Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[CASteinman]

If the B o M actually taught those doctrines that are uniquely mormon, then it possibly could be seen in this light, but as it does not, how can it be?

You have asked this of mathonihah. I hope you do not mind if I venture an answer. You may ignore it if you don't want to get side tracked away from a discussion with mathonihah and I absolutely will be more than fine with that.

The Book of Mormon is a key document for determining things because it stands as a witness of Joseph Smith that you may read and test by the Spirit to obtain revelation of your own regarding its divine source.

It is not intended to teach all of the doctrines of all times. It is, after all, not an account of people who had that responsibility. Without getting too complex, the period of the Restoration of all things from the Time of Adam forward was Joseph Smith's calling and responsibility -- not the prophets of the Book of Mormon times. Some of those Book of Mormon prophets (as also with Bible prophets) may not even have had access to all of this knowledge because it was not their calling to teach it. Prophets are called of God, generally with His purpose in mind -- not the purposes of men.

However, for people who are searching for spiritual truth and want to determine if Joseph Smith can be relied upon, the best way to do that is to obtain the very document that God approves for that purpose: The Book of Mormon. Then follow the advice given in that record and Read it. Ponder it. Think about the manner in which God has operated in times past from the days of Adam until Christ. Pray to God with real purpose of Heart and ask if that Book is True.

Once you have gotten the answer that it is a true record -- that it was brought forward by the hand of God, this shall serve as the keystone for your further faith -- and help you to better accept the further light and knowledge offered by Joseph Smith as the Restorer of All Things -- some of which were hidden from the general knowledge of mankind back to the earliest days.

Thus, the Book of Mormon is not intended to teach you all things. It is intended to help you get on the path. After you are on the path -- you get more.

Edited March 22, 2013 by CASteinman

[Engineer97]

That verse, if used as you would have it, can discount EVERYTHING, including your own convictions.

No....look at Gal 2:2....where the revelation to Paul is to submit his gospel to the apostles at Jerusalem. Any new thing, any new revelation, any new claim of restoration...following that example from St. Paul, would not contradict what has been previously revealed.

Do you know who else claims to have restored the true church? Ellen G white and the SDA....the Campbelites...so which between the LDS, the SDA, the campnbelites, is the true claim to have restored the true church?

How can one tell from all these competing claims?

[Engineer97]

Actually it is true and you simply have a misunderstanding. Cephas/Peter was what we would refer to now as the "President of the High Priesthood", the highest ranking high priest after the order of Melchizedek. And the elders he appointed with his authority were also after that order of the high priesthood. Your misunderstanding is in thinking of Cephas/Peter and those elders as bishops, but men who are limited in their calling as "bishops" don't have the authority to do what they did.

Paul, himself, was also ordained to the office of an elder and an apostle of the high priesthood, and not simply a bishop.

No...Peter never claimed to be any high president. He knew what his role was...to be the chief shepherd in building Christ's church. He is claimed by the catholics as the first pope. Do you see any pope claiming to be the high president of anything? Peter and his successors see their roles as shepherds....may be should recall the words of Christ to pete....feed my sheep, tend my sheep...in John's gospel.

No...historical evidence would disprove your claim. He called himself the apostle to the gentiles...or the one called to evangelize the gentiles....he never claimed any authority for himself. He was indeed a Catholic bishop in every sense of what a catholic bishop is. He even instructed Titus and Timothy to appoint men to succeed them.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Book of Mormon does not teach that God the Father is an exalted man.

Quite so. But, as does the Bible, the BofM teaches that not only God can be described with flesh and blood anthropomorphisms (Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19), but also the Holy Spiriit (1 Nephi 11:11).^[1]

As Yohanan Muffs says, "the biblical God is anthropomorphic. Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture."^[2]

In light of such descriptions, one might want to ask why God the Father has a human body. Simple extrapolation is not out of order.

^[1] Cf. Kenneth Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004).

^[2] Muffs, Bible Review, XVIII/6 (Dec 2002), 23; cf. Ronald Hendel, "Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel," in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 205-228; Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (de Gruyter, 2008), reviewed in RBL, Feb 2012, online at http://www.bookrevie...sp?TitleId=8190 .

Edited March 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Engineer97]

That's the question each one of us needs to find the answer for to be sure about who we are following.

The "way" to explain how is easy. We get to know God (our Father) in the same way we get to know anyone else. Communication. Experience. Trial and error. Learning the difference between good and evil while knowing God (our Father) is good and Satan is evil while also calling himself God and promoting himself as the one we should be following. Knowing which one Jesus is like and why he points to our Father as the one we should follow, as he also follows our Father. Knowing how the Holy Ghost plays a part in all of this, too. Learning why it's not wise to rely on the understanding of men, alone, with only God as the one we rely on.

You know, stuff like that. Personal relationships. Once you know him you'll know you know him and not an imposter.

But the question is...how ddoes God make himself known? Does he appear to anyone who claims or wants to know Him?

How did the early Christians know about Jesus? Through the Apostles.

How do the LDS know about God? Through Joseph Smith.

Both are men...and gave us their understanding of God.

The question is then...whom would you trust-The original Apostles and their successors or Joseph Smith?

[Engineer97]

Gee not sure perhaps offer to shake his hand?

We can asks exorcists.

[Engineer97]

I have to disagree with you. Long before I met the missionaries, I read the Book of Mormon. You really don't get a sense of what is unique about Mormons from a reading of that book. You may get a testimony of that book from reading it, but you do not necessarily even get a testimony of the Church from it. No if you want to know what makes Mormons Mormon , you read the Doctrine & Covenants. And if you want to get a little more of a glimmer of what Heavenly Father is like, you read the Pearl of Great Price. But reading the Book of Mormon alone, no I don't think so. The reason the missionaries emphasize the Book of Mormon is to have you grt a testimony that indeed Joseph Smith was a prophet which then leads to the conclusion that the Church is true, but you really are clueless about what it means to be a Mormon until you read the D&C.

Well...question...if after reading the BOM....one does not get a testimony that JS is really a prophet...what then? Is the conclusion then the LDS is not a true church?

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to disagree with you. Long before I met the missionaries, I read the Book of Mormon. You really don't get a sense of what is unique about Mormons from a reading of that book. You may get a testimony of that book from reading it, but you do not necessarily even get a testimony of the Church from it. No if you want to know what makes Mormons Mormon , you read the Doctrine & Covenants. And if you want to get a little more of a glimmer of what Heavenly Father is like, you read the Pearl of Great Price. But reading the Book of Mormon alone, no I don't think so. The reason the missionaries emphasize the Book of Mormon is to have you grt a testimony that indeed Joseph Smith was a prophet which then leads to the conclusion that the Church is true, but you really are clueless about what it means to be a Mormon until you read the D&C.

It is certainly true that the D&C is not a narrative history, but has more in common with canon law or legislation (and is very appealing to those who still have copies of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine). To that degree, I must agree with you. Moreover, I don't expect even experienced readers to know what is actually written between the lines in the BofM. It took Hugh Nibley over 50 years before he recognized the LDS endowment in the BofM, and on that occasion he instructed his graduate assistant to give him a swift kick in the rear for not having recognized it years earlier. Nowadays, it is not at all unusual for truly talented young scholars like David Bokovoy, Joseph Spencer, Jenny Webb, or David John Butler to see the temple ritual in the BofM, but it was a long time coming. The same has been true of the Bible and of early Christian writings -- non-Mormon scholars can point out the ritual texts, and N.T. Wright even sees Genesis 1-2 as "a temple text." As with Jesus' parables, stories can be taken at many different levels.

[MormonMason]

The Book of Mormon does not teach that God the Father is an exalted man.

It is possible that the sealed plates did. Mormon stated that the unsealed part of the book that he was composing contained only the most basic of things (the lesser part) and that he was forbidden to write any of the greater things. He also stated that those who came to believe the lesser things that the Book of Mormon contained also later would receive the greater things by having them "made manifest unto them."

See 3 Nephi 26:6-12.

I would not expect the Book of Mormon to contain the doctrine. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that directly and unmistakably teaches against that idea, either.

[MormonMason]

No....look at Gal 2:2....where the revelation to Paul is to submit his gospel to the apostles at Jerusalem. Any new thing, any new revelation, any new claim of restoration...following that example from St. Paul, would not contradict what has been previously revealed.

Do you know who else claims to have restored the true church? Ellen G white and the SDA....the Campbelites...so which between the LDS, the SDA, the campnbelites, is the true claim to have restored the true church?

How can one tell from all these competing claims?

If we take a faith-based approach, the answer would be fervent and sincere prayer to know after doing faithfully what the Book of Mormon enjoins upon us. Or, as is related, we know of the doctrine, whether or not it be of God, by living it, as Jesus taught in the Gospel of John.

If we want to take an intellectual tack rather than by faith, we can try to figure out why it is that Ellen G. White's revelations do not match the stylometric pattern of Christ in Revelation/Apocalypse, whereas Joseph Smith's revelations do math said pattern.

As to your question regarding whom one would trust, there is not a dichotomy such as you seem to think. Joseph Smith himself was a successor to the Apostles, having been ordained by three (Peter, James, and John) of the original Twelve in company with Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery was both a second witness and a joint participant in this event. Even after Cowdery was tossed from the Church he never denied that he had experienced this ordination, later reaffirming it publically upon rejoining the Church shortly before the end of his life.

[MormonMason]

Who does speak for the mormon church? It seems that whenever anything challenging is written regarding the church, the same explanation is rolled out, that they were speaking for themselves not the church, others I can think of, Apostle McConkie, Brigham Young. If the B o M actually taught those doctrines that are uniquely mormon, then it possibly could be seen in this light, but as it does not, how can it be?

Remember President Brigham Young's key (supported by the Doctrine and Covenants) I posted elsewhere? When the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are in agreement upon any given principle, we may set it down as true. Additionally, another key is that when something is said that is in direct conflict with the Standard Works we may discard it, no matter who says it. These keys have been provided to us by the Presidents of the Church to help guide us into what is doctrine and what is not. A third key is that we can know the truth of a thing via the Holy Spirit as a result of prayer and living of the principles of the Church. A fourth key is that no doctrine is binding upon the members of the Church unless said doctrine is presented before a General Conference and voted upon by the membership of the Church to make it binding upon us as a people.

So, to recap, whenever we come across something purporting to be a so-called Mormon doctrine, we can know whether something is or is not simply by asking:

1. Are/were the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in agreement on the principle?
   
2. Is the teaching in direct and clear conflict with the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price)?
   
3. Have we prayed about the teaching to know of its truth, in sincerity of heart and in genuine desire to know of the truthfulness thereof?
   
4. Has the teaching been presented to the general body of the Church and voted upon to have it made binding upon us? (If not, it is not a binding doctrine of the Church no matter how true the principle may or may not be).
   

It is not too difficult to figure things out in this manner, using the keys that have been provided to us via the apostles and prophets themselves.

[Engineer97]

If we take a faith-based approach, the answer would be fervent and sincere prayer to know after doing faithfully what the Book of Mormon enjoins upon us. Or, as is related, we know of the doctrine, whether or not it be of God, by living it, as Jesus taught in the Gospel of John.

If we want to take an intellectual tack rather than by faith, we can try to figure out why it is that Ellen G. White's revelations do not match the stylometric pattern of Christ in Revelation/Apocalypse, whereas Joseph Smith's revelations do math said pattern.

As to your question regarding whom one would trust, there is not a dichotomy such as you seem to think. Joseph Smith himself was a successor to the Apostles, having been ordained by three (Peter, James, and John) of the original Twelve in company with Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery was both a second witness and a joint participant in this event. Even after Cowdery was tossed from the Church he never denied that he had experienced this ordination, later reaffirming it publically upon rejoining the Church shortly before the end of his life.

This goes back then....how would God answer one's prayer? How would one distinguish between the angel of light and an angel masquerading as an angel of light? What is the BOm did not enjoin you?

You cannot take one over the other...it should be faith and reason. Both should pass the test of faith and reason.

As to your question regarding whom one would trust, there is not a dichotomy such as you seem to think. Joseph Smith himself was a successor to the Apostles, having been ordained by three (Peter, James, and John) of the original Twelve in company with Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery was both a second witness and a joint participant in this event. Even after Cowdery was tossed from the Church he never denied that he had experienced this ordination, later reaffirming it publically upon rejoining the Church shortly before the end of his life.

This claim of JS being ordain by Peter, James and John....how is this any different that the claim of EGW? And other claims out there? Who investigated the claim of JS? Who authenticated it?

And how does this square with the example of Paul in gal 2:2-that a revelation would not contradict what has been revealed? If JS was indeed to be ordained or is being called, why was he visited directly? Why was he not directed to go somewhere, to someone....to be indeed validly ordained?

How would you know that indeed it was actually Peter, James and John...and not an satan masquerading as an angel of light?

[MormonMason]

Well...question...if after reading the BOM....one does not get a testimony that JS is really a prophet...what then? Is the conclusion then the LDS is not a true church?

In my experience, mere reading is not enough. In all my dealings with those who did not receive a testimony of the book, in every case it is because the persons I was teaching were not doing what they were supposed to be doing. The Book of Mormon is specific as to what to do. Omit even one matter or step and one cannot expect an answer. All who I can recall failed in one point or another.

Many simply were not specific in their prayers. (People in that category would pray things like "Lord, show me the truth" rather than "Father, is the Book of Mormon your word? I really want and truly desire to know by your Spirit.")

Others did not really want to know but had come to it with the intent of seeking a sign to change their minds concerning their preconceived opinion that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true or that it could not possibly be what it claims to be.

Others did not read it and ponder its meaning and yet others did not read the Bible with the text and ponder both together.

I cannot speak to your specific circumstances, however, because I wasn't there. But, this is what I saw of others in my decades of experience with missionary work and teaching of the Gospel.

[Robert F. Smith]

This goes back then....how would God answer one's prayer? How would one distinguish between the angel of light and an angel masquerading as an angel of light? What is the BOm did not enjoin you?

You cannot take one over the other...it should be faith and reason. Both should pass the test of faith and reason.

As to your question regarding whom one would trust, there is not a dichotomy such as you seem to think. Joseph Smith himself was a successor to the Apostles, having been ordained by three (Peter, James, and John) of the original Twelve in company with Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery was both a second witness and a joint participant in this event. Even after Cowdery was tossed from the Church he never denied that he had experienced this ordination, later reaffirming it publically upon rejoining the Church shortly before the end of his life.

This claim of JS being ordain by Peter, James and John....how is this any different that the claim of EGW? And other claims out there? Who investigated the claim of JS? Who authenticated it?

And how does this square with the example of Paul in gal 2:2-that a revelation would not contradict what has been revealed? If JS was indeed to be ordained or is being called, why was he visited directly? Why was he not directed to go somewhere, to someone....to be indeed validly ordained?

How would you know that indeed it was actually Peter, James and John...and not an satan masquerading as an angel of light?

These are all important epistemological questions, and the answer(s) are very significant for both individual and community, i.e., how do we know what we know? Not only in the sciences, but in philosophy and religion. One must finally satisfy one's self by whatever means is chosen. Which method do you prefer or trust? Or do none of the methods of ascertaining truth satisfy you?

[MormonMason]

This goes back then....how would God answer one's prayer? How would one distinguish between the angel of light and an angel masquerading as an angel of light? What is the BOm did not enjoin you?

You cannot take one over the other...it should be faith and reason. Both should pass the test of faith and reason.

Satan does not possess a body of flesh and bone, for one thing. For another, having experienced both God and Satan for myself, Satan carries a feeling with him that is quite different than that which accompanies God, his Son, and his messengers.

We are to rely on the Spirit of God not our own hearts and minds.

As to your question regarding whom one would trust, there is not a dichotomy such as you seem to think. Joseph Smith himself was a successor to the Apostles, having been ordained by three (Peter, James, and John) of the original Twelve in company with Oliver Cowdery. Oliver Cowdery was both a second witness and a joint participant in this event. Even after Cowdery was tossed from the Church he never denied that he had experienced this ordination, later reaffirming it publically upon rejoining the Church shortly before the end of his life.

This claim of JS being ordain by Peter, James and John....how is this any different that the claim of EGW? And other claims out there? Who investigated the claim of JS? Who authenticated it?

I told you. Both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery testified of these things having happened. Even when Oliver Cowdery became a bitter enemy of Joseph Smith and was tossed from the Church and lost his position of leadership, he never denied his witness and later reaffirmed it in public. He had the perfect opportunity in his anger to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud. He never did, no matter how angry he was at Joseph Smith and the Church for kicking him out and removing him from a position of power.

We also can pray concerning this matter with sincere faith and a real desire to know by the Spirit of God. Jesus himself has promised that God will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask for it.

And how does this square with the example of Paul in gal 2:2-that a revelation would not contradict what has been revealed? If JS was indeed to be ordained or is being called, why was he visited directly? Why was he not directed to go somewhere, to someone....to be indeed validly ordained?

It squares quite well. There is a difference between an apparent discrepancy and a real one. He was visited directly because no one else on the face of the earth had the authority to ordain Joseph Smith to the apostleship and give the keys jointly to him and to Oliver Cowdery. Apostles can ordain other Apostles and Bishops but Bishops cannot ordain Apostles. They lack the authority to do so and always did.

How would you know that indeed it was actually Peter, James and John...and not an satan masquerading as an angel of light?

Satan can masquerade but he does not possess a physical body of flesh and bone. Peter, James and John did possess such bodies and their hands could be felt on their heads. Satan also can only masquerade as an angel of light, meaning one; but Peter, James, and John, were three.

Edited March 22, 2013 by MormonMason

[Engineer97]

These are all important epistemological questions, and the answer(s) are very significant for both individual and community, i.e., how do we know what we know? Not only in the sciences, but in philosophy and religion. One must finally satisfy one's self by whatever means is chosen. Which method do you prefer or trust? Or do none of the methods of ascertaining truth satisfy you?

Faith and reason compliment each other......and other evidences would affirm the faith and reasoning. Example, the Bible places and events are proved by archeological evidence.

The BOM has not been backed up by archaeological evidence.

[Engineer97]

Satan does not possess a body of flesh and bone, for one thing. For another, having experienced both God and Satan for myself, Satan carries a feeling with him that is quite different than that which accompanies God, his Son, and his messengers.

We are to rely on the Spirit of God not our own hearts and minds.

Our hearts and minds should be reinforce by the true spirit of God.

I told you. Both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery testified of these things having happened. Even when Oliver Cowdery became a bitter enemy of Joseph Smith and was tossed from the Church and lost his position of leadership, he never denied his witness and later reaffirmed it in public. He had the perfect opportunity in his anger to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud. He never did, no matter how angry he was at Joseph Smith and the Church for kicking him out and removing him from a position of power.

Who investigated and validated these visions independently? Aside from themselves?

See...this is what I like and admire about the Catholic Church...they have devil's advocates when they investigate claims. They try not to prove these claims as true....by independent investigators.

The most recent is the case of Padre Pio...I mean, how could one not believe him having the Stigmata for about 50 yrs on his body?

We also can pray concerning this matter with sincere faith and a real desire to know by the Spirit of God. Jesus himself has promised that God will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask for it.

It squares quite well. There is a difference between an apparent discrepancy and a real one. He was visited directly because no one else on the face of the earth had the authority to ordain Joseph Smith to the apostleship and give the keys jointly to him and to Oliver Cowdery. Apostles can ordain other Apostles and Bishops but Bishops cannot ordain Apostles. They lack the authority to do so and always did.

See...that is why it so doubtful. As I said, it should not contradict what had been revealed before. If Smith was truly called, he would have been told to see somebody...and to confirm what has been told him...not him directly, which raised the possibility of fraud or Smith being guided by an angel masquerading as an angel of light.

Satan can masquerade but he does not possess a physical body of flesh and bone. Peter, James and John did possess such bodies and their hands could be felt on their heads. Satan also can only masquerade as an angel of light, meaning one; but Peter, James, and John, were three.

Satan has also legions as his command, and is not alone.

[savedbygrace]

It is possible that the sealed plates did. Mormon stated that the unsealed part of the book that he was composing contained only the most basic of things (the lesser part) and that he was forbidden to write any of the greater things. He also stated that those who came to believe the lesser things that the Book of Mormon contained also later would receive the greater things by having them "made manifest unto them."

See 3 Nephi 26:6-12.

I would not expect the Book of Mormon to contain the doctrine. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that directly and unmistakably teaches against that idea, either.

How was it a restoration of all things then?

[3DOP]

Thanks for pointing me to that post. I do find your argument of the replacement of Judas' "bishopric" compelling. Do you believe that 1 Clement 44 is talking about the bishops as successors to the apostles. Perhaps I'm getting a little confused with all of the "these", "them", and "they"s, but who is "fall[ing] asleep" and who is the "them" that are being succeeded in ministry?

So your argument is the apostles are bishops that have met certain characteristics as we see with the selection of Matthias, and that "apostle" is not a priesthood office, as bishop is. Does the Catholic Church teach that the apostles had certain charisms or apostolic gifts that were/are or were/are not given to bishops in general (the "signs that characterize the apostle", as you mention)?

Somewhat related to this is the issue of revelation. In "restoring the ancient Church", LDS believe that an important principle is that of revelation, and that the apostles, as general authorities of the Church, were entitled to receive Divine guidance to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, and revelation is absolutely needed in the true Church to guide it, as we see in the NT. How is the Catholic view similar or dissimilar to that? What is meant by "public revelation", and it ending?

Hey ChristKnight,

I have been out of town, and am dashing to work now...I just spotted this...I'll look forward to replying soon I hope...thanks for your consideration.

3DOP

[cdowis]

Faith and reason compliment each other......and other evidences would affirm the faith and reasoning. Example, the Bible places and events are proved by archeological evidence.

The BOM has not been backed up by archaeological evidence.

May I respectfully suggest that you are full of baloney.

http://www.mormondia...book-of-mormon/

Please look at the thread and continue the discussion.

Edited March 22, 2013 by cdowis

[mathonihah]

Who does speak for the mormon church?

God speaks for the Mormon Church. He does that through his revealed word, as well as by personal revelation through prayer.

It seems that whenever anything challenging is written regarding the church, the same explanation is rolled out, that they were speaking for themselves not the church, others I can think of, Apostle McConkie, Brigham Young.

It is God's Church, not McConkie's church or Brigham Young's church. They are human and can make mistakes. God never does.

If the B o M actually taught those doctrines that are uniquely mormon, then it possibly could be seen in this light, but as it does not, how can it be?

I mentioned the Book of Mormon as the starting point of his investigation, not the end point. What I said of the BoM is equally applicable to the D&C and PoGP, and even to the Bible. All of them are divine and came from God, and together they form the doctrinal basis of the Church. In them God speaks to, as well as for his Church:

"And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it.

"These words are not of men nor of man, but of me; wherefore, you shall testify they are of me and not of man;

"For it is my voice which speaketh them unto you; for they are given by my Spirit unto you, and by my power you can read them one to another; and save it were by my power you could not have them;

"Wherefore, you can testify that you have heard my voice, and know my words." (D&C 18:33–36)

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—" (D&C 1:30)

Edited March 22, 2013 by mathonihah

[CASteinman]

How was it a restoration of all things then?

It wasn't. I don't think it claims to be. But it is part of the process by which all things have been or will be restored. (There are certainly things not yet restored).

[CASteinman]

Well...question...if after reading the BOM....one does not get a testimony that JS is really a prophet...what then? Is the conclusion then the LDS is not a true church?

There are other possible conclusions.

[mathonihah]

How was it a restoration of all things then?

The "Restoration" doctrine is a concept that pertains to what the scriptures call the "dispensation of the fullness of times:"

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:” (Ephesians 1:10)

This Restoration relates to more than just what was in the NT, but goes much further back as far as Adam. A lot more is to be "restored" than just the gospel that was revealed at the time of Jesus Christ; and it is all to be done in this dispensation, but not all at once, but a lit bit at a time. Here are the references:

“Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the

fulness of times,

in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;” (D&C 27:13)

“For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given,

for the last days and for the last time,

in the which is the dispensation of the

fulness of times

.

“Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time

from the beginning of the creation;

“For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you. (D&C 112:30–32)

“Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;

“A time to come in the which

nothing shall be withheld,

whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

“

All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed

and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—

“All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed

in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times

—” (D&C 121:27–31)

41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid

from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times

.” (D&C 124:41)

That is what is going to be "restored," not just what was in the NT; but it won't be done all at once, but a little bit at a time:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will

yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God

." (

Articles of Faith

1:9)

Did that answer your question satisfactorily?

Edited March 22, 2013 by mathonihah

[Engineer97]

May I respectfully suggest that you are full of baloney.

http://www.mormondia...book-of-mormon/

Please look at the thread and continue the discussion.

Am an engineer by profession...part of my job is to investigate claims against my employer...assist our lawyers...by punching holes into the claims, recommend holes our lawyers can attack claims. I can pretty much tell if my leg is being pulled.

Let me ask you then...which is more full of baloney....the evidence presented in article that has not been verified by independent, well known, well respected non-LDS archaeologists? Or self serving testimony?

Do you think this is baloney: When an archaeological is found or discovered about a Biblical event, the world wants to know about this discovery? Why has no one ever trooped head over heels to an archaeological proof of the BOM?