The Restoration of the Gospel

Given some of the core theological beliefs within Protestantism, especially, I really do believe in the concept and principle of “restoration” – much more so at the theological, Gospel level than the organizational, church level.

Seriously, some of the things that were and still are believed as “creeds” truly are abominable to me.

I did a post on the concept of “Restoration” a while back on By Common Consent that you might enjoy. My conclusion is that there are many meanings to the word, and the one I liked best was to add life to something.

Thanks for your responses, all. I have been edified.

I think there needed to be some credibility to the claims. The backstory was needed to set the early church apart from everything else. I think much of the more unique claims arose out of a need to be different. However I feel at some point it became less about Christ and more about itself.

It’s like how Josiah “found” the books of the law. Some suggest this “restoration” was so the scriptures could be adjusted/created to present a certain point of view and consolidate power to a specific group. Then they could say, look at our history, surely it is the will of God, and we are the chosen people.

I do agree the church needed to present itself as different from what existed. I’m not sure that was really clear in the beginning or that it was actually Joseph Smith’s plan, but it did come out that way. As if a 14-year-old boy having a vision and the Book of Mormon weren’t different enough!

Given some of the core theological beliefs within Protestantism, especially, I really do believe in the concept and principle of “restoration” – much more so at the theological, Gospel level than the organizational, church level.

Seriously, some of the things that were and still are believed as “creeds” truly are abominable to me.

True, some of what has been taught as gospel in other churches is indeed not gospel. I do believe Protestantism was an attempt at restoration because clearly the Catholic church had become corrupt. And I believe guys like Martin Luther may have been inspired. Luther was a priest, opening the door to the possibility that Lutherans also have the priesthood. Still, the core of the gospel was there – the protestant reformers were more focused on reformation of the church.

I think there was definitely a need for a refreshing, but not a “restoration of all things” if it’s going to include polygamy, for instance. In my opinion, we got some bathwater with the baby. I don’t know; maybe it was unavoidable.

Refreshing is a thought. Again, perhaps people were too caught up in reformation needed for churches that the gospel itself was being ignored. But polygamy, for example, is one of those things I was referring to in the OP. I don’t see that as part of the gospel, but it is taught as a necessary part of exaltation. Of course, part of what I’m sorting out is the difference between mere salvation and exaltation or eternal life.

I did a post on the concept of “Restoration” a while back on By Common Consent that you might enjoy. My conclusion is that there are many meanings to the word, and the one I liked best was to add life to something.

Adding to as part of a restoration does make some sense – especially if there are missing parts. I’ll try to find your blog later today when I have more time.

I enjoyed your post and questions. I think you’re starting from a great “core.”

I’ve learned to embrace the word “fullness.”

“My cup runneth over” (also translated as “my cup is brim full”) suggests we have everything we, as individuals and as a church, are able to receive. Not everything available to receive. There are plenty of scriptures and statements that suggest there is more to discover – and some of it is already available on earth, not hidden in heaven. So fullness does not mean we have all of everyone’s truth. We what we need.

I blogged about this recently.

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/20 … s.html?m=1

So embrace your fullness.

Thanks for another perspective. I certainly agree that we don’t have all truth and it seems GAs are beginning to admit this more openly of late. So do you think my cup may runneth over with that core teaching of the gospel while yours may be a different shape or size and needs more? Or is it still our collective cup being full with what we have? Interesting thought. I’m still kind of stuck on some of the stuff we (as a church) emphasize over others – the gift of the Holy Ghost being one of them. I have been doing some scriptural research, but it appears to be only mentioned in modern scripture. I can take the above idea of adding to, but then I have to question why, when what the Biblical people had was enough for them. That brings up the status of the tribes of Israel, which may be another topic, but are they really going to have to be baptized? Weren’t they following the gospel with the understanding (fullness) of what they had?

I remember from RSR that the principles of faith, repentance, baptism, and the GoHG were already being preached by another religious movement at the time of the formation of Mormonism. We didn’t invent this quartet of principles – we co-opted them – word for word.

I read that, too, Roy. Joseph Smith was clearly influenced by his surroundings and fads of the day, and pretty much admits so. I’m no expert on all other churches, but I don’t know of any outside the LDS movement (including the offshoots) that continue to emphasize the GoHG. I truly question whether it is part of the gospel and necessary for salvation or exaltation.

I agree that the influence and/or Gift of the Holy Ghost is a good thing Ray. I am not clear on the Holy Ghost’s role, and as some here are aware, I’m not sure about the whole influence of God in our daily lives and/or revelation as a regular everyday thing. I do believe the Holy Ghost does have a purpose or role in the Godhead and therefore in dealing with mankind and I also believe the church has no monopoly on the Holy Ghost. I am inclined to believe that the Holy Ghost does in some way testify of Jesus as the Christ. And I do understand the nuance there in bestowing the gift, that it is more of an invitation or instruction (or perhaps command) than an actual bestowal of a power. Again, it’s so tied into emotion and so easily mimicked that I have difficulty accepting much of that which is attributed to as revelation from the Holy Ghost is actually that. I do understand there are many who disagree with me and believe wholeheartedly they have near constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and I once believed this myself.

All that said, I still don’t see it as a “saving ordinance.” I think it lacks scriptural back up and there is only scant reference to it in the NT as being practiced in early Christianity. I can accept the idea it was restored, like I can accept other things that may have been gone from the earth for some time. I have difficulty accepting it as part of the gospel as necessary for salvation.

I understand and respect that, Dark Jedi. As I said, I like the concept behind the practice, even though I’m not married to any particular interpretation of the details.

Long before I had a faith crisis/transition I thought of the restoration as a longer process than just Joseph Smith. I looked at the various people who rescued, printed, translated the bible as part of it. For me the idea I got and still get is furniture restoration. You have an old piece in some form, it’s condition isn’t perfect. At times it may just need a new handle to open a door, other times it needs a complete over haul with sanding, puttying, scraping, staining and the new handle.

For me this restoration began with Paul’s letters and Peter’s advice and moved forward.

I don’t know if that’s true, but I like it.