The LDS Restoration Concept and Criticisms

[Mudcat]

I am interested in talking about the concept of LDS Restoration philosophy and its criticisms from non-LDS Christians.

From what I can gather the restoration is posited by LDS as restoring primarily a couple of things:

1. A Priesthood Restoration

2. A Scriptural Restoration

Both of those things could be easily be split into subcategories of other things that go along with them and if we need to do so, that is fine.

In regards to Priesthood restoration, the predominant competing views are from the RCC and from the Evangelical community though I am sure there are other views as well that may be well worth discussing. My question to any interested in the topic is why should your view be held as the authoritative one? and/or what do you see as the failures in alternative views?

In regards to a scriptural restoration, I would challenge LDS to make the case for what plain and precious things, in regards to scripture, have been restored through the LDS restoration ? and also what non-restorative apologetic arguments are?

***

I don't how much interest this thread will generate and I certainly don't want to isolate anyone from the discussion. I would note in regards to LDS/EV/RCC and other faiths, that given the fact that ultimately most arguments on the subject have an appeal to the Spirit. From what I can tell an appellation to the Spirit is a trump card that could be played on any side of the coin, but does not further discussion typically. It would be nice if we could approach this is as objective a manner as possible.

I'll be out for most of the day, but plan on responding to this thread later this evening.

[JLFuller]

I am interested in talking about the concept of LDS Restoration philosophy and its criticisms from non-LDS Christians.

From what I can gather the restoration is posited by LDS as restoring primarily a couple of things:

1. A Priesthood Restoration

2. A Scriptural Restoration

Both of those things could be easily be split into subcategories of other things that go along with them and if we need to do so, that is fine.

In regards to Priesthood restoration, the predominant competing views are from the RCC and from the Evangelical community though I am sure there are other views as well that may be well worth discussing. My question to any interested in the topic is why should your view be held as the authoritative one? and/or what do you see as the failures in alternative views?

In regards to a scriptural restoration, I would challenge LDS to make the case for what plain and precious things, in regards to scripture, have been restored through the LDS restoration ? and also what non-restorative apologetic arguments are?

***

I don't how much interest this thread will generate and I certainly don't want to isolate anyone from the discussion. I would note in regards to LDS/EV/RCC and other faiths, that given the fact that ultimately most arguments on the subject have an appeal to the Spirit. From what I can tell an appellation to the Spirit is a trump card that could be played on any side of the coin, but does not further discussion typically. It would be nice if we could approach this is as objective a manner as possible.

I'll be out for most of the day, but plan on responding to this thread later this evening.

The first thing Mudcat is for you to read the B of M to get a feeling for what the writers style is. I think that is important in order to dispel any notions that it was a concoction of a bunch of 19th century men. In my opinion you have approach the material with an open mind and entering with a prejudiced view excludes many of the nuances necessary to give the book a fair shake. Otherwise the first thing you think of is negative and not neutral. Can you say you have an open mind?

Anyway, another thing the restoration brought about was the understanding of the importance of ordinances. Next is temples, the nature of God, our relationship to God and Christ and each other, that God is again talking to his children through a prophet just as in OT days.

One additional. You talk about access to the spirit as a parochial thing and that it is different for each. I suggest that is not quote accurate. It seems scripture has laid out how we are to live our lives if we consider ourselves Christian or followers of Christ. A nuanced view is that without living our lives as directed we forfeit the ability to call on the Holy Ghost for assistance. So, successfully approaching the Holy Ghost is dependent on our life choices as the pre-qualifier not membership in any particular group.

[Mudcat]

The first thing Mudcat is for you to read the B of M to get a feeling for what the writers style is. I think that is important in order to dispel any notions that it was a concoction of a bunch of 19th century men. In my opinion you have approach the material with an open mind and entering with a prejudiced view excludes many of the nuances necessary to give the book a fair shake. Otherwise the first thing you think of is negative and not neutral. Can you say you have an open mind?

Hi JL,

I just recently reread the Standard Works in as objective a fashion as I feel is possible. I think it would be difficult to enter into any such endeavor with zero prejudice, though. It's a near impossibility to approach anything completely removed of preconceptions.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mars]

JL,

Give Mudcat a fair shake. He's a good guy.

[JLFuller]

JL,

Give Mudcat a fair shake. He's a good guy.

I do. Don't mistake my direct style as being dismissive. It isn't. It is just an old habit from my work life. It is supposed to be devoid of any editorializing. Judges hate that sort of thing. "Just the facts ma'am... just the facts."

[Mudcat]

JL,

Give Mudcat a fair shake. He's a good guy.

A Mudcat Shake..... sounds delicious.

Thanks for the kind words Mars. Hope things are good for you.

[JLFuller]

Hi JL,

I just recently reread the Standard Works in as objective a fashion as I feel is possible. I think it would be difficult to enter into any such endeavor with zero prejudice, though. It's a near impossibility to approach anything completely removed of preconceptions.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Excellent. The fact that you actually did the reading shows an interest. Most would not. That should be a good place to start. It isn't critical to understanding the subject but it really helps.

[JLFuller]

I am interested in talking about the concept of LDS Restoration philosophy and its criticisms from non-LDS Christians.

From what I can gather the restoration is posited by LDS as restoring primarily a couple of things:

1. A Priesthood Restoration

2. A Scriptural Restoration

Both of those things could be easily be split into subcategories of other things that go along with them and if we need to do so, that is fine.

In regards to Priesthood restoration, the predominant competing views are from the RCC and from the Evangelical community though I am sure there are other views as well that may be well worth discussing. My question to any interested in the topic is why should your view be held as the authoritative one? and/or what do you see as the failures in alternative views?

In regards to a scriptural restoration, I would challenge LDS to make the case for what plain and precious things, in regards to scripture, have been restored through the LDS restoration ? and also what non-restorative apologetic arguments are?

***

I don't how much interest this thread will generate and I certainly don't want to isolate anyone from the discussion. I would note in regards to LDS/EV/RCC and other faiths, that given the fact that ultimately most arguments on the subject have an appeal to the Spirit. From what I can tell an appellation to the Spirit is a trump card that could be played on any side of the coin, but does not further discussion typically. It would be nice if we could approach this is as objective a manner as possible.

I'll be out for most of the day, but plan on responding to this thread later this evening.

The first thing - scripture says there will be a restoration. It is found in Isaiah 2:1-3. “1 THE word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem (people of the Abrahamic Covenant). 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us ago up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” The Traditional Christians may say that means Israel but the Lord said in the tops of the mountains and all nations shall flow unto it. That doesn't fit Israel but it does fit SLC. He says the law (the restored gospel and ordinances) shall go forth out of Zion (wherever the saints of God live) and all nations shall flow unto it (genealogical work to establish links for eternal families aka temple work).

Acts talks about the subject too. "19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing (restoration of the body) shall come from the presence of the Lord (a priesthood ordinance); 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (The last part says the gospel has been had in each dispensation since Adam).

There are other scriptures too.

[SilverKnight]

In regards to a scriptural restoration, I would challenge LDS to make the case for what plain and precious things, in regards to scripture, have been restored through the LDS restoration ?

Hi Mud, I'll take on this one.

First, the "plain and precious things" does not refer to the Book of Mormon, but the totality of the revelations and concepts Joseph Smith revealed (including the D&C, temple, etc).

The "plain and precious things," in my opinion, amounts to a massive reformation of the illogical, unreasonable and problematic found in Biblical Christianity. Whether you believe him to be inspired or not, Joseph Smith did make an earnest attempt to "fix" some of the broken parts of Christian doctrine.

Christian Problem: eternal punishment in a gruesome hell

Restorationist Solution: three kingdoms, even the worst of which is 'not so bad'

Christian Problem: automatic damnation for those who die without Christ

Restorationist Solution: baptism for the dead

Christian Problem: salvation on grace/faith alone - irrelevance of personal accountability

Restorationist Solution: hybridized faith + works salvation

Christian Problem: stagnation of the saved, dissolution of family bonds at death

Restorationist Solution: eternal families, eternal progression, sealing, exaltation

Etc.

The list is quite long - indeed the the stated purpose of the theology/cosmology Joseph Smith cobbled together is, at the very least, an effort to bring Christianity back into the realm of the fair, the reasonable, the believable. It was an attempt to turn the vengeful, cruel, petty God of the Bible into a more approachable, more gentle, more human God.

[Mudcat]

Anyway, another thing the restoration brought about was the understanding of the importance of ordinances. Next is temples, the nature of God, our relationship to God and Christ and each other, that God is again talking to his children through a prophet just as in OT days.

I could potentially agree in regards to LDS positions on baptism and confirmation of the HG. As far as other Temple related ordinances (and I don't want to trod on ground LDS feel sacred on this) I think addition might equate better than restoration. I would rather focus on what LDS felt was restored rather than added after the restoration.

One additional. You talk about access to the spirit as a parochial thing and that it is different for each. I suggest that is not quote accurate. It seems scripture has laid out how we are to live our lives if we consider ourselves Christian or followers of Christ. A nuanced view is that without living our lives as directed we forfeit the ability to call on the Holy Ghost for assistance. So, successfully approaching the Holy Ghost is dependent on our life choices as the pre-qualifier not membership in any particular group.

My comments about the Spirit weren't neccessarily to say that we have recieved testimonies from differing sources. I just didn't want to turn these into a "The Spirit revealed it to me conversation". My beliefs find their roots in such a spiritual testimony.

But the insertion of a personal spiritual experience typically removes objectivity from a conversation because the are unprovable to a bystander and completely subjective.

[Brenda]

I recall a quote by a Catholic who said something like, within Christianity, only the Catholics and the LDS have a leg to stand on, because of authority. The Catholics claim to have an unbroken line of authority from Peter. The LDS claim to have a restored authority, also from Peter who appeared with James and John to ordain the Priesthood upon Joseph Smith.

Other Christian religions have no such claims.

So is this authority important? We call the Priesthood, the authority to act for God. We believe a person just doesn't decide to have this authority, but it must be ordained on him by one who has it.

John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit . . ."

Acts 6:5-6 "and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and . . . Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

My husband holds the Priesthood, and he was ordained (by the laying on of hands) by his father, who was ordained by his Stake President, who was also ordained by his Stake President, and this line goes back to Lorenzo Snow (the 5th President of the Church after Joseph Smith), and continues back to Joseph Smith, then to Peter, James, and John, which goes back to Christ.

So you see, we take authority very literally. It must be physically passed down person to person. Without this authority, one cannot baptize or perform any of the ordinances necessary for salvation. God's house is a house of order.

I don't know if this is what you meant, Mudcat. If not, feel free to disregard.

[JDave]

Interesting topic, Mudcat. I'll jump in.

I am interested in talking about the concept of LDS Restoration philosophy and its criticisms from non-LDS Christians.

From what I can gather the restoration is posited by LDS as restoring primarily a couple of things:

1. A Priesthood Restoration

2. A Scriptural Restoration

Both of those things could be easily be split into subcategories of other things that go along with them and if we need to do so, that is fine.

A major point that is often emphasized is Prophetic Revelation. Whether this is #3 or a subcategory of #1, I don't know. Having a prophet like unto Moses and Peter is a major restoration.

I also think that the Restoration philosophy makes more sense with a dispensational background. The idea that there have been several dispensations where prophets have led a group of covenant people, broken up by periods of apostasy, puts the latest apostasy period and subsequent restoration into perspective.

Another restoration is the covenant relationship between believers and God. Through priesthood ordinances, one may enter into a covenant with God. This is probably a subcategory of #1, but the meaning and power behind it is deep in its own right.

In regards to Priesthood restoration, the predominant competing views are from the RCC and from the Evangelical community though I am sure there are other views as well that may be well worth discussing. My question to any interested in the topic is why should your view be held as the authoritative one? and/or what do you see as the failures in alternative views?

I am not sure where you want to go with 'authoritative'. LDS say God restored the authority. RCC say God maintained the authority. EV says God has always been the authority. There is nothing inherent to any of these ideas that objectively points to being more 'authoritative'. Maybe you could clarify where you wanted to go with this.

In regards to a scriptural restoration, I would challenge LDS to make the case for what plain and precious things, in regards to scripture, have been restored through the LDS restoration ?

One thing that really sticks out to me is the idea that Jesus Christ and his gospel (faith, repentance, baptism) were taught from the time of Adam. The Book of Mormon clearly shows these topics being taught prior to Christ's mortal ministry. In essence, Christ not only taught His gospel, he restored it to the Jews who had lost that knowledge.

[Lightbearer]

An interesting yet expansive topic for discussion yet I will attempt to give my views on the subject:

First off the philosophy of the Restoration itself: let me begin by quoting an oft repeated scripture reference used by LDS Missionaries to bring attention to two concepts:

(Revelation 14:6-8 ) "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

First I would submit that John had said that the events depicted in this vision were primarily of things which were to come to pass after his time. Now John was writing in 98 A.D. or so and it appears that the Gospel had been preached thus far in the "known world" (Old World) and he seems to be seeing an angelic messenger having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth. Now if the Gospel had already been established throughout the earth, then why would this angel need to be sent forth? But the point is there was an apostasy from the original Church that was established by Christ and His apostles. Thus the need for angelic ministers in the last days to go forth and warn the world (the hour of His judgement is come) and to exhort them to worship the God of Heaven and as a result Babylon (or in other words spiritual wickedness) would fall and be destroyed. If traditional Christianity as it exists today were the correct path, then why would the angel need to proclaim it?

Now as to the two points of what the restoration consisted of:

1. A Priesthood Restoration

2. A Scriptural Restoration

I would also suggest that both of these restorations were done by angelic ministrants:

(Joseph Smith History 1:68-72) "We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me. Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized meâ??after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthoodâ??for so we were commanded. The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized."

And of course the following:

(Joseph Smith History 1:30-35) "While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; Also, that there were two stones in silver bowsâ??and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummimâ??deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted â??seersâ? in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book."

Also in connection with both of these restorations there is also the opening of the heavens of revelation. Traditional Christianity holds that the heavens are sealed, that the Bible is all there is or will ever be. With the restoration came the concept of continuing revelation to a living prophet and twelve apostles just as it was in the ancient original church. The restoration is based on the concept that "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God." And that God will answer every man who asks in faith. The idea that a book alone could lead the Church of Christ is a foreign concept to LDS, who believe in more than the Gospel coming in word only:

(1 Thessalonians 1:5)" For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake."

The ironic thing is that LDS seem to be condemned for the very thing the ancient Church did believe in: the revelation from Jesus Christ to His servants. The question is why should the Church have to drift on the doctrinal sea of uncertainty or philosophies of men to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine because the foundation of the Church is removed (living apostles) or living witnesses of Christ? The letters of Paul seemed to indicate that this apostasy was going on even while the apostles were alive and they tried to combat these false teachers in the church.

I could mention more but this is good for starters, hope this helps.

Lightbearer

[Jason]

Isn't this whole forum basically about this topic?

[Mudcat]

Thanks for all the responses, I am going to try to respond to them as much as I can this evening.

Isn't this whole forum basically about this topic?

Hey Jason,

Since your's seemed like a short answer question, I thought I would reply before I left work.

I think the forum deals with the restoration a lot. Typically, in very segmented portions, though. I also, think the forum has a plethora of other topics that it discusses.

I suppose I am trying to look at a 'big picture' of the concept. What is the real proof for all these lost things? Were they actually existent in the first place? Hopefully, I am making sense.

I am also wondering if there are any historical data outside of LDS literature, that would point to some corroboration that some of these things that were claimed to be lost, were actually extant at some past period. Something that historically pointed to baptism, in the sense of what LDS believe Adam passed down... might be an example though I am sure there are others that you or others might bring to mind.

Mudcat

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am interested in talking about the concept of LDS Restoration philosophy and its criticisms from non-LDS Christians.

From what I can gather the restoration is posited by LDS as restoring primarily a couple of things:

1. A Priesthood Restoration

2. A Scriptural Restoration

Both of those things could be easily be split into subcategories of other things that go along with them and if we need to do so, that is fine.

In regards to Priesthood restoration, the predominant competing views are from the RCC and from the Evangelical community though I am sure there are other views as well that may be well worth discussing. My question to any interested in the topic is why should your view be held as the authoritative one? and/or what do you see as the failures in alternative views?

In regards to a scriptural restoration, I would challenge LDS to make the case for what plain and precious things, in regards to scripture, have been restored through the LDS restoration ? and also what non-restorative apologetic arguments are?

***

I don't how much interest this thread will generate and I certainly don't want to isolate anyone from the discussion. I would note in regards to LDS/EV/RCC and other faiths, that given the fact that ultimately most arguments on the subject have an appeal to the Spirit. From what I can tell an appellation to the Spirit is a trump card that could be played on any side of the coin, but does not further discussion typically. It would be nice if we could approach this is as objective a manner as possible.

I'll be out for most of the day, but plan on responding to this thread later this evening.

I would say it is more accurate to state that it was a

1 A Priesthood restoration

2 a Doctrinal restoration.

JS did not restore the actual scripture that was in the bible as it was originally penned. It was the doctrines that would be restored. Good times. I hope this helps.

[jadams_4242]

Hi JL,

I just recently reread the Standard Works in as objective a fashion as I feel is possible. I think it would be difficult to enter into any such endeavor with zero prejudice, though. It's a near impossibility to approach anything completely removed of preconceptions.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Very good point; and of course it is the hardest thing to do; This is excatly what heavenly father means when he speaks of a true heart;

One cannot read scripture with the mindset of ok!; "prove it to me"! God doesnt need to "prove" anything to anyone; he invites us to come unto him; not the other way around.

[Mudcat]

The first thing - scripture says there will be a restoration. It is found in Isaiah 2:1-3. â??1 THE word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem (people of the Abrahamic Covenant). 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORDâ??s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us ago up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.â? The Traditional Christians may say that means Israel but the Lord said in the tops of the mountains and all nations shall flow unto it. That doesn't fit Israel but it does fit SLC. He says the law (the restored gospel and ordinances) shall go forth out of Zion (wherever the saints of God live) and all nations shall flow unto it (genealogical work to establish links for eternal families aka temple work).

Acts talks about the subject too. "19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing (restoration of the body) shall come from the presence of the Lord (a priesthood ordinance); 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (The last part says the gospel has been had in each dispensation since Adam).

There are other scriptures too.

Hey JL,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. In regards to your interpretation of Is 2:1-3, I agree with your parenthetical. Given a face value reading Isaiah is addressing Israel, as a people, at large. In regards to the remainder or your statement, the comparison that SLC is more fitting than Israel has some merit, but the SLC Temple wasn't located on the top of a mountain, last time I visited there at least. Maybe we should look for a Tibetan temple, if we are sticking with the script.

There is also a ref. to Zion in that passage, I thought LDS believed this physical location was in Missouri, and that doesn't seem to fit the locale either.

As to you second parenthetical, I would agree that this is the LDS perception. But a question I have is, what basis is there for me to believe the gospel and ordinances were lost?

On your third parenthetical, I have a little confusion. Seems JS thought Zion was in Missouri, however it seems you believe that wherever saints live is Zion(3rd parenthetical). How do you reconcile this?

As to your fourth parenthetical, as they relate to genealogies, you seem to assert proxy work = nations. Its an interesting concept and if I were take the purported authority by LDS for such, its well worthy of discussion. Though I suppose my thought would be, can we find evidence of vicarious works... aside from the ambiguous verse in Corinthians?

The sentiment of the passage seems to indicate those that are not of Israel will become of Israel. I'll probably table immediate discussion on it, but I think the concept is worthy of a thread to itself.

In regards to your parenthetical statement in Acts, I think they are to loose, excepting the first parenthetical. However, I don't want to make a carte blanche statement that I am incomplete disagreement. Rather, is there compelling evidence you would submit for parenthetical 2 or 3?

Sorry for all the questions, don't feel unduly pressed. I suppose we both have all the time in the world, unless we die, Christ returns or the economy crushes us and we can't pay our internet bills.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Hi Mud, I'll take on this one.

Hi SK!!!

Glad your on post!

*Mudcat slyly reaches into his utility belt for his Hell Discussion repellent*

First, the "plain and precious things" does not refer to the Book of Mormon, but the totality of the revelations and concepts Joseph Smith revealed (including the D&C, temple, etc).

The "plain and precious things," in my opinion, amounts to a massive reformation of the illogical, unreasonable and problematic found in Biblical Christianity. Whether you believe him to be inspired or not, Joseph Smith did make an earnest attempt to "fix" some of the broken parts of Christian doctrine.

OK, but where does restoration stop and addition begin? Are you saying that all that the CoJCoLDS teaches or has taught up to this point is restorative only? If doctrine continues to emerge from the CoJCoLDS is it simply restorative and the restoration is incomplete at present?

Christian Problem: eternal punishment in a gruesome hell

Restorationist Solution: three kingdoms, even the worst of which is 'not so bad'

But you still got hell in the LDS perspective, so I dunno that I follow you here. You are just saying less people go to hell and the only ones that go really had it coming.

*Mudcat notes - needs more laughing gas in the repellent*

Christian Problem: automatic damnation for those who die without Christ

Restorationist Solution: baptism for the dead

Unless you go with the concept posited by LDS that somehow all get this service in the millennial reign, I would assert that at present you haven't solved the problem

Christian Problem: salvation on grace/faith alone - irrelevance of personal accountability

Restorationist Solution: hybridized faith + works salvation

I think Grace Alone/Faith Alone doesn't make personal accountability irrelevant. In fact, I think salvation under such terms establishes it. I think the real discussion on this topic would relate to the cause of works. Is it caused by the transition or simply a requirement.

Christian Problem: stagnation of the saved, dissolution of family bonds at death

Restorationist Solution: eternal families, eternal progression, sealing, exaltation

Oh no, this sounds like one of those "Apple pie in the sky, sweet by and by, sitting on the bank...pudding on a cloud" accusations that I don't think you would find many on the other side of the equation agreeable with.

Etc.

The list is quite long - indeed the the stated purpose of the theology/cosmology Joseph Smith cobbled together is, at the very least, an effort to bring Christianity back into the realm of the fair, the reasonable, the believable. It was an attempt to turn the vengeful, cruel, petty God of the Bible into a more approachable, more gentle, more human God.

This seems like you nutshell statement here. I suppose, given my exposure to the Bible, I have never seen God as cruel and petty. Just above me, is all. At present I can only agree that (emphasis mine) LDS restorationsist philosophy has humanized God quite nicely.

Deepest Regards,

Mudcat

[jadams_4242]

Hey JL,

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. In regards to your interpretation of Is 2:1-3, I agree with your parenthetical. Given a face value reading Isaiah is addressing Israel, as a people, at large. In regards to the remainder or your statement, the comparison that SLC is more fitting than Israel has some merit, but the SLC Temple wasn't located on the top of a mountain, last time I visited there at least. Maybe we should look for a Tibetan temple, if we are sticking with the script.

There is also a ref. to Zion in that passage, I thought LDS believed this physical location was in Missouri, and that doesn't seem to fit the locale either.

As to you second parenthetical, I would agree that this is the LDS perception. But a question I have is, what basis is there for me to believe the gospel and ordinances were lost?

On your third parenthetical, I have a little confusion. Seems JS thought Zion was in Missouri, however it seems you believe that wherever saints live is Zion(3rd parenthetical). How do you reconcile this?

As to your fourth parenthetical, as they relate to genealogies, you seem to assert proxy work = nations. Its an interesting concept and if I were take the purported authority by LDS for such, its well worthy of discussion. Though I suppose my thought would be, can we find evidence of vicarious works... aside from the ambiguous verse in Corinthians?

The sentiment of the passage seems to indicate those that are not of Israel will become of Israel. I'll probably table immediate discussion on it, but I think the concept is worthy of a thread to itself.

In regards to your parenthetical statement in Acts, I think they are to loose, excepting the first parenthetical. However, I don't want to make a carte blanche statement that I am incomplete disagreement. Rather, is there compelling evidence you would submit for parenthetical 2 or 3?

Sorry for all the questions, don't feel unduly pressed. I suppose we both have all the time in the world, unless we die, Christ returns or the economy crushes us and we can't pay our internet bills.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Mudcat; i would like to give this a try? The first one yu ask of the mountain of the lords house; Does not mean litteraly on top off a mountain; There are many,many proofs of this biblicly;

The second yu ask; Zion and the gospel being lost; As you should allready know all about how this is reconciled on the issue of the zion in missouri?

The gospel being lost? I honestly beleive yu know about this as well; {its in the bible}.

Vicarious works other than corinthians?

Psalms 16;9-11. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.

john 5;25-29. The dead shall hear the the voice.

Rom 14;9. Lord both of the living and the dead.

1 cor; 15;19. If in this life we have hope only in Christ.

Phil; 2;9-11. Every knee shall bow in heaven, earth, and under the earth.

Heb; 11;40 They without us cannot be made perfect.

Now just to assert one idea; To automaticly assume that all whom have died have allready been consigned to an everlasting state of heaven or hell, and no amount of effort on there part can change that,; is to assume that they are judged before the day of judgement, which is going to be in the future. {rev 20}.

[Mudcat]

I recall a quote by a Catholic who said something like, within Christianity, only the Catholics and the LDS have a leg to stand on, because of authority. The Catholics claim to have an unbroken line of authority from Peter. The LDS claim to have a restored authority, also from Peter who appeared with James and John to ordain the Priesthood upon Joseph Smith.

Hi Brenda,

Glad you took the time to post. As per your closing, I would iterate that your post is definitively not for discard or ignorable. Authority is a critical point. In many discussions, I have seen the comparison between RCC and LDS submitted in that regard. It potentially puts the Evangelical in the position of "monkey in the middle". However, I don't feel that is the case.

Both positions RCC and LDS, IMO, suffer from the same problem. That being an imperfect filter (1st P & Q12 or The Vatican) that stands between God and man.

So is this authority important? We call the Priesthood, the authority to act for God. We believe a person just doesn't decide to have this authority, but it must be ordained on him by one who has it.

I don't feel a person just decides they have authority. Though I would diverge and say that it comes of God, not of man. I won't bother with the reference in 1st Peter that is leaned upon for my view. However, I will note that the opening of 1st Peter is addressed to strangers and also that Peter considers them of a royal priesthood.

Your Bud,

Mud

[shalamabobbi]

I am also wondering if there are any historical data outside of LDS literature, that would point to some corroboration that some of these things that were claimed to be lost, were actually extant at some past period. Something that historically pointed to baptism, in the sense of what LDS believe Adam passed down... might be an example though I am sure there are others that you or others might bring to mind.

Sorry about the cut and paste but it saves time. (source http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Baptism.shtml AND http://www.mormonfortress.com/bap.html )

It's a popular misconception that baptism was unknown before the time of Christ. Ritual washings go way back in Jewish tradition. When John the Baptist came on the scene, no one asked, "What's this strange ritual called baptism?" Immersion or washing as a covenant-making ritual was nothing new. As the quickest example I could pull out of a nearby book here in my basement, I refer you to pages 230-231 of Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1992, describing a passage from the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls:

"On the heels of this text, we come upon a series of fragments related to baptism. By baptism, of course, the reader should realize that the proponents of this literature did not necessarily mean anything different from traditional Jewish ritual immersion. The terminologies are synonymous, though the emphasis on baptismal procedures at Qumran is extraordinary. This can be seen not only in texts such as the one represented by these fragments and the well-known Community Rule, iii, 1-4, which in describing baptism makes reference to 'the Holy Spirit', but also the sheer number of ritual immersion facilities at the actual ruins of Qumran - if these can be safely associated with the movement responsible for this literature.

"Once again, one is confronted with the vocabulary of 'Glory', this time in terms of 'a law of Glory' (4.3), as well as, if our reconstruction is correct, 'the purity of Righteousness' or 'Justification' (4.4). There is reference to 'making atonement for us', being 'cleansed from pollution' as one 'enters the water', and the usual 'Laws of your Holiness' and 'Truth of Your Covenant'. "

Probably from the first century A.D., the text reflects more ancient traditions and shows that the concept of baptism was well established and part of long-standing Jewish tradition.

Update: - The story is much better than this. I refer you to Michael Ash's excellent article on allegedly anachronistic baptism in the Book of Mormon at http://www.mormonfortress.com/bap.html. He documents that evolution of knowledge: in Joseph's Smith day, any pre-Christian baptism was denied, making the Book of Mormon utterly ridiculous, hardly the sort of thing Joseph would make up to fool a Christian world. Later, evidence mounted that ritual immersion was important in Jewish practice before the time of Christ, but this was explained away as being somehow different from the "unique" Christian baptism of John the Baptist and Christ. Then came the Dead Sea Scrolls, with overwhelming evidence that baptism was performed before the time of Christ, filled with meaning once thought to be uniquely Christian. As has been the case in so many other areas, Joseph Smith's naive and idiotic Book of Mormon baptism mistake in 1827 has become compatible with serious modern scholarship once the scholars dug deeper. Now just how did he do that?

I don't know if this is outside of LDS literature as you requested. I assume you mean our scripture canons? If you disqualify it based upon being pro LDS I think we're at a brick wall.

I believe the objective requirement is where your test fails. Even Joseph Smith acknowledged that he would not have belived his story had he not experienced it himself.

Besides reading the BOM have you attended church occasionally with your wife? Have you sat down to have a pow wow with her bishop or one of the high council members and ask questions?

Hope the economy isn't being too oppresive on your business..

[wenglund]

Hi Mudcat,

You have initiated an interesting and potentially enlightening discussion.

To me, a good starting point for discussing whether a restoration of the priesthood was necessary or not, is to ask what-all do the respective parties believe the priesthood entails--what is its function, and what powers and authority is needed to accomplish that function?

If one perceives the priesthood as simply the power to teach the Word, with the authority to teach being derived informally from the Word itself, then one would likely not see a need for a restoration since the Word remained on earth.

However, if one perceives the priesthood formally as an administrative structure, with Christ proactively at the head, and governance fascilitated by revelation and inspiration, and powers and authority disseminated through established lines of authority, enabling those ordained thereto and who have been given certain keys, to speak and act in the name of God and to bind in heaven that which is bound on earth and to heal the sick and so forth, then one may likely see a need for priesthood restoration--particularly if one believes that Christ so revealed such a need and went on to effect the restoration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mudcat]

Hey JDave,

Thanks for you toughts.

Interesting topic, Mudcat. I'll jump in.

A major point that is often emphasized is Prophetic Revelation. Whether this is #3 or a subcategory of #1, I don't know. Having a prophet like unto Moses and Peter is a major restoration.

I also think that the Restoration philosophy makes more sense with a dispensational background. The idea that there have been several dispensations where prophets have led a group of covenant people, broken up by periods of apostasy, puts the latest apostasy period and subsequent restoration into perspective.

Another restoration is the covenant relationship between believers and God. Through priesthood ordinances, one may enter into a covenant with God. This is probably a subcategory of #1, but the meaning and power behind it is deep in its own right.

I agree, that the LDS posited existence of a living Prophet or the necessity of such, could be a separate issue unto itself. I am dubious towards the reference to Peter as a prophet, in a Mosaic sense.

I don't want to disregard dispensational thought, but as you have described in relation to Adam.... I don't know that "dispensation" fits the scenario. It seems that different points in time in which things are restored, but nothing added would be normative.... Seems Adam taught a fairly straightforward doctrine in regards to LDS texts, and his doctrine was restored again and again, until now and then it was added upon.

I am not sure where you want to go with 'authoritative'. LDS say God restored the authority. RCC say God maintained the authority. EV says God has always been the authority. There is nothing inherent to any of these ideas that objectively points to being more 'authoritative'. Maybe you could clarify where you wanted to go with this.

Where am I going? If we were to isolate the viewpoints and assume one is correct, then the others fail in being correct for some reason. I suppose I am interested in why other possible solutions are deemed a failure from any particular viewpoint. If that didn't come across clearly, let me know and I will try to restate it.

One thing that really sticks out to me is the idea that Jesus Christ and his gospel (faith, repentance, baptism) were taught from the time of Adam. The Book of Mormon clearly shows these topics being taught prior to Christ's mortal ministry. In essence, Christ not only taught His gospel, he restored it to the Jews who had lost that knowledge.

On the surface, as noted earlier, this statement seems to argue against dispensation and promotes restoration. Almost as though we keep loosing the same thing over and over and then it is restored. In that respect, dispensation seems to only apply to the CoJCoLDS and previous dispensations are only restorative.

Mudcat

[JDave]

I agree, that the LDS posited existence of a living Prophet or the necessity of such, could be a separate issue unto itself. I am dubious towards the reference to Peter as a prophet, in a Mosaic sense.

I included Peter because it would seem odd for Christ to come to earth and teach His gospel, then leave without having a prophet to lead His church. Especially in light of a defense of LDS restorationism, where a living prophet is very necessary. LDS doctrine is that prophets are an integral part of how God deals with mankind. I know there are other competing ideas about Peter, but I wanted to establish better what the LDS restoration concept entails. You may be dubious on Peter as a prophet, but restorationism is not.

I don't want to disregard dispensational thought, but as you have described in relation to Adam.... I don't know that "dispensation" fits the scenario. It seems that different points in time in which things are restored, but nothing added would be normative.... Seems Adam taught a fairly straightforward doctrine in regards to LDS texts, and his doctrine was restored again and again, until now and then it was added upon.

...

On the surface, as noted earlier, this statement seems to argue against dispensation and promotes restoration. Almost as though we keep loosing the same thing over and over and then it is restored. In that respect, dispensation seems to only apply to the CoJCoLDS and previous dispensations are only restorative.

I think I see your point, especially since there is some emphasis on our current dispensation being a Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, a dispensation that will not fall into apostasy and that is blessed with all the keys and gospel truths of dispensations past. It is not simply a restoration, it is THE GREAT restoration that has been foretold.

It seems, however, that in dispensations (times) past differing degrees of knowledge and priesthood were present. The law given to the people of Moses was given as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, and it was given because they could not handle more (Galations 3). I don't see how a differing level of knowledge in our current dispensation, or any previous, would not fit a dispensational view. Maybe I will understand if you explain this: In what way is a dispensation greater than a restoration, or how are they different?

Where am I going? If we were to isolate the viewpoints and assume one is correct, then the others fail in being correct for some reason. I suppose I am interested in why other possible solutions are deemed a failure from any particular viewpoint. If that didn't come across clearly, let me know and I will try to restate it.

I misunderstood how you meant authoritative.

From an LDS restorationist view, the RCC view is faulty because it is prophesied that there must be a falling away (Thess. 2) and restoration of the gospel (Matt. 17:11, Acts 3:21). The RCC view is that there is no need for a restoration because there was no apostasy of priesthood or knowledge.

From an LDS restorationist view, the EV view is faulty for the same reasons, that the falling away will be followed by a restoration of the church. The scriptures teach that this restoration will happen before the second coming of Christ.

So essentially we view the other competing ideas as false because the Bible prophesies certain events and we interpret the Restoration through the LDS church as fulfilling those prophecies. My two cents at least.