- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? I would answer this YES, absolutely!
The Restoration is probably the single most important reason I stay LDS. My conclusion after years and years of research and thought on this topic is that Joseph Smith did a very effective job at restoring the original Church of Jesus Christ, warts and all.
(And although this post was ready a few days ago, I’ve rewritten it.)
So let me be quite clear on this. The original Church of Jesus Christ was a human fabricated institution trying to follow what they felt were the teachings of Jesus Christ. They believed in revelation, a form of the plan of salvation, had a wide set of beliefs about the nature of god, established a called, lay priesthood, recognized the value of both faith and works, tried to establish a Zion-like United Order community, and had numerous problems associated with not having an insititutionalized set of doctrine and structure.
In my opinion, Joseph Smith restored exactly that: a human-fabricated institution trying to follow what they thought were the teachings of christ, including revelation, plan of salvation, diverse and creative opinions about the nature of god, a structural male hierarchy of lay priesthood, a duality of faith and works as necessary, and tried to establish Zion. It pretty much fits the original church, flaws and all.
And you know what else Joseph Smith restored? Pious Fraud: the invention of inspired fiction and calling historical scripture — a hallmark of religious systems since the beginning of time.
So, again to be clear, I do not believe that Joseph Smith restored a perfect organization without flaws as existed when Jesus Christ set up the “True Church”, because history pretty well shows that Christ did no such thing. There never has been a “True Church” without flaws on the earth. It goes without saying that I would never say that this is the ‘only true and living church on the face of the earth’. The question doesn’t require such a profession of faith, but rather, a testimony of the restoration of something called ‘the gospel’. And I absolutely have a testimony of it.
My testimony is that I have carefully studied early christian history, and Joseph Smith did a pretty good job about restoring the original model, including most of its structural and operational flaws as befitting a man-made organization. Beyond that testimony, there are some things I find to be really brilliant in the restoration:
1. Personal revelation — The idea that we can be in touch with the god within and all that to guide our lives, even to the point of creating scripture at a institutional level — I have never understood why someone can accept the testimony of Paul in Galatians who, after Christ’s ascension, and never having met him im person, can be called by Christ to be an apostle through revelation.
2. Spiritual Materialism – Existentialism. Mormon theology does not posit ex nihilo creation, nor does it posit the platonic concept of the ideal, but rather, that all things, including god and spirit, are material.
3. All truth is the gospel — This is the concept I hang my hat on. If something is true, historically or scientifically likely, it is part of the gospel. anything that is proven not true is not gospel. What lies between is speculation about the unknown.
4. Zion. I love the concept of zion, the idea that we can be of one heart and one mind, not same heart, but knit together in love and harmony. I’m a utopian socialist in this way. This, to me, would be the crowning achievement of the church and gospel, to live in a society that values truth, equality amidst the diversity and diverse contribution of its members, and the ability to set aside contentions freely through respectful discourse and understanding.
We’re obviously not yet a Zion society. But, the church is at its very best when it unites together in service and love for those in need; when we listen in love to another person who is suffering; when we faithfully do our home and visiting teaching, not so much to ‘teach’ but rather, to listen and serve. That’s where Zion has to start.
This is what I see as the value of restoration, and why I say YES.
I love wayfarer’s twist on “restoration”, in that he takes a word we think we have a good working definition for and twists it about 90 degrees. I would have to say I don’t really have a testimony of the restoration in any conventional definition. I can probably make up a definition I could agree with, but I think playing definition games is not totally honest (which is in no way a criticism of wayfarer’s post).
I agree with everything he said about the early church. It was not pretty, and it’s clear these guys were largely making this up as they went along. I don’t believe in “inerrancy”, but neither do I believe the New Testament is mostly made up stories about Jesus. I think it generally reflects what people thought the gospel meant and what they thought really happened and is not a “pious fraud”. Unlike many early LDS church leaders who accumulated wives and property and thus had a good reason to keep this thing going, the early apostles got nothing but pain and death out of the gospel. I’ll just end the tangent right there.
When we speak of the restoration obviously LDS church organization never resembled New Testament church organization, because there was no such thing as a prophet/president who was God’s sole mouthpiece, except for Jesus, who never actually organized any church other than assembling twelve guys for special training. So what was restored? The restoration of priesthood authority is what we mean by the “restoration”, and D&C 121 tells us how well men can handle authority, which is not very well. I’m not an anarchist and I believe in the importance of institutions and order, but I don’t believe LDS church leaders really have the kind of authority they claim to have. I’m sure when Thomas S Monson says prayers they are answered in the same way that my prayers are answered, but his inspiration about my life do not overrule my inspiration about my life. He can run the church, but it’s up to me to read his counsel, ponder it, and then decide how much to apply.
Largely the message of the early church was about the return of personal revelation and not that God had now put a man in place who can tell you whether or not to wear flipflops to church. That “restoration” I could probably agree with, but not the institution of fifteen flawed men as God’s spokesmen, which actually runs counter to the actual restoration the early LDS missionaries preached.
BobDixon wrote:I love wayfarer’s twist on “restoration”, in that he takes a word we think we have a good working definition for and twists it about 90 degrees.
I would have to say I don’t really have a testimony of the restoration in any conventional definition. I can probably make up a definition I could agree with, but I think playing definition games is not totally honest (which is in no way a criticism of wayfarer’s post).
I understand completely. They most probably mean when they ask the question “Do you believe that Joseph Smith restored the full ‘one and only true and living church upon the face of the earth’?”, but those aren’t the words used. Is answering the question how they ask it a word game? I don’t think so. Restoration is just that, something restored, and I think the key to this is what you list here:BobDixon wrote:Largely the message of the early church was about the return of personal revelation and not that God had now put a man in place who can tell you whether or not to wear flipflops to church. That “restoration” I could probably agree with, but not the institution of fifteen flawed men as God’s spokesmen, which actually runs counter to the actual restoration the early LDS missionaries preached.
Exactly, exactly, totally true. When JS first organized the church, it was totally about personal revelation, and the structural hierarchy wasn’t in place. The initial structures put in place after organization were more or less equal to each other (as noted in section 20), and the guide would be the spirit, not the dominance hierarchy established by the later Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.I love the wild and wooly early church, it’s so like the first christians — and well it should be: the first christians were a spin-off cult following a ‘rebbe’ named Y’shua. But these cults (term used in a precise technical sense) are not sustainable, because the person to whom the cult owes allegiance invariably changes and eventually dies. Hence, shortly after establishment, the institution of the church starts creating control structures for doctrine and command that lead toward a type of rigor-mortis seen in both the Catholic as well as LDS church.
What I find fascinating is how quickly the LDS church has become dogmatically Catholic-like in a much shorter timeframe. It took at least 500 years for the Catholic leaders to rein in as much control as “the brethren” have over LDS in well less than 180 years.
Still, there are good reasons for that rigor-mortis: personal revelation gone wild creates no basis for teaching basic principles — it’s way too chaotic. As well, purely egalitarian organizations break down quite quickly. Dominance Hierarchies like the Priesthood and hierarchal foundations of power in the LDS church as well as Catholicism ensure that the organization endures. It’s a natural evolution from the initial restoration, and thence onward to where we are today. The whole schmear speaks to a restoration, aka ‘replication’ of early church history.
As for Pious Fraud, I understand the sentiment to reject the term. It’s not meant negatively. First of all, the gospels are narrative historical fiction created several generations after the events occurred, yet these same books are put forth as ‘gospels’: first hand witnesses to the events. That’s not specifically true. Those that put these teachings forth intended to let people believe they were first- and near-first-hand accounts of the events, so as to give the books
authority. This process of creating a spiritual historical narrative, and passing it of as legitimate history is the process of Pious Fraud I’m speaking about. In Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis, in the creation of the New Testament, in the invention of the book of mormon, in the ongoing revisions to the Doctrine and Covenants, all of these books demonstrate Pious Fraud at work. And it works: people put stock into these books, and therefore create a common set of narratives upon which a tribe can tell its moral stories.
wayfarer wrote:
What I find fascinating is how quickly the LDS church has become dogmatically Catholic-like in a much shorter timeframe. It took at least 500 years for the Catholic leaders to rein in as much control as “the brethren” have over LDS in well less than 180 years.It’s fun to find someone else who sees this also. The LDS church quickly became the very thing it was supposed to overcome, a control structure claiming the authority to do the thinking for you. It became everything the First Vision was supposed to tear down.
wayfarer wrote:
Still, there are good reasons for that rigor-mortis: personal revelation gone wild creates no basis for teaching basic principles — it’s way too chaotic. As well, purely egalitarian organizations break down quite quickly. Dominance Hierarchies like the Priesthood and hierarchal foundations of power in the LDS church as well as Catholicism ensure that the organization endures. It’s a natural evolution from the initial restoration, and thence onward to where we are today. The whole schmear speaks to a restoration, aka ‘replication’ of early church history.
But, that chaos is where the personal growth is. We can’t learn to discern the voice of the spirit without practice and making mistakes, and there’s just no growth in mindlessly following someone else’s revelations.
wayfarer wrote:
As for Pious Fraud, I understand the sentiment to reject the term. It’s not meant negatively. First of all, the gospels are narrative historical fiction created several generations after the events occurred, yet these same books are put forth as ‘gospels’: first hand witnesses to the events. That’s not specifically true. Those that put these teachings forth intended to let people believe they were first- and near-first-hand accounts of the events, so as to give the booksauthority. This process of creating a spiritual historical narrative, and passing it of as legitimate history is the process of Pious Fraud I’m speaking about. In Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis, in the creation of the New Testament, in the invention of the book of mormon, in the ongoing revisions to the Doctrine and Covenants, all of these books demonstrate Pious Fraud at work. And it works: people put stock into these books, and therefore create a common set of narratives upon which a tribe can tell its moral stories.
I don’t really believe this at all, but I really have some things to get done this morning. There is really no documentary evidence that the gospels are either objective history or super-sized faith promoting stories that never happened. People filter this through their own biases, but it’s not provable one way or the other. My understanding is that 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written about 50 AD or so, which is only twenty years after the death of Jesus and contains a pretty well-developed testimony. Mark is somewhat after that, with John’s books being written around 90AD as the closing chapters. I don’t think this really qualifies as several generations, and were not produced out of nothing like the BoM was. They were witnesses of the experiences and belief of an entire community which would not have accepted them if they didn’t generally reflect what people remembered and had already heard.
I believe the idea of the “invention of the BoM” is not provable either without Emma and Oliver Cowdery around to tell us what really happened. I don’t believe it’s at all historical, but is inspired fiction just too brilliant to have been made up as, say, the Harry Potter stories were, Lord of the Rings, etc.
Shawn has left this forum, but I promised him I would copy his answers to these questions into the appropriate threads as they appear, so the following is his response to this question: Quote:I believe Jesus organized his church during his ministry. Eventually, the simplicity of the Gospel was lost, the ordinances were changed, and the priesthood authority was taken from the earth. I don’t know why this was allowed to happen, but it did. In God’s own time, a new prophet was called who was given power to lay the foundation of this church. Joseph Smith is the prophet and head of this last dispensation. The priesthood and ordinances were restored. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is…………………..brace yourself…………………the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth. I don’t think this is arrogant and it does not mean the church has a spotless history. It means that it is sanctioned by God, has leaders ordained by God, has the authority to administer ordinances, and teaches the fullness of the Gospel as it has been revealed so far.
Thanks Ray, for keeping us in the loop. I believe that the Lord wanted me to join THIS church, and that is the source of my answer of “Yes” to this question.
28 years ago, I asked if it was true and I should be a member of it, and after an unsuccessful 3 day fast, and 6-8 months of attendance, regular prayers, and doing Moroni 10:3-5 I got what I felt was an answer that was good enough to act on. My personal “Yes” to this question is the result of a chain of logic whose spiritual testimony-factor gets less and less powerful with every piece of logic in the chain.
Quote:Here is the logic chain with the “potency of testimony index” listed on scale of 1-10, with 10 being most potent.
1. God told me to join this Church and said it’s true, so I did it. (10)
2. If God said it’s true, then JS was a prophet. although this is harder to believe, but possible(6)
3. If Joseph Smith was a prophet then there was a restoration as he said there was (4).
I like Wayfarer’s concept though. That the restoration was the restoration of a partially true, yet flawed original organization which also wasn’t absolutely literally true either — everyone just believed it was. As even my evangelical father said — the MOrmons come closer to practicing religion like the primitive church than most other religions he was aware of.
Brilliant Wayfarer — absolutely brilliant.
Yes – and I believe this question might be the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, bastardized question of all of them when it comes to many members of the Church and how they view the temple recommend interview. The question doesn’t ask if we know the LDS Church is the same church that existed after Jesus died.
It doesn’t even mention the word “church” at all.I absolutely love wayfarer’s comments about the early Christian church . . . but I personally think that his excellent comparison has nothing to do with the actual question that is asked. 🙂 I think it has more to do with a later question.Also, I couldn’t care less what the person asking the question might think it means; all I care about is the actual question being asked.
I’m not being asked to agree with the questioner; I’m being asked to answer a specific question.If there are mental games being played by some members, it’s not being done by those members who only answer the question asked; it’s being done by those members who change the question into something it’s not. Why make it more complicated than it has to be – and how in the world is answering the question as asked dishonest or disingenuous in any way, shape or form? To me, not answering the actual question as I understand it and instead answering a different question I think the other person would have asked if that person had written the question . . . That, imo, is mental gymnastics, and I seriously don’t get that stance at all. I wouldn’t call it dishonest or disingenuous, but I certainly would call it unnecessary and, for some people, emotionally unhealthy.
This question is NOT about the restoration of a church – or “the only true and living church”.
This question is about the restoration **of the Gospel** – nothing more.Honestly, we talk enough in this forum about the difference between the Church and the Gospel that I’m surprised that I don’t see it being done more with regard to this particular question. I love the “Restored Gospel” as I understand it. To me, that is what I call “pure Mormonism”. When “the Gospel” is described in the Book of Mormon, for example, it basically is focused on the second part of my signature line – and if I put it in my signature line, I obviously “have a testimony” of it.
Quote:Do I have a testimony of faith – as I understand faith? Absolutely.
Do I have a testimony of repentance – as I understand repentance? Absolutely.
Do I have a testimony of baptism – as I understand baptism? Absolutely.
Do I have a testimony of the gift of the Holy Ghost – as I understand the gift of the Holy Ghost? Absolutely.
Do I have a testimony of enduring to the end – as I understand enduring to the end? Absolutely.
That’s it for this question, imo. It doesn’t ask about anything else, so I don’t answer it as if it did.
Ray, I couldn’t agree more that the gospel starts with the first four principles, plus endure to the end. The problem is that these principles were never lost, so how could they be restored? The question is about restoration of “the gospel”, which is what the church is supposed to teach. The gospel — what was taught — was more than the “first four” to the original saints, and in that more, we find the specific pieces that needed to be restored: plan of salvation including pre-mortal existence, personal revelation leading to an open canon, the Zion society, spiritual materialism, and the singular concept that the gospel is simply “all truth” regardless of source.
Without the innovations i have listed in common between the early understanding of the gospel and the early teachings of the LDS church, there is no real restoration.
If I look at “the church”, there are even more things that might be considered restored, but also a lot of things that are new to Mormonism or not restored from the original church. But you are correct, these aren’t part of the question.
No I see the LDS church as being a Protestant not a Restorationist movement.
In fact Joseph Smith was very innovative. He came up with all kinds of things that are completely new – e.g. Masonic temple rites to name one of many.
Just because they church has twelve apostles doesn’t make it anything like the early Christian church.
No. I am unable to nuance a yes to this question.
I do like the idea that Way throws out there though. Sure, the entire concept of restoring the ideal of personal revelation and that man no longer needs “church authority” to talk and communicate with the gods is quite awesome, and, I think a true restored principle. And yeah, it is very unfortunate that the LDS church pretty well just took the place of authority and the “go between” that Joseph Smith condemned to begin with. Man>CHURCH>God, instead of the the Joseph Smith model of MAN>GOD>church.
But, restored gospel? No. I don’t think so. AND, I know that the church membership, almost to the person, equate the church and the gospel as the same thing. (Poelman being the exception
I have no qualms with those of you who can answer yes. Good for you.
cwald, I see your point. As long as I had in my mind that there was, originally, a pure definition of the gospel as taught by Jesus and the early church, then I would say “no” as well. But the early church made stuff up as the went forward. Take a look at the first official act: apostolic succession. Did they have a succession procedure revealed to them? No, it was luck of the draw: casting lots. Certainly not a revelation-based process.
But 15-17 years later, some dude named Saul has a “revelation” on the road to Damascus. He self-selects himself a Christian, and says that the only way to receive the gospel is through revelation. Interesting point. And if he did that well after the ascension, then what defining event closed the heavens to revelation in Christianity, such that the bible is the complete and definitive statement of the gospel? Not a thing.
Without revelation, there is no gospel. Thus for Joseph smith to bring back personal revelation is most significant.
The point of the early church was that because they were flawed humans, no one really had a grasp on “all truth”. They needed revelation to guide the process. They had it in Peter, James, John, and Paul, and the same wrote scripture. Why shouldn’t that be the same in the church today?
This is why I feel strongly “yes”.
wayfarer, I believe strongly that there are aspects of faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end really were lost for centuries – that “the Gospel” that is encapsulated in how those aspects are taught within “pure Mormonism” really are a “restoration” in a very powerful way. It’s more the purpose and result of a particular understanding of “the Gospel” (the deeper meaning of “Good News”) that I believe was restored – not the words used non-stop over the years. I know the words have been used non-stop since the establishment of the early Christian Church, but I don’t believe they have meant the same thing over that time. I believe many members don’t understand what I really mean by that, even as they would agree with it as written. That is ironic, I know.
Again, I don’t bring the Church into this question, because I don’t see the Church anywhere in this question. The Gospel could have been restored without the establishment of a church, just like when Jesus himself taught it originally during his mortal ministry. They are completely independent things, and this question is about the Gospel, not the Church. If we work so hard to emphasize the difference between those two very different things in every single discussion that happens here, I have a hard time understanding why we wouldn’t do that with regard to this question.
The Church is addressed in a different question. Why make it bleed over into this one and not treat the two different questions as asking two different things?
Good point Way. And that is a fair response Ray.
I’m thinking about it.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I don’t think this question is the challenge. Wait until #4, which is by far the hardest, then 7, then 10. Quote:I don’t think this question is the challenge. Wait until #4.
That actually is my point. I also don’t think this question should be as hard as too many people make it by mixing it in with the next question. Let it stand on its own by waiting until the next question to deal with the question about the Church. To adapt a different concept, “Sufficient unto the (question) is the (interpretative difficulty) thereof.”
If the order was reversed (Church, then Gospel), it would make more sense to have the Church question influence how one sees the Gospel question – but I actually like the order as is (the Godhead first, then the Gospel, then the Church). In that order, I don’t need to have the Gospel question have anything to do with the Church, since the following question asks about the Church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.