The Workings Of The Restored Gospel

[wenglund]

In another thread Brade requested:

Ok. Help me understand what are the workings of the restored gospel so that I can better understand how insignificant obscure elements of church history are to them.*

Since this request was tangential to the topic of that thread, I decided to open this thread to answer the request.

First, in order to understand the workings of the restored gospel, it helps to understand that the gospel isn't an end, in itself, but a means to an end. It is "the way" and "the path."

Second, it helps to understand where that path of the restored gospel is designed to lead. It is intended to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him.

Third, it helps to understand where we are currently at in relation to the end objective, and how the gospel has been designed so as to best enable us to get from where we are at to the end objective. We need to understand the resources, tools, and methodologies God has revealed for making that journey of faith.

I will begin by explicating the essentials, and then I will vet the higher levels of gospel workings.

This may be a rather lengthy process, but over the course of the extensive explication I would ask Brade and others to pay close attention to see how often, if ever, obscure aspects of church history are mentioned, or more importantly, whether obscure aspects of church history factor in to the workings of the gospel in bringing us to the intended end. By so doing, I am hoping that the insignificance and irrelevance of obscure aspects of church history will become self-evident.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

I think it would be helpful, if you explain what it is you are calling "obscure aspects of church history"..?

[LeSellers]

I think it would be helpful, if you explain what it is you are calling "obscure aspects of church history"..?

To whom are you addressing this question?

Either of the two (and many others, as well) could answer, but you seem to be looking for one of them to do so over the other(s).

Lehi

[wenglund]

I think it would be helpful, if you explain what it is you are calling "obscure aspects of church history"..?

I am fine with how Brade and others define it. I don't think this is point of much dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Verum]

This may be a rather lengthy process, but over the course of the extensive explication I would ask Brade and others to pay close attention to see how often, if ever, obscure aspects of church history are mentioned, or more importantly, whether obscure aspects of church history factor in to the workings of the gospel in bringing us to the intended end. By so doing, I am hoping that the insignificance and irrelevance of obscure aspects of church history will become self-evident.

For me, to be more specific about the more "obscure" elements of church history, we would have to answer the questions below in order to determine whether they are relevant in relation to the "restoring" of the gospel...

1) Does the possibility that Joseph Smith dishonestly and wrongfully coerced women to marry him undermine Joseph's role as the prophet that God trusted for the restoration of the gospel?

2) More broadly, does the possibility that Joseph Smith fabricated stories of his visions or revelations undermine the work of the restored gospel?

3) Does the possibility that the Book of Mormon was not a divinely translated book with historical origins undermine Joseph's role as the prophet of the restoration?

4) Does the possibility that Joseph's successors were preaching false doctrines and lying undermine the work of the restoration and the claim to an unbroken line of priesthood authority and continued revelation?

To me, the answer to all three question is yes. Validating the evidences of these claims are significant enough to deserve thorough analysis and scrutiny in order to more clearly determine whether Joseph was truly the prophet of the restoration and whether the restoration has continued through his successors. The Lord has clearly cautioned us against false prophets and even taught us how to recognize them "by their fruits".

Of course, the spirit is required in addition to study, but one cannot just ignore the history because they are content with the church's current state.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Verum

[Libs]

Lehi, I was asking Wade to define what he is calling "obscure aspects of church history". I have been reading along, on the other thread, and it's really not clear to me (even after reading it again). Is it the accusation of adultery? How the book of Mormon came about (head in a hat, etc)?

I donno, maybe I'm being dense, but I would like to have it spelled out a little more clearly.

[Verum]

One more thing to add..

If someone is fabricating their story or is posing as a fraud, wouldn't any evidences proving their fraud or fabrication likely be obscure, just in nature? If I am committing a fraud, I would probably do all I could to conceal it, so there's not likely any evidence that would be open or widely published or known if I am actively trying to conceal it.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Verum

[CA Steve]

Does the restoration of polygamy fall into the obscure element category?

[wenglund]

For me, to be more specific about the more "obscure" elements of church history, we would have to answer the questions below in order to determine whether they are relevant in relation to the "restoring" of the gospel...

1) Does the possibility that Joseph Smith dishonestly and wrongfully coerced women to marry him undermine Joseph's role as the prophet that God trusted for the restoration of the gospel?

2) More broadly, does the possibility that Joseph Smith fabricated stories of his visions or revelations undermine the work of the restored gospel?

3) Does the possibility that the Book of Mormon was not a divinely translated book with historical origins undermine Joseph's role as the prophet of the restoration?

4) Does the possibility that Joseph's successors were preaching false doctrines and lying undermine the work of the restoration and the claim to an unbroken line of priesthood authority and continued revelation?

To me, the answer to all three question is yes. Validating the evidences of these claims are significant enough to deserve thorough analysis and scrutiny in order to more clearly determine whether Joseph was truly the prophet of the restoration and whether the restoration has continued through his successors. The Lord has clearly cautioned us against false prophets and even taught us how to recognize them "by their fruits".

Of course, the spirit is required in addition to study, but one cannot just ignore the history because they are content with the church's current state.

Unfortunately, as may become clear over the course of this discussion, these question are not only premature at this point, but the wrong questions to ask, and are posed to the wrong people. Please stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Lehi, I was asking Wade to define what he is calling "obscure aspects of church history". I have been reading along, on the other thread, and it's really not clear to me (even after reading it again). Is it the accusation of adultery? How the book of Mormon came about (head in a hat, etc)?

I donno, maybe I'm being dense, but I would like to have it spelled out a little more clearly.

Different people will, in specific terms, define it differently, but that doesn't matter to the point that I am making. Generally speaking, and for purposes of this discussion, consider "obscure church history" to mean elements of church history that are not typically discussed at Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Essentially, the restored gospel is entailed in the Plan of Salvation, which consists of the creation, fall, and salvation. In other words it consist of spirit children of our Heavenly Father entering into mortality, or in other words becoming flesh and natural men, and then later undergoing a process of re-birth where the natural man dies and is raised up a spiritual man, emblemed in the ascension ordinances of baptism of water and fire, and culminating in the resurrection.

In fundamental terms, then, we are talking about a process rather than an event. We are talking, in most cases, about a change in our natures that takes place through growth in faith over time.

Notice that as yet there is no mention of obscure aspects of Church history. So, in terms of the essentials, obscure aspects of church history are not significant or relevant to the workings of the gospel and achievement of the gospel end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 27, 2012 by wenglund

[robuchan]

Different people will, in specific terms, define it differently, but that doesn't matter to the point that I am making. Generally speaking, and for purposes of this discussion, consider "obscure church history" to mean elements of church history that are not typically discussed at Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If analysis of "obscure church history" sheds light on the truthfulness of important church claims, then it can be important.

[robuchan]

Essentially, the restored gospel is entailed in the Plan of Salvation, which consists of the creation, fall, and salvation. In other words it consist of spirit children of our Heavenly Father entering into mortality, or in other words becoming flesh and natural men, and then later undergoing a process of re-birth where the natural man dies and is raised up a spiritual man, emblemed in the ascension ordinances of baptism of water and fire, and culminating in the resurrection.

In fundamental terms, then, we are talking about a process rather than an event. We are talking, in most cases, about a change in our natures that takes place through growth in faith over time.

Notice that as yet there is no mention of obscure aspects of Church history. So, in terms of the essentials, obscure aspects of church history are not significant or relevant to the workings of the gospel and achievement of the gospel end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How has any of this information related to the "restored gospel" been revealed to men?

[wenglund]

If analysis of "obscure church history" sheds light on the truthfulness of important church claims, then it can be important.

It may be important to one's own private, man-made approach to determining the truthfulness of church claims, but as I will continue to show, it isn't significant or relevant to the divine workings of the gospel. In short, that way is not God's way. As such, it shouldn't come as a surprise when that way leads to a different end than God's way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

How has any of this information related to the "restored gospel" been revealed to men?

This brings us to my next point in disclosing the divinely instituted, fundamental elements of growth in faith unto Christ--the most critical aspect of which is the object of our faith, or in other words, in whom we are to place our trust. Clearly, in terms of the gospel, our faith is in Christ, and our trust is to be placed in God. He is, and ought to be the ultimate authority of his own will and plan for mankind, and who it is he has called to lead his kingdom on earth. He is the ultimate source for spiritual truths (as far as they can be known or have faith therein.)

Notice that there was no mention made of putting faith and trust in obscure church history--a secular approach that isn't designed to adequately assess spiritual things, and shifts faith and trust from God to man.

So, here again we see that, essentially, obscure aspects of church history are not significant or relevant to the workings of the gospel and achievement of the gospel end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[robuchan]

This brings us to my next point in disclosing the divinely instituted, fundamental elements of growth in faith unto Christ--the most critical aspect of which is the object of our faith, or in other words, in whom we are to place our trust. Clearly, in terms of the gospel, our faith is in Christ, and our trust is to be placed in God. He is, and ought to be the ultimate authority of his own will and plan for mankind, and who it is he has called to lead his kingdom on earth. He is the ultimate source for spiritual truths (as far as they can be known or have faith therein.)

Notice that there was no mention made of putting faith and trust in obscure church history--a secular approach that isn't designed to adequately assess spiritual things, and shifts faith and trust from God to man.

So, here again we see that, essentially, obscure aspects of church history are not significant or relevant to the workings of the gospel and achievement of the gospel end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If your faith is to be in Christ and trust is to be placed in God, what motivates you to attend an LDS church and not another Christian denomination?

[wenglund]

As just intimated, it makes most sense that if we wish to come to Christ and to become like the Father, that we let them tell us how to do so, rather than us try to tell them. Since they would know, it makes most sense to use their approach rather than our own.

So, how is it that we let them tell us? What is the approach they have set forth?

Well, according to the restored gospel, for us personally, the approach that God has set forth, which puts faith and trust in him--letting him tell us, is mentioned in general terms in James 1:5:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

It is explained in more detail in Moroni 10:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

...and Alma 32:

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than ^adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a ^aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a ^bseed may be planted in your ^cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your ^dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to ^eenlighten my ^funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own ^alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your ^aknowledge ^bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your ^cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your ^dmind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is ^alight; and whatsoever is light, is ^bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye ^aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ^aground is ^bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the ^atree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with ^apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree ^bspringing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your ^adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the ^bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall ^areap the ^brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth ^cfruit unto you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[robuchan]

As just intimated, it makes most sense that if we wish to come to Christ and to become like the Father, that we let them tell us how to do so, rather than us try to tell them. Since they would know, it makes most sense to use their approach rather than our own.

So, how is it that we let them tell us? What is the approach they have set forth?

Well, according to the restored gospel, for us personally, the approach that God has set forth, which puts faith and trust in him--letting him tell us, is mentioned in general terms in James 1:5:

It is explained in more detail in Moroni 10:

...and Alma 32:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And how do you know the Book of Mormon (and for that matter the Bible) is the word of God?

[wenglund]

If your faith is to be in Christ and trust is to be placed in God, what motivates you to attend an LDS church and not another Christian denomination?

This is a tangential question that I don't wish to get into at this time, so let me just briefly answer by saying that I attend the LDS church because that is where I believe and trust that God wishes me attend and worship and believe.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

And how do you know the Book of Mormon (and for that matter the Bible) is the word of God?

This, too, is a tangential question that I don't wish to get into at this time, so let me just briefly answer by saying that I believe they are the word of God because that is what God has told me via the disclosed means.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[robuchan]

This is a tangential question that I don't wish to get into at this time, so let me just briefly answer by saying that I attend the LDS church because that is where I believe and trust that God wishes me attend and worship and believe.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And I suppose no "obscure historical facts" have any bearing whatsoever on your testimony like

--where Joseph was on April 6, 1820

--whether or not Joseph ever had any Gold Plates

--whether or not Ancient American prophets recorded revelations from God in reformed Egyptian on gold plates

--whether or not angels came to Joseph to restore God's priesthood

--or even whether not Jesus' body was in the tomb

--or whether or not a person named Adam married to a person named Eve ever lived

I suppose you can carve out an evaluation process for religion which completely removes any historical fact, just hear the teaching and if it sounds right go with it. I disagree, but I'm fine if that's how you look at world.

[Verum]

Essentially, the restored gospel is entailed in the Plan of Salvation, which consists of the creation, fall, and salvation. In other words it consist of spirit children of our Heavenly Father entering into mortality, or in other words becoming flesh and natural men, and then later undergoing a process of re-birth where the natural man dies and is raised up a spiritual man, emblemed in the ascension ordinances of baptism of water and fire, and culminating in the resurrection.

In fundamental terms, then, we are talking about a process rather than an event. We are talking, in most cases, about a change in our natures that takes place through growth in faith over time.

Notice that as yet there is no mention of obscure aspects of Church history. So, in terms of the essentials, obscure aspects of church history are not significant or relevant to the workings of the gospel and achievement of the gospel end.

If I understand you correctly, you hold the view that one can evaluate truthfulness of a gospel principle without needing to vet its origins. For example, if you receive a spiritual confirmation of the plan of salvation itself, you can ultimately trust that it is true regardless its origins of how came to be revealed or how it evolved. Is this accurate?

He is the ultimate source for spiritual truths (as far as they can be known or have faith therein.)

I take a more “bottom up” approach I guess and ask the following questions when evaluating certain truths:

-How can one learn about the plan of salvation?

Through prophets, or scriptures or written by prophets. While Christ is the ultimate source of truth, we can only learn about him through things written or said by men. And since man sometimes can fool us, we have to be careful of man, and evaluate their "fruits", as I mentioned earlier.

-How can one learn which supposed prophet teaches the “correct” plan of salvation?

One must discern which prophet is true. I have to rely on history to evaluate whether Joseph’s claims and fruits (along with the BOM) to evaluate whether he is as he claimed to be, prophet of the restoration, who properly restored the true teaching of the plan of salvation. In context of the restoration, one cannot simply trust in the plan of salvation without

Just because the plan of salvation though is true; though, doesn’t necessarily mean the church as it stands today is the only institution with exclusive authority to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances thereof.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Verum

[wenglund]

Notice that in the scriptures quoted above there was no mention made of appealing to obscure church history to assess the things of God. This makes sense since secular approaches, like appealing to obscure history, aren't designed to adequately evaluate spiritual things, and they shift faith and trust from God to man.

So, here once more we see that, essentially, obscure aspects of church history are not significant or relevant to the workings of the gospel and achievement of the gospel end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Freedom]

We would have to focus on aspects of church history that can be proven and not surmised. Much of what constitutes a problem for the church is not proven facts, but assumptions based on limited evidence and the rejection of contradictory evidence. As with the church of the bible, we are forced to seek God through personal revelation because clearly the church leaders were not perfect. I wonder, however, how someone can reject the restored gospel of Jesus Christ because of things Joseph may or may not have done, but accept the bible which proudly documents genocide and other atrocities. I also wonder how someone can reject God because He did not establish a perfect kingdom but then embrace an existence of utter hopelessness with no purpose. This is tantamount to choosing to starve rather than eating a meal because the broccoli is burnt.

[Freedom]

And I suppose no "obscure historical facts" have any bearing whatsoever on your testimony like

--where Joseph was on April 6, 1820

--whether or not Joseph ever had any Gold Plates

--whether or not Ancient American prophets recorded revelations from God in reformed Egyptian on gold plates

--whether or not angels came to Joseph to restore God's priesthood

--or even whether not Jesus' body was in the tomb

--or whether or not a person named Adam married to a person named Eve ever lived

I suppose you can carve out an evaluation process for religion which completely removes any historical fact, just hear the teaching and if it sounds right go with it. I disagree, but I'm fine if that's how you look at world.

These points are valid if proven false but of course, they have not been proven false. We are free to reject the religion if we are of the opinion that they are false but I have a spiritual witness that they are true and a complete lack of evidence to convince me otherwise. You would need to provide a fact that counters the claims of the restored gospel otherwise it is all theory signifying little.