Orthodox Church Or Lds Church

[3DOP]

Bible Truth

I don't buy into a Catholic who claims he might become Eastern Orthodox (which is similar to Catholic) or he just might become a Mormon (thus jettisoning the whole Catholic/Orthodox faith). It doesn't compute at all. It's like saying, "I'm at Catholic who is interested in Orthodoxy, and I also might become a Jehovah's Witness, a Hare Krishna, or a Christian Scientist.

I don't think you are Catholic at all in the true sense of the word. If you were, you'd understand heresy and the ramifications of denying the Holy Spirit.

3DOP

Hi Bible Truth,

I am Catholic. I am not considering being anything else. But...if the unthinkable should happen, and I believed the Catholic Church to be false, I would still believe in God and Christ, looking for the true house of worship and instruction. I would look East, to the Orthodox, to be certain that whatever convinced me that the Latin Church failed, also caused the Eastern Church to fall. Next, I would look among Restoration movements that proclaim the Apostasy and attempt to incorporate the Gospel into their teachings. This would lead me to look at least at Islam and Joseph Smith...with the probable need to become familiar with the sects springing from each. If I wasn't satisfied that any of these restored the true house of worship and instruction, I would probably be waiting for the Restorer, be it Christ Himself or a Prophet. I have called this position "Restorationist-in-Waiting". I grieve at seeing so many disheartened Mormons turn their backs on God and Christ all together when they become disillusioned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What would you have done had you lived 300 years ago? Become an atheist? No? Well why do you have to believe that the true church is currently present, if you already believe that it has been hidden or gone for hundreds and even thousands of years? If you can't for a time reconsider the Apostasy question, at least wait patiently and look expectantly, even as aged St. Simeon did, whose devotion and faith in the absent Messiah was to last a long lifetime, his reward not coming until Our Lord was presented to him in the Temple. Digression...

Anyway Bible Truth, as a Catholic, there are really good reasons why I do not believe that any of the Protestant churches are the "one true house of worship and instruction" as I have been pleased to call it in this post. Principle among these are that I don't know of any that even say that they are the one true visible church. Do you? If Protestants cannot and will not propose the one true church to me, I take them at their word, and assume that they are correct. It is not among them. The invisible body of Christ you say, that is what matters most? Of course. Of course I hope to be a member of that Body. However, I haven't noticed that community taking out an ad in the Yellow Pages or publishing any books of theology. I can not speak for Learning Guy, but that would be the reason why I, as a Catholic, would consider the claims of Salt Lake, and Eastern Orthodoxy should I ever become disillusioned about the Roman Catholic Church.

Since becoming Catholic in 1995, I really haven't studied Mormonism, except passively as I've perused LDS message boards for the last nine years. I have read maybe a dozen books by Mormons, mostly from the period shortly before my conversion, when a friend of mine who has since become Catholic too, was leaning that way (that is also how I became acquainted with LDS message boards). I haven't read the Book of Mormon completely and I could never pray to God about whether it were true, so long as I have my Catholic faith. And may I never lose my Catholic faith. But if I should, I think I would follow the very path that Learning Guy seems to be on. If the Church apostatized, I think we are talking about the Head of the Church being cut off from the Body. Joseph Smith proposes a virtual miraculous resurrection of the Church which seems more plausible than some here today, gone tomorrow non-demoninational church somewhere that does not take note or account for what a serious and grave action it is to put out a sign, prepare your sermons, and tell people that Jesus Christ wants you to be under their pastoral care and authority. Some Evangelicals seem to do that nowadays with a willy-nilly business world mentality that only counts the bottom line. It seems to me like these new churches attract people who shop for churches the same way they would shop for clothes and hamburgers. But other Christian communities lay a much stronger emphasis on the need for the local church to justify its existence as a branch of the one true visible church. Yours probably doesn't and if I might, I would suggest that this critical difference in ways of understanding the local church, are partly why you appear to be baffled at Learning Guy's course of procedure.

It makes a lot of sense to me. All this has been said only because you didn't seem to believe Learning Guy was on the up and up. He strikes me as very sincere. I know Evangelicals and Catholics probably have more in common than Mormons and Catholics. But the choice of where and how to determine where to go to church is not one of them.

3DOP

[saemo]

If you go to one of our sacrament services, be aware that they're very, very simple. No pageantry, no professionally trained preacher, no pomp.

But remember that early Christian services were probably much the same. Did they use candles? Yes, but probably only because candles were the best indoor lighting they could get.

Early Christian services were based on the Jewish liturgy. Which includes prayers, music, incense, vestments, the presence of an altar, sacrifice, etc. Most of the early Christian writings indicate they worshipped at night, and required candles for lighting. Candles, as a symbol of divine light or presence is also an ancient Jewish tradition. Christians and Jews both keep a candle lit near their respective tabernacles. The Paschal candle has always been used by Christians. The incorporating of this symbol into the Christian liturgy (ordinary time) occurred in the 4th century.

[thesometimesaint]

Candles are an anachronism. They used oil lamps. http://www.bible-history.com/ancient_oil_lamps/

[saemo]

Which conclusion, of course, you arrive at by cherry-picking the scriptures, applying the interpretations of man, and ignoring Luke's account:

No, we take them altogether.

And where Paul repeats that it was not only to be done in remembrance of his body in relation to the bread, but in remembrance of His sacrificial spilt blood in relation to the wine:

Sacrificial being a good word to use, yes.

Those who teach clerical celibacy do the same cherry-picking, misinterpreting Paul's statements on marriage in one place in support of the doctrine of celibacy, while completely ignoring Paul's unconditional directives that for Bishops and Deacons to qualify for those offices they "must be the husband of one wife", as a man who does not know how to care for his own wife and children does not know how to care for the church.

Seriously, celibacy has what all to do with the Eucharist? First, there is more to the Catholic Church than the Roman Rite. Second, if a man is ordained after he has married he remains married, thus, we have married priests in the Roman Rite. Third, within Catholicism there are married priests, the Maronites are a good example. Fifth, the OP is looking at the Orthodox (catholic) Church, where priests can be married (or not).

Interesting you site Paul's declaration, as that scripture is defining that ONE wife (I added the bold to your post). Perhaps you should look to figure that one out in light of your doctrine of polygamy. As that is what he meant, that a man who had more than one wife could not be a Bishop or Deacon. NOT, that it is required they are married.

How do you reconcile Paul's statements here, where he clearly states that celibacy is preferred over marriage (his opinion). And that divorce is forbidden (Lord's statement). Why do Mormons allow a "Temple divorce"?

6

This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

7

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,

9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

10

To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband

11

--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3DOP

Hi Bible Truth,

I am Catholic. I am not considering being anything else. But...if the unthinkable should happen, and I believed the Catholic Church to be false, I would still believe in God and Christ, looking for the true house of worship and instruction. I would look East, to the Orthodox, to be certain that whatever convinced me that the Latin Church failed, also caused the Eastern Church to fall. Next, I would look among Restoration movements that proclaim the Apostasy and attempt to incorporate the Gospel into their teachings. This would lead me to look at least at Islam and Joseph Smith...with the probable need to become familiar with the sects springing from each. If I wasn't satisfied that any of these restored the true house of worship and instruction, I would probably be waiting for the Restorer, be it Christ Himself or a Prophet. I have called this position "Restorationist-in-Waiting". I grieve at seeing so many disheartened Mormons turn their backs on God and Christ all together when they become disillusioned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What would you have done had you lived 300 years ago? Become an atheist? No? Well why do you have to believe that the true church is currently present, if you already believe that it has been hidden or gone for hundreds and even thousands of years? If you can't for a time reconsider the Apostasy question, at least wait patiently and look expectantly, even as aged St. Simeon did, whose devotion and faith in the absent Messiah was to last a long lifetime, his reward not coming until Our Lord was presented to him in the Temple. Digression...

3DOP

Well said. This is actually a great way to look at things.

[saemo]

You mean, like Jesus? The fully God and yet fully Man, made in all things like His brethren, who walked the streets of Jerusalem and was glorified, as God, after He returned to Heaven following His resurrection?

Hi, you are not fully God, are you? Are you comparing an ordinary man to the Son of Man?

Still, your assertions to learningguy about LDS belief reflect the usual level of ignorance about LDS doctrine we see here.

My apologies then, as it is not my intent to misrepresent LDS belief.

They turned away because they misunderstood what Jesus was telling them. They thought, as you believe, that he was telling them that his flesh and blood really were in the emblems of the sacrament. In otherwords, they, like you above, screamed "We are not cannibals!" and they left. Just as they could not understand the parables, they could not understand that Jesus was not in fact telling them to eat his actual flesh and drink his actual blood, but to do as Luke and Paul recorded Jesus telling his disciples to do; that is, to eat and drink in remembrance of his body and his blood which were offered a sacrifice for sin.

I cannot change you, it is the Holy Spirit who does that. I'll pray for you.

[saemo]

Wrong! You are misstating the debate. The Mormon position is not that God is neither infinite or eternal, or that He is created. Debate the actual Mormon positions, not your strawman of the Mormon position, please.

Yes. But that says nothing about the eternal or infinite nature of God, as we believe that intelligence is uncreate, eternal and infinite.

I believe I said I understand this (creation from material) is what you believe.

To begin with, then, we can throw out any consideration of the Sacred Tradition, as this is extrabiblical. If you want to tie our hands with respect to our understanding the Bible based on sources outside the Bible then it is only fair that your hands are tied with the same rope.

Hi, the Bible is as it is, and exists (knowledge not lost) because of Sacred Tradition. So no, we won't be throwing out Sacred Tradition any time soon.

Secondly, without exception that I can remember, LDS present their reasons for believing as they do from the Bible itself. Therefore, our positions can certainly be considered biblical. You only consider them unbiblical because in your reading of the Bible you inject your own personal beliefs about what the Bible is saying, and that based on extrabiblical teachings and councils.

Your Temple ceremony is found where, exactly, in the Bible?

Your teachings that Moses and Abraham are gods, is found where, exactly in the Bible? Your teaching that god lives on a planet is found where, in the Bible? Or should I just read the entire Pearl of Great Price for you and ask you where it is found in the Bible?

Have you ever considered that your understanding of what the Bible reveals is incorrect? The Sacred Tradtions and the Councils, which are extrabiblical, are wrong?

Ummmm, yeah, I was raised LDS, and I consider that my understanding of the Bible was incorrect.

If what the LDS believe the Bible reveals is correct, then our understanding is Biblical; which then would flip the situation around and make your beliefs and understanding unbiblical.

Please tell me which catholic doctrines are not Biblical.

[saemo]

Candles are an anachronism. They used oil lamps. http://www.bible-history.com/ancient_oil_lamps/

Yes, same symbolic idea.

[David Waltz]

Hello LearningGuy,

It was but this afternoon that this thread was brought to my attention. As one who has been a serious student of Mormonism since 1987; as one who still entertains the possibility that the BoM may be true, and that the CoJCoLDS may in fact be the â??one, true, Churchâ?; as one who was received into the Catholic Church on the Easter Vigil of 2002 after years of intense research and prayer; as one who has spent almost three decades studying the early Church Fathers; as one who understands problematic areas that lie within each of the respective paradigms (RCC, EO, and CoJCoLDS); I would sincerely like to extend an offer to you from my heart to answer any question/s you might have pertaining not only your own personal search into this all important choice you are about to make, but also my own as well. (For what it is worth, have some personal resources that few possessâ??15,000 plus books on Christian related topics; including 1,700 plus that the are LDSâ??which I am able to draw upon.)

You shall be in my prayers.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. You may find the current discussion/s on my blog concerning the development of doctrine of some interest.

[Cold Steel]

So, I'm having a difficult time choosing what I believe or which Church is the true original Christian Church. I'll start reading the Book of Mormon soon, but the Orthodox Church always pulls my attention as well, esp. due to its worship style, which seems more ancient than LDS meetinghouse worship. Has anyone else had to decide between the LDS and another church? How did you come to your decision? Any thoughts on anything I brought up above would be welcome.

I have an admiration of the Orthodox Church and have taken the introductory lessons twice. I'm also fascinated by how much Orthodoxy has in common with the LDS church in regards to man's divine nature. I've read two books by Father Timothy Ware, who is one of the greatest Orthodox scholars and, I believe, he's a convert from the Anglican church.

Still, it's no contest for the LDS church. Living apostles and prophets = a living church. Orthodoxy prides itself on sticking with the seven ecumenical councils and tradition and is not happy with the Catholic church's "innovations," which they claim are completely void of tradition or scriptural support.

Take the matter to the Lord, though.

[David Waltz]

Hi Cold Steel,

You wrote:

>>I have an admiration of the Orthodox Church and have taken the introductory lessons twice. I'm also fascinated by how much Orthodoxy has in common with the LDS church in regards to man's divine nature.>>

Me: Official Catholic dogma has more â??in common with the LDS church in regards to man's divine natureâ? than that of the EOC. Catholics do not make the distinction between Godâ??s â??essenceâ? and His â??energiesâ? as do the Orthodox.

>> Still, it's no contest for the LDS church. Living apostles and prophets = a living church. Orthodoxy prides itself on sticking with the seven ecumenical councils and tradition and is not happy with the Catholic church's "innovations," which they claim are completely void of tradition or scriptural support.>>

Me: Apart from the filioque what â??innovationsâ? are you referring to?

Grace and peace,

David

[Cold Steel]

Official Catholic dogma has more â??in common with the LDS church in regards to man's divine natureâ? than that of the EOC. Catholics do not make the distinction between Godâ??s â??essenceâ? and His â??energiesâ? as do the Orthodox.

Since I don't have the volume in front of me (my wife packed it and some of my other books in a box), I can only refer you to Ware's The Orthodox Way. In it he explains that man is on a divine journey. He quotes St. Iren

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

I have no problem with the symbolism of using sun light, moon light, a campfire, oil lamps, candles, incandescent light bulb, or even a florescent tube in worship services

[The Investigator]

Learning Guy: Who are you and why are you stealing my schtick?

Here is the only reason you should become a Mormon: if you have a compelling spiritual witness to the truth of their gospel.

Don't choose it for reason and logic, because quite frankly, it doesn't hold up. There are too many unanswered questions and too many things that basically destroy the story of the religion.

The cognitive dissonance between that testimony and the facts of Mormonism is, quite frankly, torment beyond bearing.

This is one of the reasons I am very attracted to the Roman Catholic church, because I think that within the claims of Christendom, theirs hold true the best intellectually. I attended Mass for the first time this past Sunday and it was a very moving experience.

Also, I suggest you avoid CARM. Honest truth seekers like you and me are called Mormon shills, liars, deceivers, and much worse things. There's already a thread there in the Catholic section about you (they probably think you're my sockpuppet. I guess that Dan C. Peterson {that's us, BTW, the sock-puppet holder} just isn't hiding himself good enough).

However, if you should feel that by the power of the Holy Ghost you must join their church, you should.

I cannot.

[saemo]

saemo:

I have no problem with the symbolism of using sun light, moon light, a campfire, oil lamps, candles, incandescent light bulb, or even a florescent tube in worship services

Then you should come to Easter Vigil!

[LearningGuy]

Learning Guy: Who are you and why are you stealing my schtick?

Here is the only reason you should become a Mormon: if you have a compelling spiritual witness to the truth of their gospel.

Don't choose it for reason and logic, because quite frankly, it doesn't hold up. There are too many unanswered questions and too many things that basically destroy the story of the religion.

The cognitive dissonance between that testimony and the facts of Mormonism is, quite frankly, torment beyond bearing.

This is one of the reasons I am very attracted to the Roman Catholic church, because I think that within the claims of Christendom, theirs hold true the best intellectually. I attended Mass for the first time this past Sunday and it was a very moving experience.

Also, I suggest you avoid CARM. Honest truth seekers like you and me are called Mormon shills, liars, deceivers, and much worse things. There's already a thread there in the Catholic section about you (they probably think you're my sockpuppet. I guess that Dan C. Peterson {that's us, BTW, the sock-puppet holder} just isn't hiding himself good enough).

However, if you should feel that by the power of the Holy Ghost you must join their church, you should.

I cannot.

thanks, I'll definitely take that into consideration. I think the main thing when finding out what you truly believe and if it is the truth is to not only do research into the beliefs, history, etc. of the faith, but to also supplement it with sincere prayer. The ONE thing I'm not a huge fan of in LDS practice is when missionaries tell an investigator to read the Book of Mormon, and if they pray with a sincere heart, God will reveal to them that it is Truth. Now, I'm not saying whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, and from jeff lindsay's website, I can see some good claims for evidence in favor of it. I just think it's an interesting thing to ask an investigator, because you might think, "well, if I don't get a revelation that it is true, then maybe I'm not praying hard enough", or something to that effect. Obviously I believe that prayer is important and God does answer prayers and provide blessings, but I just don't like the way this is asked of an investigator. Maybe I'm just over analyzing

As far as CARM, I've been Catholic for 20 years, read extensively on Catholic theology, history, and liturgy, and was a catechist a couple years ago (taught Confirmation and upper elementary sunday school). I even wrote an article at my college (georgetown) about how one of the sunday Masses was definitely not following normal rules and was promptly told that the Church needs to become less strict. So no, they won't be able to "set [me] straight" or tell me that i'm not "truthful". It actually makes me laugh when I see Catholics behaving like fundamentalist Christians, because these SAME Catholics cry foul when one of them (like bibletruth) comes in and says that they worship Mary and statues, works aren't important, believe in "another Jesus/Mary/gospel", etc. etc. Frankly, some of the same statements made against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both are many times called non-Christian, cult, etc. Oh well, I'm already arranging to go to sacrament meeting this Sunday, and will go to Orthodox (OCA) vigil as well. Can't wait.!

[David Waltz]

Hello again Cold Steel,

Thanks for responding to my post. You wrote:

>> Since I don't have the volume in front of me (my wife packed it and some of my other books in a box), I can only refer you to Ware's The Orthodox Way. In it he explains that man is on a divine journey. He quotes St. Iren

[furii]

Then you should come to Easter Vigil!

I am not a huge fan of Catholicism. Having attended several masses, I quite enjoyed the...sermon? would you say? given by the priest, but it only lasted 5-10 minutes. The rest of the hour was filled with ceremony I did not understand the need for as it brought no Spirit to me, and in some cases did not at all enjoy (incense drives me bonkers, I hate it!) However, I attended Easter Vigil with one of my best friends who was erm...receiving his Communion I believe? Sorry, I am so rusty on terminology, it's been a while since I've had a Catholic discussion with a friend, he explained it all at the time. Anyways, it was one of the most beautiful services, I enjoyed the candles and the part outside around the statue of Christ. I still have my candle from it, even though it was five years ago. Oddly enough, it reminded me of testimony meeting at girls' camp, sitting in a pavilion in the woods, in the dark, a few lamps around us our only light...

I think Investigator's post was particularly poignant. Join only if the Spirit testifies you. The world is going to hell it seems, and is heading further and further away from the light of Christ. The arguments will become louder and angrier, and most likely smarter as well. The logic will be temptingly agreeable, the facts seemingly undeniable. It is a hard fight. I find the fight on this board all the time. The fight to know that there are some things we do not have perfect explanations for, because Christ demands faith of us. Which means there will be stuff we don't know, because if we see all the steps in perfect clarity, what test is there? The church gives us a light that helps us see each step as we come to it, but continuing on requires faith.

Don't let that discourage you though. I for one love a good argument. I have also found that the more I hear to the contrary, the more I believe in the truthfulness of this church. And that is a belief, a knowledge (that's right, I said knowledge, and I DARE someone to bite me for it!) that I would not trade for anything.

I hope this little mini rant helps!

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent post, 3DOP.

Early Christian services were based on the Jewish liturgy. Which includes prayers, music, incense, vestments, the presence of an altar, sacrifice, etc.

I very much doubt that the earliest Christian services (in the days of apostles) included vestments or sacrifice.

That prayers and music were included is obvious. That there was a table for the sacrament of the Lord's supper is also likely.

[David Waltz]

Hello yet once again Cold Steel,

Here is a bit more from your last post:

>> â??Not God by nature, of course," Ware said. "We are not to be additional Members of the Trinity. But we are to participate in the Life of the Trinity."

He knows not where he stumbles. If I'm correct in my assessment, man will become "God" literally, or at least those who gain eternal life in God's kingdom. God is, to me, an inclusive term. Man calls it the "Trinity," but the scriptures nowhere limit the Godhead to three individuals. In other words, St. Athanasius boldly stated the truth, a truth that neither Catholics nor Protestants are able to bear.>>

Me: Once more, the EO make a clear distinction between God in His â??essenceâ? and God in His â??energiesâ?, that is why Ware and other EO authors are able to say that the saints become God, but not God by nature (i.e. essence). And they go even further with this distinction, the saints will never see nor know God in His essence. Catholic dogma explicitly rejects both of these two latter EO teachings and affirms that the saints will both see and know God in His nature/essence.

You also posted:

>>Orthodoxy decries anything outside of the scriptures and the seven ecumenical councils as unauthorized additions. The assumption of Mary is but one more bone of contention. Neither scripture nor tradition gives us any evidence that Mary was taken up without tasting death.>>

Me: The EO Church also believes in the bodily assumption of Mary in to heaven, it is even part of their liturgical calendar. The only difference on this issue is that the EO emphatically claim that Mary died before her assumption, while Catholics remain â??openâ??, allowing both interpretations to exist (though most Catholic theologians also affirm and teach that she died before her assumption).

Sincerely hope this clears up a few misunderstandings.

Grace and peace,

David

[saemo]

I am not a huge fan of Catholicism. Having attended several masses, I quite enjoyed the...sermon? would you say? given by the priest, but it only lasted 5-10 minutes. The rest of the hour was filled with ceremony I did not understand the need for as it brought no Spirit to me, and in some cases did not at all enjoy (incense drives me bonkers, I hate it!)

The first Mass I went to, I spent most of the time with an inner dialog that mainly involved, "What the hell is going on here?". I speant the week thinking of what I liked. My list: prayer, stained glass windows, the older woman who was really nice to me.

I went for four months, every Sunday, before I finally figured out that the entire service was about, and centered on, worship of Jesus. I spent a lot of time after that reading about the Mass.

Now, I can't wait for Sundays and try to get to a morning, weekday Mass, if I can.

Incense is not used at every Mass. The parish I go to never uses it. I go to another parish once in a while because I miss the incense, and Latin.

I think Investigator's post was particularly poignant. Join only if the Spirit testifies you. The world is going to hell it seems, and is heading further and further away from the light of Christ.

This I agree with and leave you with this scripture:

Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. (John 15,4)

[olympus]

Interesting topic.

For what it's worth, I attend an Orthodox church but have not converted to the faith. I enjoy the liturgy, and that is the main reason I go back. I was drawn by the ancient style of worship, something that has been handed down for centuries (through the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil especially). I also like their theology, mainly because of how it has been influenced very little (if any) by the problems and perils of the western church (especially protestantism).

That being said, I am no idealist. Many of the traditions in the eastern church formed over the second through fourth centuries. While the Orthodox typically will argue that their traditions extend the entire way back to the apostles, it seems a bit more conjecture and wishful thinking IMO. Regardless, I still see it as a very pure tradition as has been passed down especially since the time of the Church fathers.

I suppose one of the main drawback I have with Mormonism (or any other restorationist type chruch) is that there is such a delay in time. Of what purpose would it be to God to wait hundreds (if not thousands) of years until he would restore his true church. I do not doubt there are some amazing things to learn within restoration type religions, but I fail to see the practicality of it on a variety of different levels. As I mentioned in other posts I was a Jehovah's Witness for about seven years, another group that teaches there was an apostasy and that they restored truth. Thinking that God had to wait two thousand years till the Watchtower showed up to restore truth appears quite absurd to me, and so applying this same logic to other groups proves quite difficult in my mind.

[Deborah]

I suppose one of the main drawback I have with Mormonism (or any other restorationist type chruch) is that there is such a delay in time. Of what purpose would it be to God to wait hundreds (if not thousands) of years until he would restore his true church.

But that is only an issue if time is a concern, which in eternity it's not. God's time is not man's time and if you consider as LDS believe that a day for God is a thousand years for man we are looking at a few days. It's not as though God's purposes weren't being fulfilled in that time to prepare for the Restoration and that individuals weren't receiving enlightenment. Furthermore, in the LDS church, all of those who lived before have the same opportunities to learn and receive the ordinances as those who came after the restoration. Therefore the time factor is really a non-issue.

[Darth_Bill]

>Of what purpose would it be to God to wait hundreds (if not thousands) of years until he would restore his true church.

History of the Christian church isn't very pretty. Even in the enlightened 1800's, Joseph lasted less than 40 years. I shudder to think at how long a prophet would have lasted in the 1000's. Given the restored church's doctrine's about the dead, the time thing is a non-issue.

As to "becoming god"...Blake Ostler contends that given the uncreated and created gulf the proto-orthodox churches have, there can never be a bridging of the gulf, that man can never become 'god' and unity is impossible. I might be overstating his case but he said something similar at least.

[Rommelator]

I shudder to think at how long a prophet would have lasted in the 1000's

How long does it take to get someone from their house to the dungeon?

Of what purpose would it be to God to wait hundreds (if not thousands) of years until he would restore his true church.

Of what purpose would it be to God to wait thousands of years to send his Son Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of the world?