The Restored Church - What Does This Really Mean?

[Glenn101]

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?

I do not think that you can informedly state that the church is more of Paul than of Jesus. You have to remember that the four synpoptic Gospels were designed to bear witness of Jesus and His divinity. There are many things that Jesus spoke and taught that were not recorded, or maybe were recorded and lost.

For instance: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Amen. (John 21:25)

The apostles apparently did not have written texts from which to preach after Jesus left them to spread the Gospel after His ascension. Rather, they were to rely on the Holy Ghost to help them remember the things Jesus had taught them.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

There were other things that were restored than just the priesthood authority. Remember the Law of Consecrationand also polygamy wer part of the Restitution of All Things.

The Temple ordinances also that were alluded by Paul were restored. But none of those things could not have been effected without the keys of the kingdom. Those keys were held by Peter ["And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)]

They were also evidently held jointly by the twelve. This has come to us via modern revelation. Those keys to the priesthood power were essential to the continuation of the preisthood on this earth. Without those keys, which neither John the Revelator nor the three Nephits are recorded as having, Those keys and the full priesthood structure that was noted in the Bible, i.e. prophets, apostles, the seventy, etc. are able to function when that priesthood was restored to the earth.

Glenn

[The Grimace]

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...!!!}

I'm quite familiar with the LDS church. The discussion just happens to have meandered in a direction and I'm meandering after it. What am I trying to say? Well, at first I was asking what version of the primitive church is the restored church modeled after. Then, it turns out that the only thing that was lost and restored was priesthood authority, which to me is not the same as restoring a church. Next, I was told the priesthood was never taken from the earth, which made me wonder, why the need for an apostasy?

And so here we are. A long meander through a Labor Day afternoon.

Where do I stand? What do you mean? Do you mean to ask me what my faith position is? Or are you asking me how I feel about the restored church?

[The Grimace]

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.

Thank you very much, Robert. This has given me much to chew on.

[cesc101]

Where do I stand? What do you mean? Do you mean to ask me what my faith position is? Or are you asking me how I feel about the restored church?

Yea, more like that...

I meant what's your personal view (or understanding - if you may)?