The LDS Restoration Concept and Criticisms

[Garden Girl]

Hi Mudcat..

I'm happily reading along everyone's posts... I have a couple of thoughts which I might add, but there seems to be a good exchange going on. Sometimes I just don't have the energy to jump in, but I'm enjoying being here.

GG

[Mudcat]

Lightbearer,

As always, thanks for a kind, thoughtful and courteous response.

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

Yeah, its a big topic. I haven't really thought of addressing it holistically before. But I think its worth talking about.

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: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?

So we have an angel preaching the Gospel to all the earth. Your question (emphasis mine) asserts that John believed the Gospel had been preached to all the world, which would include every single individual of what he percieved "world" to be. I don't think that concept can be scripturaly supported.

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?

Emphasis mine. IMO, if we were to extend tradition to include LDS, I would ask you.

Do you think every person on earth has heard the Gospel?

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

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

The Scripture you ref. seems to point that John was not only an angel, but also subordinate to Peter. Is JS also? Are they both subordinate to Isaiah or Moses?

And of course the following: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.

Well I would disagree, in respect to all that will ever be. I think Christians look forward to the rest of the story, when we are past this life.

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: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.

Well, I would disagree with the concept that the Church, as I perceive it, is being led by a book, rather I would consider Christ it's foundation. I suppose I would counter that the Savior himself, said Scripture could not be broken. A portion of the LDS Restoration seems to rest upon the fact that is has been broken and mended.

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

Well, I agree that false teachers had emerged, nearly as early as Christianity was founded and IMO nothing in that regard has changed much. In regards to your statement towards the apostles as foundational, well I can only agree with you in the respect that their transmission of the teachings of Christ was foundational and the establishment through the preaching of the Gospel and so forth.

I think both of us are cognizant these winds of doctrine have blown and continue to blow. But also IMO, no religious institution has quelled the winds. LDS restoration philosophy seems to indicate that there was a point in which not only did these winds break Scripture, they also broke all authority and for a time prevailed upon the earth. I don't agree with either point at present.

In regards to apostolic authority, IIRC, the RCC makes the claims of such... from Peter to Linus, Linus to Clement,..... The Eastern Churches make similar claims as well. Though I don't necessarily agree with their position or the LDS one. It seems to be foundational for any of the above listed. My thought to LDS would be, where in this line of apostolic authority that is promulgated by the RCC was authority lost?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Hi J,

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;

Well J, if the Bible says something is going to be on top of a mountain, but it literally doesn't mean the top of a mountain... then Israel seems as just a viable location then.

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?

Actually I may not be understanding this correctly. I thought LDS believe Jackson County, was withheld from them... much like Moses generation was withheld the promised land. Am I wrong? Have LDS abandoned Jackson as the prophesied place for Zion?

[Mudcat]

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 )

Hi Slambobbi,

Thanks for the links, I agree with Lindsay, that Michael Ash's article in your second link is a little more thorough. Conceivably, one could draw possible conclusion that Qumran community was baptizing, though the difficult part would be tying their ritual into a Christian baptism and we would see in the early BoM. The argument from LDS might be that the Qumran ritual was an apostatized distortion of such a Christian baptism but the proof of such would be difficult IMO. Though I am interested in the concept if you or others have more information on the topic.

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.

This was what I was looking for, and I have seen it mentioned before.

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.

Emphasis mine. Could you expound on that a bit more? I am not sure I am following you completely.

Besides reading the BOM have you attended church occasionally with your wife?

I don't usually make a practice of it, as my own church requires a good deal of my time. But I have attended with her.

I have gone to a number of social functions they have put on and if we get one of the 1stP or Q12 around, I will go to hear them speak. Christopherson was the last one I heard at a stake conference. Nice guy.

Have you sat down to have a pow wow with her bishop or one of the high council members and ask questions?

Her Dad has served as the branch Pres and on the HC we have had many at length discussions. The new branch Pres. is a transplant to the South, he was from the mid-West and where I might call my Dad-in-law a doctrinally conservative LDS, the new guy is more liberal. He comes by on occasion and I swap emails with him from time to time.

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

Actually, I have been blessed in that regard, thanks for asking and hope your bus. is well too.

Respects,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

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?

Hey Wade,

Well I would agree that priesthood as it relates to LDS restorationism, is well worthy of discussion. Of the two broad aspects of restoration in the OP it is certainly the most prominent. Your question of what differing positions associate with tasks/duties/roles of the priesthood and authority for it is highly relevant.

From my own perspective, I would say that anyone who is a Christian is a priest/priestess. I suppose in contrast to other positions, our perception might be seen as cheapening the subject, given the fact that others restrict the office to certain members who meet certain requirements. Since we are the on the topic, the LDS Melchizedek Priesthood would be a good example. I don't know all the in's and out's of what the qualifiers for membership to this order are, but I suppose I am curious if ... given the fact that they do make exclusion of some membership.. the requirements are completely supported by scripture?.. I suppose the same goes for the RCC... maybe 3DOP, Soren, Waltz, etc.. could weigh in on that.

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.

Well, I think that is THE BIG DEAL, what authority does a priesthood holder have? I'll answer from my own position. It is my belief that such a person has the ability and authority to act in whatsoever fashion/duty they may, if such action be in accordance with God's will. Baptism, preaching the Gospel, praying, prophecy, healing, blessing, casting out demons, etc... I would note, that the SBC church I attend does hold to the position that women are not to pastor congregations. I disagree on that point. If God has called women to preach, I make no pretense to judge her against Paul's admonitions. If her ministry is fruitful, then the proof of it lies there. I suppose this requires me to work about 'out of bounds' of the textual... but what I am to say?

As a side note, your statement "the Word remained on earth." I am not fully understanding. I assume you mean the Bible?

I tend to think of the Bible as a record of God's word and the Word as Christ, but I suppose I am interested in what you mean by that.

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.

Emphasis mine Wade. I suppose in regards to LDS, this is what I run into a bit of difficulty with... on a number of levels. For one, its highly restrictive. The restriction goes beyond the most faithful of believers, its gender exclusive and prior to the most recent printed revelation in the D&C went beyond gender as well, as it was racially exclusive of some. -Hopefully, I won't derail my own thread on that one topic, as I applaud LDS efforts in regards to race to become more inclusive.

The RCC, seems to have their own set of restrictions, as well.

I suppose 'restriction' isn't the most appealing word, but if we call it something else it will still mean the same thing. Some are ineligible.

The problem with that, IMO, is that those who are eligible, are by virtue held to a different standard. If we say that you have to Melc. Priest to give the gift of the HG. If the Melc. Priest is conditionally set apart from other believers, then his action is intercessory. He stands between God and the believer with the singular authority to to give this gift. God can't give the gift directly, nor can the believer receive it from someone other than such as a Melc. Priest..... if the LDS have the right of it.

The problem is that man is an imperfect filter. I am extrapolating, but this is a hypothetical. There was a Melc. Priest, he served as a Stake Pres. and High Council, however he was engaged in actions for a number of years that were ex-communicable. Let's say he was caught and his sins were discovered at some point and he was duly excommunicated. In between his excommunication and his initial engagement in such actions he had performed various priesthood blessings, baptisms, had given many the gift of the HG. What of these priesthood actions he had inappropriately followed through with. Were they of no effect? Should those people be reblessed, rebaptised, regiven the gift of the HG?

From my understanding, the LDS position would be no they wouldn't. But why?

I suppose I could have drawn a similar parallel for the RCC, but this seemed fitting.

I think the short answer from an LDS might be that God steps in to fill the gap. IMO, God stepping in to fill the gap, is the Evangelical position.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

As always, thanks for a kind, thoughtful and courteous response.

Yeah, its a big topic. I haven't really thought of addressing it holistically before. But I think its worth talking about.

Mudcat, it is always a pleasure having a dialogue with you, I appreciate your respectful manner and christian bearing.

So we have an angel preaching the Gospel to all the earth. Your question (emphasis mine) asserts that John believed the Gospel had been preached to all the world, which would include every single individual of what he percieved "world" to be. I don't think that concept can be scripturaly supported.

The point that I was trying to make was not that I thought John thought the gospel had been preached to all the world, or that I thought that, instead I was pointing out that why would God send an angel in the last days to preach the everlasting Gospel to all the world if the fulness of the Gospel already existed in it's pure form in traditional christianity?

Emphasis mine. IMO, if we were to extend tradition to include LDS, I would ask you.

Do you think every person on earth has heard the Gospel?

No, that is why LDS continue to preach the Gospel to as many nations as we can.

The Scripture you ref. seems to point that John was not only an angel, but also subordinate to Peter. Is JS also? Are they both subordinate to Isaiah or Moses?

As for John the Baptist, yes he was subordinate to Peter, James and John who were the First Presidency in their dispensation. They were the last to hold those keys and so they were the ones who could give Joseph Smith His authority as the head of this dispensation of the fullness of times. They are not subordinate to Moses or Isaiah, although Moses did confer keys on Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, just as he did to Peter, James, and John on the mount of transfiguration. Joseph Smith is a dispensation head just as Peter, James, and John and Moses was.

Well I would disagree, in respect to all that will ever be. I think Christians look forward to the rest of the story, when we are past this life.

Then what is the purpose of the angel's proclaiming the gospel? It seems that the need for the angel indicates more of the story is needed.

Well, I would disagree with the concept that the Church, as I perceive it, is being led by a book, rather I would consider Christ it's foundation. I suppose I would counter that the Savior himself, said Scripture could not be broken. A portion of the LDS Restoration seems to rest upon the fact that is has been broken and mended.

Well the impression given by some in traditional christianity is that the Bible is the "last word" and the "authority" of their church. Scripture can be "broken" when it is perverted by men and in fact John and Moses warned those who would pervert the scriptures by making unathorized additions or removing words from the word of God. If this was not possible then why the warnings? Just as only God can add to His word through His prophets (as He did with the New Testament) also only God can mend broken scripture through revelation to prophets is what the LDS claim.

Well, I agree that false teachers had emerged, nearly as early as Christianity was founded and IMO nothing in that regard has changed much. In regards to your statement towards the apostles as foundational, well I can only agree with you in the respect that their transmission of the teachings of Christ was foundational and the establishment through the preaching of the Gospel and so forth.

It seems Paul was doing more than just transmission of the teachings of Christ in a foundational way, it seems he was administering to the churches in a way to support and to counter the false teachers. The book of Acts to me shows the way the apostles managed the church as general authorities who answered questions and established doctrine as well as preached the gospel.

I think both of us are cognizant these winds of doctrine have blown and continue to blow. But also IMO, no religious institution has quelled the winds. LDS restoration philosophy seems to indicate that there was a point in which not only did these winds break Scripture, they also broke all authority and for a time prevailed upon the earth. I don't agree with either point at present.

Yes the LDS position is that there was an apostasy of the Church, once the apostles were dead or taken from the church in the case of John, then there was no way for the church to remain in tact. In the LDS we see the apostles and prophet as anchors of doctrine who keep heresy and apostates from destroying the church today. There are those in the church that may attempt it, but they are not successful in the main in their attempts.

In regards to apostolic authority, IIRC, the RCC makes the claims of such... from Peter to Linus, Linus to Clement,..... The Eastern Churches make similar claims as well. Though I don't necessarily agree with their position or the LDS one. It seems to be foundational for any of the above listed. My thought to LDS would be, where in this line of apostolic authority that is promulgated by the RCC was authority lost?

From my estimation the lost of apostolic authority occurred with the death of the apostles and the removal of John from the Church. It was gradual in one sense, doctrines gradually changed, ordinances changed and the keys did not go one generation past the apostles. Peter was not the first "pope" and the popes did not have apostolic authority and they became much as the jews did at the time of Christ, they depended on tradition and philosophical speculations. In fact traditional christianity has declared the heavens sealed and that revelation ceased with the time of the apostles.

I hope this clarifies my earlier post.

Respectfully,

Lightbearer

[Mudcat]

JDave,

Admittedly, I feel affable towards your demeanor and your thoughts. We might not always agree. But you are in my 'cool book', for sure.

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 get it know. Thanks for explaining.

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?

Emphasis mine. That is a big question to ask LDS. I suppose from my understanding of LDS lit, this dispensation is the only one that exceeds restoration. All others seem to be restoring the same thing. This one seems to be adding, by dispensation, to the restoration. But, from my understanding LDS believe in multiple dispensations. I am assuming that either dispensation=restoration or there is something I am missing here.

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.

Actually, I would unsurprisingly follow with the RCC on both counts, but obviously with alternative meaning. In regards to Matt. 17:11 and Acts 3:21, I wouldn't mind discussing the context of either as I see them in a different light.

2nd Thess. 2:3 is a case unto itself. I suppose most would tag 'that man of sin' as Nero. Anyways, I suppose the question is does falling away = total apostasy? Given the context, it seems to me that the falling away is purposeful in revealing 'that man of sin'.

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.

I suppose its not what you read, but how you read what you read. We may always read it differently, but your 2 cents are always welcome.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[shalamabobbi]

Hi MC,

Thanks for the links, I agree with Lindsay, that Michael Ash's article in your second link is a little more thorough. Conceivably, one could draw possible conclusion that Qumran community was baptizing, though the difficult part would be tying their ritual into a Christian baptism and we would see in the early BoM. The argument from LDS might be that the Qumran ritual was an apostatized distortion of such a Christian baptism but the proof of such would be difficult IMO. Though I am interested in the concept if you or others have more information on the topic.

I guess you have a different take on 1 Cor 10:1-5 but look at Psalm 99: 6, 7 as well.

What seems significant is that any form of baptism existed prior to J the B. Admitting this one has to ask whether there was revelation from God prior to the Christian era and if so what the purpose was. Would it be to save ancient soles? If so would there be a different method of salvation for them than for later folk? The secular view that Christianity evolved from other teachings and was not a revealed religion I assume you would dismiss. So what does that leave? Where do ancient peoples fit into the plan of salvation, especially since that salvation can only be found in Christ? The NT seems pretty clear that Abraham is saved. How did that happen? Is there another gospel of Christ? And if we negate the Americas and other parts of the world again acceptable to the secular view what does that say about God? Does He not know about these people? Or does He not care about them? How does He provide for their salvation?

Here's a few more links that I found interesting:

here is a non-lds reference to baptisms prior to John the Baptist.

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/mikveh.html

here's one for evidence of baptisms in america

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/anci...an-baptism.html

here's some about baptisms for the dead

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ancients/080227ancient.html

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:M_eJI...=us&strip=1

here's one about 'naked' baptism, not relevant but has some interesting symbology

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea@ozem...nt_baptism.html

post #30

From my understanding, the LDS position would be no they wouldn't. But why?

I suppose I could have drawn a similar parallel for the RCC, but this seemed fitting.

I think the short answer from an LDS might be that God steps in to fill the gap. IMO, God stepping in to fill the gap, is the Evangelical position.

Not my thread but here's a thought..

Except when the gap becomes so great that it cannot be spanned.

Else why the teaching in the NT about putting new wine into old bottles?

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.

Emphasis mine. Could you expound on that a bit more? I am not sure I am following you completely.

Nothing new that you haven't heard before. Just a reminder to continue to lay the matter before the Lord..

take care,

slamB