Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

lostprophet83

On the Restoration and the Double Apostasy

Recommended Posts

To start asking this question is the primary reason that I joined the board. I must admit that I am not a Mormon, but I would not consider myself hostile to the LDS. I am trying to understand your point of view. So without further delay my question;

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

This goes to my fundamental intellectual problem with the idea of the restoration and the book of Mormon. It seems improbable that Christ would establish the church on one continent only to know that it would degenerate into apostasy for a millennium and a half. But for him to establish the church on two continents knowing that both would be lost seems almost foolhardy. Now the likely response to this would be that he knew that the restoration would happen. But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy. 2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

I look forward to the discussion. Please, serious and substantial answers only.

Share this post


Link to post

To start asking this question is the primary reason that I joined the board. I must admit that I am not a Mormon, but I would not consider myself hostile to the LDS. I am trying to understand your point of view. So without further delay my question;

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

Why would Christ overlook any of his people? Did not the people in the America's deserve to have a chance for Salvation?

Why did God choose the Jewish people knowing that they would put him to death and reject him as their savior?

It was needed for God to provide as many witnesses of Christ as needed to bring forth the true Church. It seems that the Bible by itself is not enough to bring forth the true teachings of Christ. If there wasn't a need for more than the Bible, why are their so many churches that have spawned forth from the bible with such differing teachings?

Matt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

This goes to my fundamental intellectual problem with the idea of the restoration and the book of Mormon. It seems improbable that Christ would establish the church on one continent only to know that it would degenerate into apostasy for a millennium and a half. But for him to establish the church on two continents knowing that both would be lost seems almost foolhardy.

The Lord does things as he will. He truely moves in mysterious ways. If he did not establish his Church in the Old World, we would not have the Bible. If he has not established his Church in the New World, we would not have the Book of Mormon. It was needed to bring forth the witness of Christ, and to show that Christ is the same today, and forever. He did not forget his people that had been scattered.

Now the likely response to this would be that he knew that the restoration would happen. But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy.

The apostasy was fortold by the prophets of old.

2nd Tessalonians 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.

The Children of Israel didn't even wait long enough for Moses to come down from the Mountain with the 10 Commandments before they returned to Idol worship.

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

I look forward to the discussion. Please, serious and substantial answers only.

Share this post


Link to post

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, . . .

The problem is in the people not the gospel.

. . . in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?"

Something to do with His infinite wisdom.

It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt.

I suppose He has His reasons. Perhaps He should have consulted you first.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error.

Well, since the church is peopled with imperfect people, why should anyone ever expect it to be free from error?

If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again.

Nothing but the continued righteousness of its members.

If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error.

I don't follow. We don't believe that "the prophet and the twelve apostle" need to be free from error for the church to continue to be strong and grow.

At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

It has nothing to do with the superiority of either the ancient or restored church. It has to do with the people God has to work with.

Share this post


Link to post

The gospel is on the earth to bless individuals and bring them to Christ so they can fulfill the measure of their creation. Heavenly Father loves each of His children and wants them to have opportunities. The fact that His children don't choose to follow His guidance, doesn't make His plan a failure. The ones who did for as long as they did, received the peace and joy and opportunities that comes from living the Plan. (Frankly in every civilization there have been some who failed the plan and some who did not. It is just that we know in this Last dispensation, the authority will not be taken from the earth.)

Share this post


Link to post

lostprophet83:

God will not force anyone to believe.

That is not an answer to any question I have asked. I appreciate your joining of the discussion, but I did want substantiative answers to the question. If you have a more substantial comment I would love to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume the OP is Protestant, so I will answer with that assumption in mind...

I see the revealing of the Book of Mormon and the "Restoration" as a course correction that furthered the work of the Reformation. Obviously Protestants believes some things were askew and needed a course correction or they would all still be Catholic. The "Restoration" was just a further correction from the Lord. All things will come together when the New Jerusalem is built and Jesus will reign amoung the pure in heart who seek refuge there.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume the OP is Protestant, so I will answer with that assumption in mind...

I see the revealing of the Book of Mormon and the "Restoration" as a course correction that furthered the work of the Reformation. Obviously Protestants believes some things were askew and needed a course correction or they would all still be Catholic. The "Restoration" was just a further correction from the Lord. All things will come together when the New Jerusalem is built and Jesus will reign amoung the pure in heart who seek refuge there.

For that matter the "Orthodox Church" was a course correction from the numberous belief systems that were in vogue at the time. Such as the Ebionites and the Marcionites.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

It is the same principle as His taking on a body, having it beaten and hung on a cross, then resurrecting it.

He overcame death, apostasy and all other destructive things. He had to suffer death and the rejection and overthrow of His earthly kingdom, and "all things" in order to perfectly overcome them and make eternal life and His Heavenly Kingdom absolutely sure, forever.

Share this post


Link to post

As the Primary song says:

"Given this land... If they live... Righteously"

The people departed from the Lord at large just as they had At the time of the Exile to Babylon, and all the other times they had been carried away captive.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

Why assume that he only established his Church on two continents? True, we only have written records from two, but Christ has said (in the Book of Mormon) that these two groups weren't all who would hear his voice.

In any case, it goes to the reason a Church is established in the first place - to bring willing souls to Christ. If there are no willing souls then there is no need for a Church.

But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy.
It would be more accurate to say that there was a flaw in the membership of the Church, not its structure. Reading Paul's letters paints a picture of his frantic efforts to correct the coming apostacy, giving his counsel and correcting where he could. At one point he laments that "all of asia" has fallen away. John's Revelation also opens with the Lord chastizing seven of the Churches that have fallen away.
2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.
It would be more correct to say that God was unwilling to correct the membership against their will.
Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.
Was "efficiency' God and Christ's priority?
Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.
Yes, the Church fell into error before, but the leadership did not. The apostacy was only complete when the last of the apostles was killed without having named a successor. So long as we have apostles in this day passing on their authority to others we need not fear.

As a secondary control, our leaders constantly ask us to question what they teach and acquire confirmation from God that what is taught is not in error.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate your answer ELF 1024, It was of the kind that I was looking for, but it is lacking in several respects.

Why would Christ overlook any of his people? Did not the people in the America's deserve to have a chance for Salvation?

Why did God choose the Jewish people knowing that they would put him to death and reject him as their savior?

It was needed for God to provide as many witnesses of Christ as needed to bring forth the true Church. It seems that the Bible by itself is not enough to bring forth the true teachings of Christ. If there wasn't a need for more than the Bible, why are their so many churches that have spawned forth from the bible with such differing teachings?

As to why Christ would overlook any of his people, I would ask the Japanese and Chinese. Also the diaspora Jews in Africa. And the entirety of the world for 1500 years. If your point is that the appearance in America is to save all of God's people why would he leave them Shepherd-less for 1500? Did the middle ages world deserve a chance for salvation?

As to your point about the multiplication of churches, I am not a protestant so I feel little need to defend them. I would say that when people stray from the firm apostolic foundation, error then comes naturally. I might also mention that the Restorationist Churches are not immune from this phenomenon with the RLDS (Now CoC), The Temple Lot Church, The FLDS, and several dozen others. If multiplication is your standard in a short 170 year period the Restorationist Churches are in the hundreds.

The Lord does things as he will. He truely moves in mysterious ways. If he did not establish his Church in the Old World, we would not have the Bible. If he has not established his Church in the New World, we would not have the Book of Mormon. It was needed to bring forth the witness of Christ, and to show that Christ is the same today, and forever. He did not forget his people that had been scattered.

This is true but then brings up several more Restorationist problems.

1) The Bible; LDS seem to consider the KJV to be an authoritative source of divine revelation. But the KJV came 16 centuries after Christ. Even accepting that the Church was apostate by 325 AD (As is commonly referenced by Mormon commentators), that leaves 1300 years after the apostasy before the KJV was written. Did the apostate church keep an inerrant core of scripture for 1300 years? If not, it would be difficult to explain why the LDS Church does not use the Joseph Smith Translation (Other than the fact that they do not own the copyright).

2) The Book of Mormon; Should be its own discussion under the heading of apostasy. It poses an astronomical number of problems to the idea of restoration. Principal among them why two different sets of scripture? Even if Christ intended the two Church's, wouldn't he want to reveal the same things about the nature of God to the whole world? Or was his message culture specific? Then we need to bring in the Japanese and Chinese and Africans again because they did not get similar treatment. Also, you do not actually have the scriptures of the the New World but its English translation, which seems to negate the need for it to be originally written because God could have revealed the text wholesale to Smith himself and had no different effect on the nature of the text.

The apostasy was fortold by the prophets of old.

And the Messiah was foretold by them as well. But you seem to imply that the prophecy is self-interpreting and could have no other meaning than the church being obliterated in both America and the rest of the World. I do not think so, but you could demonstrate this point with scripture. Also a global apostasy on two continents seems to violate Jesus's proclamation to Peter in Matt 16:18 that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church.

The Children of Israel didn't even wait long enough for Moses to come down from the Mountain with the 10 Commandments before they returned to Idol worship.

True, but this point I think needs to be flesh out some more. Are you saying that people fall into heretical ways? That would be true. But in this instance Moses was faithful and brought the people back to God. It is not as if there was people of Israel for 1600 years.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is in the people not the gospel.

Something to do with His infinite wisdom.

I suppose He has His reasons. Perhaps He should have consulted you first.

Well, since the church is peopled with imperfect people, why should anyone ever expect it to be free from error?

Nothing but the continued righteousness of its members.

I don't follow. We don't believe that "the prophet and the twelve apostle" need to be free from error for the church to continue to be strong and grow.

It has nothing to do with the superiority of either the ancient or restored church. It has to do with the people God has to work with.

I asked for Serious responses. I did appreciate the sentence "I suppose He has His reasons. Perhaps He should have consulted you first."

And I also asked for substantive responses, this does not answer any of the points. But I will take your admission that the restored church is not free from error.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume the OP is Protestant, so I will answer with that assumption in mind...

I see the revealing of the Book of Mormon and the "Restoration" as a course correction that furthered the work of the Reformation. Obviously Protestants believes some things were askew and needed a course correction or they would all still be Catholic. The "Restoration" was just a further correction from the Lord. All things will come together when the New Jerusalem is built and Jesus will reign amoung the pure in heart who seek refuge there.

That would be false, but you do make an excellent point about Restoration being a response to protestantism. The two are linked in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Before asking this question I think you should first ask why God allowed two kingdoms (Israel and Judah) to fall into apostasy and be destroyed.

One could argue that sacred history is essentially the tale of successive establishments, apostasy and restoration. I guess the answer is that God refuses to give up on rebellious humans.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate your answer ELF 1024, It was of the kind that I was looking for, but it is lacking in several respects.

As to why Christ would overlook any of his people, I would ask the Japanese and Chinese. Also the diaspora Jews in Africa. And the entirety of the world for 1500 years. If your point is that the appearance in America is to save all of God's people why would he leave them Shepherd-less for 1500? Did the middle ages world deserve a chance for salvation?

Which is exactly why God in his wisdom allows all people to be baptized and to have their work for them after they have passed from the mortal world. If it was not for the work for the dead, then those who had the misfortune of being born in a time, or a place, that was inaccessable to the Gospel, they would be condemed to hell, instead they can still be saved.

As to your point about the multiplication of churches, I am not a protestant so I feel little need to defend them. I would say that when people stray from the firm apostolic foundation, error then comes naturally. I might also mention that the Restorationist Churches are not immune from this phenomenon with the RLDS (Now CoC), The Temple Lot Church, The FLDS, and several dozen others. If multiplication is your standard in a short 170 year period the Restorationist Churches are in the hundreds.

This is true but then brings up several more Restorationist problems.

1) The Bible; LDS seem to consider the KJV to be an authoritative source of divine revelation. But the KJV came 16 centuries after Christ. Even accepting that the Church was apostate by 325 AD (As is commonly referenced by Mormon commentators), that leaves 1300 years after the apostasy before the KJV was written. Did the apostate church keep an inerrant core of scripture for 1300 years? If not, it would be difficult to explain why the LDS Church does not use the Joseph Smith Translation (Other than the fact that they do not own the copyright).

I do not pretend to understand why the Church chose to keep the KJV. I just know that it did. The JST is not a full translation of the Bible.

2) The Book of Mormon; Should be its own discussion under the heading of apostasy. It poses an astronomical number of problems to the idea of restoration. Principal among them why two different sets of scripture? Even if Christ intended the two Church's, wouldn't he want to reveal the same things about the nature of God to the whole world? Or was his message culture specific? Then we need to bring in the Japanese and Chinese and Africans again because they did not get similar treatment. Also, you do not actually have the scriptures of the the New World but its English translation, which seems to negate the need for it to be originally written because God could have revealed the text wholesale to Smith himself and had no different effect on the nature of the text.

I think you need to read the Book of Mormon for yourself. There is not an "astronomical number of problems" caused by it. If you had read it, you would know this.

Share this post


Link to post

For that matter the "Orthodox Church" was a course correction from the numberous belief systems that were in vogue at the time. Such as the Ebionites and the Marcionites.

I don't see this as an argument against the Orthodox Church. But I would hazard that maybe they were not so much a 'course correction' but rather a "different faith." As both the Ebonites and Marcionites were gnostic, and the Orthodox Church existed at the same time time as show by the existence of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch at the time.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see this as an argument against the Orthodox Church. But I would hazard that maybe they were not so much a 'course correction' but rather a "different faith." As both the Ebonites and Marcionites were gnostic, and the Orthodox Church existed at the same time time as show by the existence of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch at the time.

History has a bad habit of being written by the victors.

Share this post


Link to post

To start asking this question is the primary reason that I joined the board. I must admit that I am not a Mormon, but I would not consider myself hostile to the LDS. I am trying to understand your point of view. So without further delay my question;

Sounds like a good step....

Why would Christ establish his church on two continents, only to have it destroyed (by apostasy or war) on both continent?

You do know that God "established" his church and people MANY times in history and there have been MANY apostacy's??? Even when Christ came there was a current apostacy at the time. You do know that don't you??? You also forget something else. God's authority and keys are only exercised on the principles of righteousness and by those in said authority. So, my question to you would be "why wouldn't there by an apostacy"? I mean, we are still mortals, and the last I checked there isn't much different between people over 2,000 years ago compared to those for the last 2,000 years.

This goes to my fundamental intellectual problem with the idea of the restoration and the book of Mormon. It seems improbable that Christ would establish the church on one continent only to know that it would degenerate into apostasy for a millennium and a half. But for him to establish the church on two continents knowing that both would be lost seems almost foolhardy. Now the likely response to this would be that he knew that the restoration would happen. But the restoration itself is problematic. I think it says two things. 1) That God would allow the world to be re-dominated by paganism for 1500 after giving the world the gospel, seems to indicate that there was a flaw in the original church. In that it could not sustain itself and fell into apostasy. 2) That God was unable to preserve the church from error in the face of human evil.

A few problems with you comment.

First you are confusing "The Church" (that is the authorized representatives of God) with Righteousness and the Holy Spirit. There have been righteous men, there have been righteous Christians, the light of christ and the Holy Ghost STILL was there for anyone who wanted to be good. This has always been the case from the beginning of man. But man has not always been "authorized" to organize the Church and lead the people per God's Word. Thus, the world wasn't "dominated by paganism".

The other problem is you are apparently coming from Christian Traditions which tell you that "the Church" is simply the Holy Ghost and feeling good and righteous, i.e. following Christ. That has NEVER been "the Church", even when Christ was on the earth. Look for example in Mark/Luke 9 & Matthew 18 in which there were other believers who were not with the Church nor having Church authority who were just that, other believers who were still children of Christ, could do miracles, and per Christ's own words should not be attacked. But, it was clear they had not "church authority", hence the Apostles initial reaction, and Christ didn't correct that part.

I like those chapters as well because they clearly indicate that anti-mormonism is directly against God.

Point (1) seems to indicate that there was something lacking in the gospel, in which case "Why would Christ bother to come at that time?" It would make more sense for him to accomplish his aims in the 1820's rather than to suffer and die in Roman era Jerusalem as it would have been more efficient than allowing the church to be destroyed and then rebuilt. But this would of course eliminate the need for Joseph Smith.

Let me ask you this. Do you really think man would have killed Christ "today"? I don't think so. I mean, the amount of mircles and with modern communication even back in 1820, there would be no doubt to all that that man was of God. Further, you're forgetting something else. Christ fullfilled many prophecy's by coming back then, many of which aren't even in the Bible but are mentioned in the New Testament. For example, do you know WHO is of the line of David today???

Further, there are many indications in the Old and New Testament that there WOULD be an Apostacy prior to the Second Coming of Christ. I don't know about you, but we follow the scriptures, while your christian traditions "don't" follow certain things of the scriptures. I know this personally because I grew up in many of your religions, and reading the Bible for myself and saw for myself how your various religions simply did not follow or weren't consistent with certain things of the Bible. Only when I came upon mormonism did a religion FULLY fit what the Bible stated.

Point (2) seems to indicate that a person can never be assured that the church is preserved free from error. If the church can fall into apostasy once, why could it also not do so again. If true this would have troubling implications for modern LDS as they would not be able to state definitively that the prophet and the twelve apostle cannot be free from error. At least, this would be true without a further showing of how the restored church is superior to the previous church.

Of course a person can be "assured" that the Church is free from error, it's called having Prophets & Apostles on the earth, having his organization and doctrines established and unchanging. That is what we have had since 1830. At other times in history, without those, people should have just been reading the scriptures themselves, and waiting for the true authorized servants. But instead, people in their lusts for power and prestige created their OWN religions, after their OWN doctrines, mixing the doctrines of men with the doctrines of God, just as the Bible warns.

Yes, it's done it many times. As to again, well, it's been prophicied several places that this last time around it won't fall into apostacy again because it will be right before Christ's coming and it's the Fullness of Times. There is also no such thing in LDS theology about any man even Prophets being "free from error". Even the scriptures are not free from error. All things must be taken together, Prophets, Scripture, and the Holy Ghost through the authorized Priesthood to KNOW what is really the Church and doctrine. It's the same thing for the scripture also. You can't proof-text one section and say THIS is God's doctrines while ignoring other scripture which clearly debunks such an assumption, such as with Grace or with God being Spirit Alone.

Humans have a bad habit of doing this. Let me give you an example. It's being promoted around the internet that Mitt Romney denied the LDS First Vision, even posting the video of it. Well, when you actually watch the video, a person that is not blinded in their hate of Romney will see that he says "Moses and the burning Bush, and possibly others". Clearly he isn't denying the first vision at all, he simply didn't "emphasis" it, emphasising instead Moses, and including the first vision in the second part of the statement. The is exactly the same as the God is Spirit belief but in reverse. Other Christians "add" the word alone to the scripture, when the scripture doesn't say that at all. The scripture simply says that God is spirit, same as other scriptures state that man is spirit. In other words, an entire doctrine has been created by first adding an additional condition which is not in the scripture AND ignoring other scriptures which would contend against such an idea.

Anyway, some thoughts....

Share this post


Link to post

Which is exactly why God in his wisdom allows all people to be baptized and to have their work for them after they have passed from the mortal world. If it was not for the work for the dead, then those who had the misfortune of being born in a time, or a place, that was inaccessable to the Gospel, they would be condemed to hell, instead they can still be saved.

I do not pretend to understand why the Church chose to keep the KJV. I just know that it did. The JST is not a full translation of the Bible.

I think you need to read the Book of Mormon for yourself. There is not an "astronomical number of problems" caused by it. If you had read it, you would know this.

The work for the dead is not a solution. What of those people that you cannot name or assign a number? I must admit that my own understanding of the practice is limited as I have never preformed one. I would appreciate enlightenment on the subject, it may be another topic. Please post a link here if you do discuss it.

As for the salvation of the dead I entrust them to the mercy and judgement of God, who can judge all things because he knows all things. I think the parable of the talent's is illustrative of this process, as He will judge us on what we have been given and what we have done with it. I believe that the pagan is the person who has one talent (i.e. the person who only has the natural law written on the human heart) and does nothing with it.

I accept your concession that the KJV is a mystery. But I think its original and continued use by the LDS church seems to contradict a total apostasy doctrine. Do you not agree?

Finally, I own three copies of the BoM and have annotated two of them (But not the one as it is my 1830 edition). I think its existence creates a problem for the reasons outlined above, you may disagree but your reasons are really what I am after.

Share this post


Link to post

But I will take your admission that the restored church is not free from error.

You asked for serious discussion and then you dropped this strawman on me?

You, OBVIOUSLY aren't taking my comments seriously at all. But rather just looking for opportunity to inject into them what you want to see.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume the OP is Protestant, so I will answer with that assumption in mind...

I see the revealing of the Book of Mormon and the "Restoration" as a course correction that furthered the work of the Reformation. Obviously Protestants believes some things were askew and needed a course correction or they would all still be Catholic. The "Restoration" was just a further correction from the Lord. All things will come together when the New Jerusalem is built and Jesus will reign amoung the pure in heart who seek refuge there.

I sort of agree with most of this, and it's a nice saying, but it's not quite right, thus false.

Protestantism wasn't a "course correction", while yes they DID course correct a couple of false ideas that had entered Christianity, they actually ADDED even MORE corruptions of the Gospel. The Restoration was the "actual" course correction, for it was only one directed by God Himself. There were no Prophets, visions, etc. involved in the Protestant Reformation. After all, in just one of their big battles they sacked the Vatican, killed everyone, raped nuns, and killed the Pope (did they kill him that time, or did he escape, can't remember). Point is, the Reformation didn't have "God" in it at all. I'm of course not saying every person was like that, but God wasn't the head.

Share this post


Link to post

You weren't addressing me, but I have a few relevent points:

1) The Bible; LDS seem to consider the KJV to be an authoritative source of divine revelation. But the KJV came 16 centuries after Christ. Even accepting that the Church was apostate by 325 AD (As is commonly referenced by Mormon commentators), that leaves 1300 years after the apostasy before the KJV was written. Did the apostate church keep an inerrant core of scripture for 1300 years? If not, it would be difficult to explain why the LDS Church does not use the Joseph Smith Translation (Other than the fact that they do not own the copyright).

The LDS do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. So no, we don't believe that an apostate church kept an inerrant core of scripture for 1300 years. In fact we believe the Bible has numerous errors and omissions.

We do not use the Joseph Smith Translation primarily because it was an unfinished work. Some excerpts are part of our canon, however.

As no Bible interpretation could be seen as inerrant, the King James Version is seen as being "good enough" doctrinally, especially when supported by the other Standard Works. It is also a literary treasure full of beautiful phrases, which helps to bring in the Spirit more, I feel, than a modern language translation would. As the primary purpose of the scriptures is to lead to personal revelation, the Bible translation that is best at invoking the Spirit (assuming that it is also reasonably doctrinally sound) is the best translation to use. Hence the KJV.

2) The Book of Mormon; Should be its own discussion under the heading of apostasy. It poses an astronomical number of problems to the idea of restoration. Principal among them why two different sets of scripture?
In the mouths of two or three witnesses will every word be established.
Even if Christ intended the two Church's, wouldn't he want to reveal the same things about the nature of God to the whole world?
For the most part he did. Much of the Book of Mormon has equivelent passages in the Bible, or direct quotes.
Or was his message culture specific?
The Lord does in fact tailor His message to His audience.
Then we need to bring in the Japanese and Chinese and Africans again because they did not get similar treatment.
That we know of.
Also, you do not actually have the scriptures of the the New World but its English translation, which seems to negate the need for it to be originally written because God could have revealed the text wholesale to Smith himself and had no different effect on the nature of the text.
True, the text could have been revealed to Smith without any original writer, but that would not have served Mormon and Moroni. Writing the work was their prophetic calling, and they benefitted from it just as Joseph benefitted from his translation of the Bible, even though we don't use most of it today.

Share this post


Link to post

The work for the dead is not a solution. What of those people that you cannot name or assign a number? I must admit that my own understanding of the practice is limited as I have never preformed one. I would appreciate enlightenment on the subject, it may be another topic. Please post a link here if you do discuss it.

As you are no doubt aware, Family History, or Genelogy has become very popular in the last hundred or so years. This was fortold in Malachi.

Malachi Chapter 4

5

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...