second restoration

[Maidservant]

The sons of Levi make a sacrifice every Sabbath in front of the congregation, in Sacrament Meeting.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It certainly feels like a second restoration is due.

Why?  We haven't done a great job of living up to the light we've been given.
I don't see any reason why God should give us more.

[Avatar4321]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?  We haven't done a great job of living up to the light we've been given.
I don't see any reason why God should give us more.

we've been good at distributing the authority of God among the saints. We need to do better at distributing the power of God.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

we've been good at distributing the authority of God among the saints. We need to do better at distributing the power of God.

Denver Snuffer, is that you?

Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

[Avatar4321]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Denver Snuffer, is that you?

Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

I was paraphrasing president packer

[Glenn101]

On 8/4/2017 at 1:02 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Why did God allow apostasy during the early Christian time, but won't allow it now?

How does God keep apostasy from happening now, when it happened before?

Don't exactly know all tha answers moral agency has something to do with it. The Bible itself is replete with stories of apostasy by the Children of Israel in general and the Jews in particular after the dispersal of the Northern Kingdom tribes.

If Jesus were to delay the Second Coming long enough, there would be another apostasy, as the righteous leaders and the more part of of the righteous would be killed off in the drastic, violent events that will precede the the Second Coming. That is my understanding gleaned from my scripture reading.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, Maidservant said:

The sons of Levi make a sacrifice every Sabbath in front of the congregation, in Sacrament Meeting.

I suspect that D&C 13 is talking about the descendants of the tribe of Levi. Most of those administering to the Sacrament would probably be sons of Ephraim, but again I suspect that you were speaking of spiritual sons and not actual descendants.

Glenn

[Nofear]

On 8/4/2017 at 0:02 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Why did God allow apostasy during the early Christian time, but won't allow it now?

How does God keep apostasy from happening now, when it happened before?

Zeno's Allegory in Jacob 5 answers both questions; quite well imo. Though the other replies to this query are helpful too.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/3/2017 at 11:02 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Why did God allow apostasy during the early Christian time, but won't allow it now?

How does God keep apostasy from happening now, when it happened before?

Personal opinion: 

The miracles and marvels of technology and mass communication today facilitate the central administration of the Church, which tends to hinder and prevent the creeping in and spread of heresies and corruption in the Church on a local level. 

Why, you might ask, didn't God bring about that technology sooner, so as to prevent the general apostasy? I can't presume to second-guess His timetable, so I won't try. I'll just be grateful He eventually did. 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

On 8/3/2017 at 11:02 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Why did God allow apostasy during the early Christian time, but won't allow it now?

He does. There is apostasy everywhere - even in His restored Church. There is gross darkness in the world.

Quote

How does God keep apostasy from happening now, when it happened before?

He doesn't. It still happens all the time. However, there are enough righteous members that the restored priesthood is continually renewed. God has a plan to keep the Church from going too far off course. He will keep sending teachers.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

He does. There is apostasy everywhere - even in His restored Church. There is gross darkness in the world.

He doesn't. It still happens all the time. However, there are enough righteous members that the restored priesthood is continually renewed. God has a plan to keep the Church from going too far off course. He will keep sending teachers.

Those who would corrupt the Church tend to filter themselves out through individual apostasy. The thing that must be guarded against is efforts by them to hijack the Church and refashion it according to their own whims and desires.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/4/2017 at 0:37 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Then why the huge missionary push? This seems to contradict the LDS church focus on missionary work.

The huge missionary push is in fulfillment of Christ's command that the gospel be preached in all the world. We do this to help prepare the world for His Second Coming.

Also, we have the tendency to say that if someone rejects the gospel in mortality, no harm no foul because he will have the chance to receive it after death. 

I say that's a hasty generalization. God will hold each individual accountable for what he did with the light and knowledge he was given. 

We don't presume to judge individuals; we leave that to God, but the Book of Mormon prophet did say don't procrastinate the day of your repentance. 

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who would corrupt the Church tend to filter themselves out through individual apostasy. The thing that must be guarded against is efforts by them to hijack the Church and refashion it Church according to their own whims and desires.

Well, you have the FLDS, the Community of Christ(RLDS), and the list goes on. Some of the great early leaders of the Church such as Sidney Rigdon led members after them. It just shows God has not stopped apostasy from occurring. There is individual apostasy within the Church and there are apostate groups without.

D&C 112:24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

This definitely implies some level of apostasy or wickedness anyway within the Church. I'm sure some Church members could be considered apostate. When the Church finds out about them, they are typically excommunicated. However, for some I acknowledge that sinners would probably be a better word. It depends whether they are trying to lead others falsely I suppose. Then comes sticky wick questions like is someone who believes in some level of Adam-god-father an apostate? The Church seems to have determined that belief alone does not make one an apostate, but has gone after intellectuals who have published works critical of Church policy. So you have personal belief vs published beliefs. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

He does. There is apostasy everywhere - even in His restored Church. There is gross darkness in the world.

He doesn't. It still happens all the time. However, there are enough righteous members that the restored priesthood is continually renewed. God has a plan to keep the Church from going too far off course. He will keep sending teachers.

In your first comment, I think you are referring to individual and not institutional apostasy. Those who institutionalize their individual apostasy (splinter groups, for example) are no longer in / within the LDS Church, and these institutions are definitely apart from her.

In your second comment, are you referring to the Protestant concept of a "universal priesthood" or a "priesthood of all believers"?

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

However, there are enough righteous members that the restored priesthood is continually renewed. God has a plan to keep the Church from going too far off course. He will keep sending teachers.

This really doesn't answer my question because it goes back to why did He let happen before but not now? Why didn't he keep sending teachers before?

Also, the comment about righteous members now preventing apostasy seems to imply that there weren't enough righteous members in the early Christian Church. I wouldn't presume to know the righteousness of those who lived 2000 years ago, but I do know something of their faithfulness and commitment to Christ, as their persecutions FAR exceeded anything the early Mormons were forced to endure. It seems odd to say that they were not righteous when they were willing to give up their lives in horrific tortures rather than deny Christ or worship the Roman emperor.

Edited August 5, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This really doesn't answer my question because it goes back to why did He let happen before but not now? Why didn't he keep sending teachers before?

Also, the comment about righteous members now preventing apostasy seems to imply that there weren't enough righteous members in the early Christian Church. I wouldn't presume to know the righteousness of those who lived 2000 years ago, but I do know something of their faithfulness and commitment to Christ, as their persecutions FAR exceeded anything the early Mormons were forced to endure. It seems odd to say that they were not righteous when they were willing to give up their lives in horrific tortures rather than deny Christ or worship the Roman emperor.

Hi MN and Mark.

As a Mormon, I would be inclined to say that the early Christian apostasy lies in the ultimate philosophical heresy. They thought that "truth is the conformity of the intellect with the thing." They probably held that "Truth is that quality of thought by which it is in accord with the thing, with that which is." They must have thought that the Apostles Creed reflected objective historical events and facts that can be known and can never change.  

Would the martyrs have been better off to take heed to the "wisdom" of Pontius Pilate who expressed his lack of ability to know truth?

Definitions of "truth" are taken from Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, From Liberalism to Apostasy, Angelus Press, 1988, p.14

On the contrary, the Archbishop identifies what he considers the problem with what he calls "subjectivism", the necessary result when one despairs of knowing the object:

The subjectivist..."is drawn to reject the immutable essences of things; for him there is no nature of things, there is no stable human nature ruled by definitive laws set down by the Creator. Man is in perpetual progressive evolution; the man of yesterday is not the man of today." (p. 16)

Isn't the very idea of apostasy based on objectivism? Is it in a subjective or objective sense that proposes as truth, that the early Christian Church became apostate? Is the apostasy an immutable fact for Mormons, or can it progress? It would seem to me to be beyond any development or further revelation that would allow that there was no apostasy. 

Mark...My questions are mostly rhetorical. Answer if and when you will. I am only trying to share my thoughts based on what I just happened to read today. I would be curious to know if the Archbishop in your opinion, accurately enough represents the subjectivism he obviously denies, and the objectivism he accepts? It seems to explain to me why we have clashed so vigorously over the years and also why there is really no reconciliation between the two ways of understanding reality. I think it describes the philosophical battleground pretty well.

 

 

   

Edited August 6, 2017 by 3DOP

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This really doesn't answer my question because it goes back to why did He let happen before but not now? Why didn't he keep sending teachers before?

Why did God let the Israelites go apostate? He sent them many prophets, and they still went astray. In fact God knew he was going to smite His people numerous times, before He did so, and told them way back in Leviticus. Why does God do the things He does? I have some ideas, but who is to say? Jesus knew the Church would go into apostasy, and that the night would come upon it when no man could work. Further God already knew many would worship the false beast.

Oh, and God will let the Church go apostate again. The promise is that the priesthood shall not be taken from the earth till the sons of Levi make an offering in righteousness. Some time after that, Satan will be loosed again because man will let him back in - I assume because man will start going apostate again.

Quote

Also, the comment about righteous members now preventing apostasy seems to imply that there weren't enough righteous members in the early Christian Church. I wouldn't presume to know the righteousness of those who lived 2000 years ago, but I do know something of their faithfulness and commitment to Christ, as their persecutions FAR exceeded anything the early Mormons were forced to endure. It seems odd to say that they were not righteous when they were willing to give up their lives in horrific tortures rather than deny Christ or worship the Roman emperor.

Well we are talking about a gradient here over a three hundred year period. That may not sound like much, but that is older than the United States. A lot can happen in three hundred years. The Church could stop being persecuted, and could become the official state religion, so that pagans would get left behind in political influence etc, if they did not join.... Heck. What am I saying. That's what happened... The emperors could adopt new creeds of belief and make it mandatory for them to be read in the churches, and excommunicate any dissenters.. Heck, what am I saying? That's what happened.

I agree that before that time though, the Church was heavily persecuted. And it will be again.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and ^ajudgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and ^breigned with Christ a ^cthousand years.

Edited August 6, 2017 by RevTestament

[Thinking]

On Thursday, August 03, 2017 at 4:36 PM, JLHPROF said:

Good thing scripture says the keys were restored to Joseph for the final time.

Circular

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Circular

Not really.

[Spammer]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Why did God let the Israelites go apostate? He sent them many prophets, and they still went astray. In fact God knew he was going to smite His people numerous times, before He did so, and told them way back in Leviticus. Why does God do the things He does? I have some ideas, but who is to say? Jesus knew the Church would go into apostasy, and that the night would come upon it when no man could work. Further God already knew many would worship the false beast.

Oh, and God will let the Church go apostate again. The promise is that the priesthood shall not be taken from the earth till the sons of Levi make an offering in righteousness. Some time after that, Satan will be loosed again because man will let him back in - I assume because man will start going apostate again.

Well we are talking about a gradient here over a three hundred year period. That may not sound like much, but that is older than the United States. A lot can happen in three hundred years. The Church could stop being persecuted, and could become the official state religion, so that pagans would get left behind in political influence etc, if they did not join.... Heck. What am I saying. That's what happened... The emperors could adopt new creeds of belief and make it mandatory for them to be read in the churches, and excommunicate any dissenters.. Heck, what am I saying? That's what happened.

I agree that before that time though, the Church was heavily persecuted. And it will be again.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and ^ajudgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and ^breigned with Christ a ^cthousand 

 "The emperors could adopt new creeds of belief and make it mandatory for them to be read in the churches, and excommunicate any dissenters.. Heck, what am I saying? That's what happened."

it wasn't mandatory for bishops from outside the Roman Empire who attended the council, or their churches, who were never subject to the emperor or the Roman popes. The largest group of these churches, represented at the council by a bishop named John, were all subjects of the Sassanid (Zoroastrian) emperor and empire in Persia. Those churches accepted the Nicene Creed anyway and stuck with it through and after the waves of terrible persecutions ordered by the Persian emperors, precisely because the Nicene creedal Christians in the Persian Empire were viewed as traitors; they shared the same faith as the hated Roman emperor and his empire. Those churches (the few that survived the later Muslim conquest and persecutions and still exist) are still creedal to this day. Nicene Creedal Catholicism without the pope and emperor. Catholicism and the principles of the Creed are older than the council and Constantine's conversion.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Spammer

[Bobbieaware]

On 8/4/2017 at 11:57 AM, stemelbow said:

It certainly feels like a second restoration is due. 

The only problem is that what would seem to be a second restoration for people who think like you would actually turn out to be an apostasy for those who think as I do. 😉

Edited August 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, Spammer said:

 "The emperors could adopt new creeds of belief and make it mandatory for them to be read in the churches, and excommunicate any dissenters.. Heck, what am I saying? That's what happened."

it wasn't mandatory for bishops from outside the Roman Empire who attended the council, or their churches, who were never subject to the emperor or the Roman popes. The largest group of these churches, represented at the council by a bishop named John, were all subjects of the Sassanid (Zoroastrian) emperor and empire in Persia. Those churches accepted the Nicene Creed anyway and stuck with it through and after the waves of terrible persecutions ordered by the Persian emperors, precisely because the Nicene creedal Christians in the Persian Empire were viewed as traitors; they shared the same faith as the hated Roman emperor and his empire. Those churches (the few that survived the later Muslim conquest and persecutions and still exist) are still creedal to this day. Nicene Creedal Catholicism without the pope and emperor. Catholicism and the principles of the Creed are older than the council and Constantine's conversion.

Who attended the Nicene Council still has elements of mystery. Supposedly most of the bishops in the Roman Empire did not attend. Are you saying the Church of the East has some kind of record that they had bishops who attended? If so, can you provide some citations for this please?

I did not say no bishops from outside the Roman Empire attended. I was merely stating how the creeds gained prominence within the Roman Empire. They became the law of the Church in effect. I do believe they are not fully accurate, and in fact are misleading, and therefore apostate. So to the extent Eastern Bishops adopted them, they went apostate as well. I know the Syrian Church later departed from Roman doctrine regarding the nature of Christ, but I believe history reveals a great many of the Eastern bishops were not really excited by the Nicene Creed, as evidenced by later councils which excommunicated Athanasius.

So the question arises which part of the Church was in the right? Only a minority voted on the Nicene Creed. Yet, it is still widely accepted not only by Catholics but by Protestants today.

[Spammer]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Who attended the Nicene Council still has elements of mystery. Supposedly most of the bishops in the Roman Empire did not attend. Are you saying the Church of the East has some kind of record that they had bishops who attended? If so, can you provide some citations for this please?

I did not say no bishops from outside the Roman Empire attended. I was merely stating how the creeds gained prominence within the Roman Empire. They became the law of the Church in effect. I do believe they are not fully accurate, and in fact are misleading, and therefore apostate. So to the extent Eastern Bishops adopted them, they went apostate as well. I know the Syrian Church later departed from Roman doctrine regarding the nature of Christ, but I believe history reveals a great many of the Eastern bishops were not really excited by the Nicene Creed, as evidenced by later councils which excommunicated Athanasius.

So the question arises which part of the Church was in the right? Only a minority voted on the Nicene Creed. Yet, it is still widely accepted not only by Catholics but by Protestants today.

The reference to a bishop representative from Persia comes from an eyewitness account by Eusebius, one of the two surviving; the second is from Athanasius. Interestingly, Constantine's invitation to attend the council (including state coverage of all travel expenses, room and board) was made to bishops whose diocese were part of the Roman Empire. The Persian bishop probably travelled on his own dime and possibly didn't receive an official invite.

The Persian church formally adopted the Creed in 410 through a council of bishops. This was one year after the emperor ended his predecessors' policy of persecution of Christians; Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the empire. My point in mentioning the Nicene orthodoxy of the Persian church was solely to point out that said theology is older than the council and churches that supported it were scattered throughout the universal church, before and after the council. The theology of the Creed can hardly have been an invention of the Council of Nicea or Constantine (as is frequently surmised by some non-Catholics). 

Whether the majority of bishops in the Roman Empire who did not attend the council supported Arius or Athanasius is unknown. What is known is that a majority of bishops at the council voted in support of Athanasius (Constantine didn't have a vote) and Nicene orthodoxy was established in the Roman Empire (until Constantine changed his mind), just as it was established officially in the Sassinid Empire in Persia in 410 through a meeting of bishops. 

Of course, Constantine later switched his support to Arius; received Arian baptism on his deathbed; and emperors Constantius and Valens continued Constantine's policy of persecuting and exiling Nicene orthodox bishops). Apostate or not, what's interesting is that, despite the decades-long post-Nicea opposition of the Roman state and the decisions of rival Arian councils with imperial patronage, Nicene orthodoxy still won the day inside the Roman Empire, as well as outside. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Spammer

[Gray]

John Shelby Spong's work, in a way, carries on the spirit of the restoration. He tries to get at the historical Jesus and his teachings via scholarship, and then seeks to more closely follow that Jesus. In the past the attempt to do this was made through ecstatic revelation and Biblical literalism, but the end goal is quite similar, even if the road to get there is very, very different.

[Jeanne]

Okay...I haven't read all this thread.  But I couldn't contain myself any longer.  When I saw the title of the thread, my first thought was..you mean there is more??  For some love that I have of the New Testament, I will admit that Revelations gives me the heebie jeebies..so yeah there are things that I don't understand..but I don't believe God/Jesus will destroy the earth...we are doing a pretty good job of that all by ourselves.  What happens next..there is not much anybody can do about...and maybe it will be about nothing but bringing everyone together...finally..in some sort of peace.

I think it is hard for any one of us to imagine a paradise here on this earth.  It would be like a wistful dream to me.  I find it hard to think that the Savior would take this time to divide and separate only to try to bring us together.  That doesn't make sense to me. .so until I know, I'll hold on to the dream.

Edited August 7, 2017 by Jeanne