, everyone will have received the "LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost, either in person or by proxy.

Quote

I am approaching the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a bringer of knowledge, and the Priesthood as its manager.

I don't think that is an accurate approach.

The Holy Ghost is the bringer of knowledge and truth.  The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to a constant companionship of the Holy Ghost for the worthy.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is the dispenser of that right.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

As I have already pointed out, Luke says that Cornelius had given to him "the" gift of the Holy Spirit, not one of the gifts or a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Ahab, on 15 November 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

I think the reason most (if not all) of us won't add that one to the pile is because we know Joseph well enough to know he didn't mean Cornelius didn't receive any gift at all from the Holy Ghost, even prior to his baptism.

Cornelius did receive "a" gift from the Holy Ghost, and the one he received from the Holy Ghost was truly one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that he did receive, although Cornelius still needed to receive "the" gift of the Holy Ghost we (LDS) and some other Chrisitans refer to as "the" gift of the Holy Ghost new converts to the Church are commanded and expected to receive which comes after the laying on of hands by those with God's authority.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 15 November 2010 - 01:50 PM, said:

The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles.  After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed.

There is an ambiguity in your language (common on this point in LDS explanations that I have observed) that I would like to see cleared up. What do you mean by "the people as a whole"? Do you mean people in general in the Hellenistic world of the late first century? Do you mean the people of the Christian movement of the late first century? You know, there is not a single recorded instance of anyone professing to be a Christian murdering any of the apostles. So, your only reasonable clarification would seem to be that by "the people as a whole" you mean unbelievers, people who didn't even claim to be Christians, and thus the unbelieving people of the world in general. This explanation has its own set of problems, but I invite you to offer whatever clarification you want.

You wrote:

Quote

God doesn't force people to accept Him.  So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

This statement seems to presuppose that had God tried to restore the church before 1830, he would have had to force people to accept Him. I thought we agreed that the Christians of the Great Apostasy period ca. 120-1820 were not at fault. Now you seem to be suggesting that God could not have found a hospitable group of people to accept the Restoration prior to 1830.

Good luck coming up with a coherent account on this issue. I've never seen one.