The Restored Church - What Does This Really Mean?

[The Grimace]

Branching off from another discussion, a poster wrote:

"The LDS Church proclaims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ; restored by the Lord's hand, maintains the same organization that he instituted while on earth, with full authority to act in his name"

Additionally, the sixth Article of Faith states, "We believe in same organization that existed in the primitive church..."

But, what does this really mean? What church has been restored? Is it a Jewish Christian church that many scholars suppose that Jesus founded - retaining Jewish heritage and traditions while expanding into new Christian concepts. Or is it the Pauline Christianity which was much more successful, yet influenced heavily by Paul of Tarsus and his interpretation and expansion on Jesus' teachings?

Or is it simply a structural restoration - twelve apostles and a metaphorical godhead (the First Presidency), with all other teachings new or revised?

[DBMormon]

Restored Church = God has sanctioned a church to operate with his Priesthood, Authority, and binding Ordinances. This church has been estabilshed after a time period Of God removing his sanstion on a church to have Priesthood, Authority, and binding Ordinances.

I am also comfortable with God using other churches and faiths to help his children progress but this church is the only one with the attributes above. This seems only natural knowing that only .2 % of people are LDS and for God to reach more then .2% which seem ludicris he has to be working through other outlets to help his children have the same potential and opportunity for grwoth and exhaltation.

Edited September 3, 2012 by DBMormon

[Storm Rider]

Branching off from another discussion, a poster wrote:

"The LDS Church proclaims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ; restored by the Lord's hand, maintains the same organization that he instituted while on earth, with full authority to act in his name"

Additionally, the sixth Article of Faith states, "We believe in same organization that existed in the primitive church..."

But, what does this really mean? What church has been restored? Is it a Jewish Christian church that many scholars suppose that Jesus founded - retaining Jewish heritage and traditions while expanding into new Christian concepts. Or is it the Pauline Christianity which was much more successful, yet influenced heavily by Paul of Tarsus and his interpretation and expansion on Jesus' teachings?

Or is it simply a structural restoration - twelve apostles and a metaphorical godhead (the First Presidency), with all other teachings new or revised?

What would you say it is?

[CV75]

"We believe in same organization that existed in the primitive church..."

The priesthood and priesthood keys were restored so that "apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth" could act with legitimate authority under the direction of Christ at the head.

[zerinus]

Branching off from another discussion, a poster wrote:

"The LDS Church proclaims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ; restored by the Lord's hand, maintains the same organization that he instituted while on earth, with full authority to act in his name"

Additionally, the sixth Article of Faith states, "We believe in same organization that existed in the primitive church..."

But, what does this really mean? What church has been restored? Is it a Jewish Christian church that many scholars suppose that Jesus founded - retaining Jewish heritage and traditions while expanding into new Christian concepts. Or is it the Pauline Christianity which was much more successful, yet influenced heavily by Paul of Tarsus and his interpretation and expansion on Jesus' teachings?

Or is it simply a structural restoration - twelve apostles and a metaphorical godhead (the First Presidency), with all other teachings new or revised?

None of the above. It is the Church of Jesus Christ that has been restored.

[The Grimace]

None of the above. It is the Church of Jesus Christ that has been restored.

OK, but that doesn't really describe what was restored. What did the Church of Jesus Christ look like some 2,000 years ago?

[The Grimace]

What would you say it is?

I was always taught that the church today looks pretty much like what it looked like back when Jesus was alive and it teaches the exact same doctrines that Jesus taught, save the few additional revelations that were received in the latter-days.

The problem arises when I read about the actual history of Christianity and realize that it was more heavily influenced by Paul than it was by Jesus himself. While Jesus remains a central figure, it's not hard to see the many places where Paul has added to or modified Jesus' teachings. And, because of this, the question comes up - Which church has really been restored? The Pauline Church, or Jesus' Church? If one were to look at the Church today, could one say, reasonably, that the church adheres more to a Pauline view of Christianity, or to a Jesus-view of Christianity?

Thus, the question, *which* primitive church has been restored?

[zerinus]

OK, but that doesn't really describe what was restored. What did the Church of Jesus Christ look like some 2,000 years ago?

The Church of Jesus Christ being restored does not mean that it should look exactly like the one established in first century AD. It means that the power and authority of Jesus Christ, His priesthood authority and keys, and His prophets and Apostles being restored. The organization need not look identical to the original one (although to a large extent it does).

[The Grimace]

That's it, then? The only thing restored is priesthood authority and priesthood structure?

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/topics/restoration-of-the-gospel?lang=eng&query=restoration+gospel

[wenglund]

That's it, then? The only thing restored is priesthood authority and priesthood structure?

Does there need to be more? I would think that restoring the foundation and infrastructure of Christ's church would be rather significant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 4, 2012 by wenglund

[zerinus]

That's it, then? The only thing restored is priesthood authority and priesthood structure?

No, the fulness of the gospel has been restored. That means that doctrine has been corrected. Additional scripture has been given which did not exist in the primitive church.

Organizationally, the Church today is more perfect and complete than it was anciently. It has all the structure that the primitive Church possessed, plus more offices and callings that the primitive Church didn't. The organizational structure of the primitive Church was not cast in stone that it could not be added upon. If the primitive Church had not apostatised, it's organisational structure would not have remained static. Structural changes and additions would have been made to it over time to meet growth needs and changed circumstances. Those have now been (and will continue to be) met in the Restored Church in our time.

Edited September 3, 2012 by zerinus

[The Grimace]

From lds.org:

"When Jesus Christ was on the earth, He established His Church among His followers. After His Crucifixion and the deaths of His Apostles, the fulness of the gospel was taken from the earth because of widespread apostasy. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ restored the fulness of the gospel. The true Church of Jesus Christ is on the earth again. Because of the Restoration, the teachings and ordinances necessary for salvation are available to all people."

This is interesting, because it insinuates that the church Jesus formed was not restored, rather, the fulness of the Gospel was taken after the deaths of the apostles. The restoration has nothing to do with any church Jesus established, but rather, with the restoration of the fulness of the Gospel. As near as I can tell, the fulness of the Gospel is the ordinances needed for salvation administered by the priesthood.

So, the restoration has nothing to do with any church Jesus formed and it is possible it bears no resemblance to any church that may have existed it the past.

lds.org goes on to say:

"When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth."

This raises a couple of questions:

1. Was the fulness of the gospel taken from the earth 400 years after Jesus' death? If so, how did the Nephites carry on their priesthood authority and line of prophets? If not, how do we know that the priesthood line did not continue in what is now called the Catholic church?

2. Which "men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances"? What were those changes? Who made them? And why did God allow it? And could we not see again a corruption that is similar?

[DBMormon]

This raises a couple of questions:

1. Was the fulness of the gospel taken from the earth 400 years after Jesus' death? If so, how did the Nephites carry on their priesthood authority and line of prophets? If not, how do we know that the priesthood line did not continue in what is now called the Catholic church?

2. Which "men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances"? What were those changes? Who made them? And why did God allow it? And could we not see again a corruption that is similar?

1.) authourity never completely left as John the revelator and the three nephites at the very minimum were still here.

Rev. 12 says the church went into the wilderness (apostacy) D&C 5:14 says the restored church came out of the wilderness.

2.) The apostles continually try to keep the doctrine & ordinances pure. This is apparhent in the NT. With the apostles out of the way.... nothing stopped it. Those holding the keys either died or were sent by God away from the church (john the revelator, three nephites) the ordinances change considerable, the doctrine disentagrated as creeds entered in.

[The Grimace]

1.) authourity never completely left as John the revelator and the three nephites at the very minimum were still here.

Rev. 12 says the church went into the wilderness (apostacy) D&C 5:14 says the restored church came out of the wilderness.

2.) The apostles continually try to keep the doctrine & ordinances pure. This is apparhent in the NT. With the apostles out of the way.... nothing stopped it. Those holding the keys either died or were sent by God away from the church (john the revelator, three nephites) the ordinances change considerable, the doctrine disentagrated as creeds entered in.

Are you saying that the authority of the priesthood was passed on by John the Revelator and the Three Nephites to others? Or are you saying that they were at the head of the Nephite church for 400 years? Either way, I see no evidence of this in the scriptures.

Either the authority was taken from the earth, as pointed out by lds.org, or it wasn't. What is it?

And one final question - if John the Revelator and the Three Nephites were left with authority, why didn't they see to it that the gospel and it's ordinances remained intact and pure, free of corruption?

Edited September 3, 2012 by The Grimace

[zerinus]

From lds.org:

"When Jesus Christ was on the earth, He established His Church among His followers. After His Crucifixion and the deaths of His Apostles, the fulness of the gospel was taken from the earth because of widespread apostasy. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ restored the fulness of the gospel. The true Church of Jesus Christ is on the earth again. Because of the Restoration, the teachings and ordinances necessary for salvation are available to all people."

This is interesting, because it insinuates that the church Jesus formed was not restored, rather, the fulness of the Gospel was taken after the deaths of the apostles. The restoration has nothing to do with any church Jesus established, but rather, with the restoration of the fulness of the Gospel. As near as I can tell, the fulness of the Gospel is the ordinances needed for salvation administered by the priesthood.

So, the restoration has nothing to do with any church Jesus formed and it is possible it bears no resemblance to any church that may have existed it the past.

lds.org goes on to say:

"When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth."

This raises a couple of questions:

1. Was the fulness of the gospel taken from the earth 400 years after Jesus' death? If so, how did the Nephites carry on their priesthood authority and line of prophets? If not, how do we know that the priesthood line did not continue in what is now called the Catholic church?

2. Which "men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances"? What were those changes? Who made them? And why did God allow it? And could we not see again a corruption that is similar?

I can see that you are a disciple of Rob Bowman. You close your eyes to all the answers that are given, and like a broken record repeat the same mantra over and over again.

[The Grimace]

I can see that you are a disciple of Rob Bowman. You close your eyes to all the answers that are given, and like a broken record repeat the same mantra over and over again.

Prior to this past few weeks, I'd never heard of Rob Bowman.

Now, zerinus, if you can't answer my questions, no problem. But I will require precise CFRs for any answer I was given, closed my eyes to, and then repeated some mantra in response. Because I see no mantra. And I have accepted the answers and based on those answers have asked additional questions.

[DBMormon]

Are you saying that the authority of the priesthood was passed on by John the Revelator and the Three Nephites to others? Or are you saying that they were at the head of the Nephite church for 400 years? Either way, I see no evidence of this in the scriptures.

Either the authority was taken from the earth, as pointed out by lds.org, or it wasn't. What is it?

I am saying that some LDS believe the authority was taken off the earth or that all who had authority died... not true. Some remained on the earth with authority but that God had them withdraw from the outward church and allow it to sink into apostacy. Those with authority distanced themselves from the institution (went into the wilderness REV 12)

Who gave Joseph the higher Priesthood - John the Revelator along with Peter and James. John was alive. Hadn't tasted death. He was a physical being.

D&C 5 he was called out of the wilderness by god to lay hands on Joseph and to allow the instituion to have god's sanction once again.

And one final question - if John the Revelator and the Three Nephites were left with authority, why didn't they see to it that the gospel and it's ordinances remained intact and pure, free of corruption?

Because it is part of God's plan to have the apostacy and then a restoration. I assume God directed them to hold back and withdraw from the institution.

Edited September 3, 2012 by DBMormon

[The Grimace]

I am saying that some LDS believe the authority was taken off the earth or that all who had authority died... not true.

When lds.org states, "The Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth", this really means, "The Lord left the authority of the priesthood upon the earth in the hands of four men, and didn't allow them to exercise that priesthood". Is that what you are saying?

Because it is part of God's plan to have the apostacy and then a restoration. I assume God directed them to hold back and withdraw from the institution.

The Lord planned the apostasy and the restoration? Are you sure? Maybe my memory isn't so great, but I don't recall every learning this or seeing it in scripture, that it was planned by the Lord. If it was planned, doesn't that mean he influenced men to corrupt the church? I can understand the need for the Fall and the Atonement, but the apostasy and restoration seem like wholly unnecessary events given four immortal men are on the earth and hold the priesthood. They could have prevented the corruption of the fulness of the gospel and led the church.

Seems like a very odd and convoluted way of doing things, huh?

[DBMormon]

When lds.org states, "The Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth", this really means, "The Lord left the authority of the priesthood upon the earth in the hands of four men, and didn't allow them to exercise that priesthood". Is that what you are saying?

Let me ask you. Does the LDS church state that John the revelator and the three nephites have never been taken off the earth? Do they have Priesthood? Are they prophets, seers, and revelators (with inactive keys)?

Both can be true

The Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth

He didn't withdraw the priesthood. He withdrew the authority of the priesthood, not the priesthood itself. It withdrew into the wilderness. These men could not ordain, confer priesthood nor could they receive revelation for the church until he sanctioned it again.

Edited September 3, 2012 by DBMormon

[The Grimace]

Let me ask you. Does the LDS church state that John the revelator and the three nephites have never been taken off the earth? Do they have Priesthood? Are they prophets, seers, and revelators (with inactive keys)?

Both can be true

If all we are doing is entertaining possibilities, then any possibility can be true. I am unsure if any of the four were prophets, seers, and revelators. I know that the three Nephites were disciples, and John is considered an apostle, but whether that is the same as today's prophet, seer, and revelator, I am unsure. Though I suppose John would have to be a revelator

I suppose you put up a valid scenario. Yet, I think a more reasonable scenario would be to keep the priesthood active in the four who you claim are prophets, seers and revelators, and let them take care of the purity of the gospel.

There appears no planned reason to let the church lapse into apostasy.

[cesc101]

Hi Grimace,

You're sounding like you've never heard anything about the LDS church..., jumping from pillar to pole with your questions..., etc.

Pardon me asking, what's your stance? I mean what exactly are you trying to say?!

{just curious...!!!}

[Storm Rider]

He does sound as if he is easily tossedto and fro by every wind of doctrine. Just wondering what his objective is with his posts.

[DBMormon]

I suppose you put up a valid scenario. Yet, I think a more reasonable scenario would be to keep the priesthood active in the four who you claim are prophets, seers and revelators, and let them take care of the purity of the gospel.

There appears no planned reason to let the church lapse into apostasy.

Is God allowed to have a purpose that doesn't make sense to you?

[Robert F. Smith]

I was always taught that the church today looks pretty much like what it looked like back when Jesus was alive and it teaches the exact same doctrines that Jesus taught, save the few additional revelations that were received in the latter-days.

The problem arises when I read about the actual history of Christianity and realize that it was more heavily influenced by Paul than it was by Jesus himself. While Jesus remains a central figure, it's not hard to see the many places where Paul has added to or modified Jesus' teachings. And, because of this, the question comes up - Which church has really been restored? The Pauline Church, or Jesus' Church? If one were to look at the Church today, could one say, reasonably, that the church adheres more to a Pauline view of Christianity, or to a Jesus-view of Christianity?

Thus, the question, *which* primitive church has been restored?

One excellent answer was composed by Hugh Nibley in 1954 and it is available online at http://maxwellinstit...d=54&chapid=514 . It is part of his book The World and the Prophets, 3rd ed (1987), but anyone interested in this subject should see also his books on Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (2005), and Mormonism and Early Christianity (1987).

There was of course a transitional phase from the Jewish Christian Church of Jesus Christ to a largely Gentile Church in which Greek rather than Hebrew was used, and which no longer required circumcision or kosher eating restrictions. Still, mattes of liturgy and belief continued pretty much as known in the 1st century until the doctors (learned men) of the church began seeking philosophical respectability and government approval. The apostasy took it well beyond the primitive church.

The Twelve presbyters (or Fifteen, with three supervising priests), and bishops, elders, and deacons were in charge of the earliest Christian churches, as a direct continuation of the officers of the Jewish synagogue,¹ and of the Qumran covenanters² (1QS 8:1-8, 1QM 2:1-2, CD 7:5, 20:25,7; 4QpIsa [4Q164] 54:12; Numbers 3:4, Matthew 10:1-4, 19:28, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:13-16, John 6:70, Acts 1:13, 19:1-7, Gal 2:9, Rev 21:14).

In any case, “a large group of priests” joined the Primitive Christian Church (Acts 6:7), and B. Pixner believes that they came directly “from the Essene priestly class.”³ Likewise, he suggests that the “religious communism” practiced by the Jerusalem Christians was probably based on “the social system of” the Essenes, as were many other structural and social features of early Christianity⁴ (cf. Acts 2:44ff., 4:43ff., 1QS 1:7ff, 6:16ff, 7:6ff; Josephus, War, 2, 122; etc.).

¹ Pixner in Charles­worth & Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus, 201.

² Pixner in Charlesworth & Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus, 201-202, citing S. E. Johnson, “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts,” in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (N.Y., 1957), 129-142, 273-275; H. Kosmala, Hebräer, Essener, Christen: Studien zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Verkündigung, SPB 1 (Leiden, 1959); W. S. LaSor, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1962), 368-378; K. Schubert in J. Maier and K. Schubert, eds., Die Qumran-Essener (München, 1973), 127-137; R. Riesner, “Essener und Urkirche in Jerusalem,” in B. Mayer, ed., Christen und Christliches in Qumran? 139-155; O. Betz, “Kontakte zwischen Essenern und Christen,” in Mayer, 157-175; H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, I (Tübingen, 1966), 153; B. J. Capper, “‘In der Hand des Ananias . . . ‘ Erwägungen zu 1QS VI, 20 und der urchristlichen Gütergemeinschaft,” RQ, 12 (1986):223-236.

³ James T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church.

⁴ R. E. Brown in J. H. Charles­worth, ed., John and Qumran (1972); enlarged as John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cross­road, 1990), 6-7; R. Brown, New Testament Essays, 27-30 (or 49-53); Joseph Baumgarten, “The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin,” JBL, 95 (1976), 59-78.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith