- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I say yes. I won’t complicate it anymore than that. Everyone (as usual) has made the points I would use.
Maybe it’s because I’m an adult convert to the LDS Church, the only member in my family and was an active member
of the Methodist church. There was a huge difference (spirituality & service) between the (2) churches as I made my investigation.
Part of the difference I attributed to the need for a restoration.
I would be careful not to use the term:
Quote:Pious Fraud
during the TR interview.
Mike from Milton.
Quote:I would be careful not to use the term “Pious Fraud” during the TR interview.
😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: 😆 :clap: Truer words never have been spoken.
Old-Timer wrote: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 don’t know if we are agreeing or disagreeing here
I hardly think the anabaptists or Catholics would appreciate your comment here. having spent some time wayfaring their ways, I cannot agree that they had lost the first principles of the gospel. that is why i seek a broader definition of the gospel to include revelation, all truth, and zion.
I understand that concern, wayfarer, but, as I said, I’m defining the restoration of the Gospel differently than my Catholic friends would – although my definition wouldn’t be foreign to anabaptists. For example, I’m defining “faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ” as acting according to a hope in what Jesus preached during his ministry – and I believe it is an understanding of the core of the content of that preaching that was lost over time – not necessarily from every person’s heart and mind, but certainly from dominant Christianity for centuries (institutional Catholicism). I know that others who believe differently than I do won’t like that, but there’s no way around that for me if I believe in a “restoration of the Gospel” of some kind – not just a restoration of a church.
I’m not disparaging any person in saying all of that. I admire GREATLY the people (like the anabaptists and many Catholics you mentioned) who lived exemplary lives throughout history and, imo, actually contributed to the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Fullness of Times. I don’t think the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety (as I read it in the Bible, particularly) remained openly taught throughout the centuries leading up to the restoration of the Gospel. I believe deeply that the Protestant Reformation was THE major, God-directed movement that allowed a restoration to occur (to continue, to be more precise) and continue to build to this day, with necessary pruning happening as fast as the root can take it.
I don’t see the Restoration of the Gospel as happening simultaneous to the restoration of the Church – or as the same thing. I see the restoration of the Gospel as starting LONG prior to Joseph Smith’s birth (in the case of some of my wife’s ancestors, as early as AD 1215 when they were declared heretics by the Catholic Church and persecuted, tortured and killed for nearly 700 years until her 5th great-grandfather was baptized by Mormon missionaries in 1851and left the homeland he and his people had vowed through blood-soaked centuries never to leave, all in order to heed the call of a man they believed to be a prophet) and continuing as I type this comment. I honor that terrible sacrifice as part of “the restoration of the Gospel” – independent of the establishment of the church those missionaries represented at the tail-end of those indescribable centuries of faithful dedication to the Gospel they understood in their hearts.
Maybe I see it as much easier than the church-specific question because I define the very term “restoration” differently than you do. You are much more inclusive in your definitions and perspectives than most other members I know, so I think you see this similarly to me, but I’m just not sure.
How do you see what I wrote above? Does it clear up what I meant to say in earlier comments but probably butchered?
Quote:I don’t think this question is the challenge. Wait until #4, which is by far the hardest, then 7, then 10.
Funny thing is I would say that #3 is the hardest by far. I think #4 has a really easy answer which I won’t post prematurely.
I wrote a longer response to this but I didn’t want to cross the line too far in attacking the church. However, the summary of that longer post is I believe the Mormon church has largely embodied exactly what Jesus was preaching against with the Pharisees and Sadducees and has lost sight of the core principles of Christianity. It needs a serious “temple cleansing” just like Jesus did with the money changers 2000 years ago.
bc_pg wrote:…the summary of that longer post is I believe the Mormon church has largely embodied exactly what Jesus was preaching against with the Pharisees and Sadducees and has lost sight of the core principles of Christianity. It needs a serious “temple cleansing” just like Jesus did with the money changers 2000 years ago.
I would settle for a modest reformation.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I do believe that some valuable and essential doctrines were restored through Joseph Smith, among them theosis and universal salvation. These principles are central to the gospel, the good news being substantially less good if only a predestined few were heirs of salvation and if the entire purpose of creation was to be nothing more than a fanboy swooning in God’s throne room. I liked both Ray’s and Wayfarer’s comments. My view is a bit closer to Wayfarer’s in that I understand this question to be about restored core doctrines of the gospel but beyond simply the first principles and ordinances. I believe the gracious inclusivity of the gospel, as demonstrated through symbolic progression in the temple, is a profound testament of just what was restored.
I agree, m&g, that the extension of the principles of the Gospel to cover all who ever have lived is central to the restoration of the Gospel. I didn’t make that as clear as I could have, but it’s a core part of why I accept the concept of a restoration. Okay, I like this thread, and it has value for the How to Stay article. I would change my vote to a yes after reading and praying about the responses to this thread. Well done…well thought out posts. Thanks.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I’m getting out of my depth. I’m still working on what “testimony”, “restoration”, “gospel”, and “latter days” mean. In the past, I have found it easiest to just say “yes” and not worry about it. Not sure I can do that any longer. Wayfarer wrote: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.
Which original COJC are you referring to, or do you mean to say there was only one, or are you referring to the “one” that eventually came out on top? Weren’t there a variety of groups vying for the right to make Jesus’ legacy theirs? Why is there one of them that needed to be restored and not the others?
Old-Timer wrote:I agree, m&g, that the extension of the principles of the Gospel to cover all who ever have lived is central to the restoration of the Gospel.
Doctrines like theosis and universal salvation get at the very nature of God. God had been characterized as an angry and capricious being who would damn an infant or save only the few select people who heard and accepted the gospel (among other variations on the theme of winning God’s favor).
The God who continues His work beyond the grave and never closes the door on the lost, the weeping God who suffers at the waywardness of His children, these are significant insights into God’s nature which show that we all already have His favor and that He desires each of us to receive all that He has.
What it boils down to, if you accept Joseph’s description of God, is that the whole of Christendom was worshiping like the men of Athens, an unknown God. I think the whole Christian world has been moving in that direction of the God who provides and saves (versus the God who arbitrarily condemns) perhaps because of the restoration which forces us to reconsider unjust doctrines.
mercyngrace wrote:What it boils down to, if you accept Joseph’s description of God, is that the whole of Christendom was worshiping like the men of Athens, an unknown God. I think the whole Christian world has been moving in that direction of the God who provides and saves (versus the God who arbitrarily condemns) perhaps because of the restoration which forces us to reconsider unjust doctrines.
I think you can say this about the mainline denominations, but among the others Calvinism and “reformed” theology is still alive and well and increasingly attractive to young pastors. This caused a serious issue for me in the church I attend a couple of weeks ago. It’s basically a mega-church with several smaller campuses and a new pastor from a Presybyterian background (this church has a loose Southern Baptist affiliation) preached one of those grating sermons about who is saved and who isn’t.
I think the doctrine of pre-destination is unattractive and counter-intuitive, but once you start looking for it it’s all over the New Testament. I think it can be taken to an extreme, but universal atonement vs limited atonement (i.e. some are condemned from the beginning with no chance of salvation) is raging in the Southern Baptist convention right now with camps calling each other heretics, etc.
BobDixon wrote:mercyngrace wrote:I think the doctrine of pre-destination is unattractive and counter-intuitive, but once you start looking for it it’s all over the New Testament. I think it can be taken to an extreme, but universal atonement vs limited atonement (i.e. some are condemned from the beginning with no chance of salvation) is raging in the Southern Baptist convention right now with camps calling each other heretics, etc.
Yes, the idea that god hardens hearts and predisposes people to condemnation is replete throughout scripture. Calvin was only consistent with his reading of scripture.That said, the Calvinist definition of God is a heinous monster unworthy of worship. For a God to create people whose only purpose is to be condemned to endless suffering is beyond belief and the most vile of doctrines. With calvinism, the saved have no reason to think of the majority of humanity as totally depraved and worthless. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
This is a good thread, I’ve enjoyed the comments. Based on my personal experience and the way I view things that have happened in the world and church history, my studies lead me to accept there were gospel principles and teachings that God wanted restored, and did so through Joseph Smith. After those revelations, us humans take things in so many directions (many times inspired, sometimes just our best mortal effort), leading us to what we have today.
I do not think ALL the gospel was taken from the earth. I do not think ALL the gospel was restored in its completeness to Joseph (hence continuous revelation is needed).
I think things got off track as they will do, and I think God wanted to use a prophet to nudge it back towards more true gospel teachings. I think during Joseph’s administration some things got off track and were nudged back to the truth as well.
I think the gospel continues to be restored, and I view the restoration more of a process (still ongoing) than an event.
That fits my definition of restoration in these latter days. I answer Yes.
BobDixon wrote:
I think you can say this about the mainline denominations, but among the others Calvinism and “reformed” theology is still alive and well and increasingly attractive to young pastors. This caused a serious issue for me in the church I attend a couple of weeks ago. It’s basically a mega-church with several smaller campuses and a new pastor from a Presybyterian background (this church has a loose Southern Baptist affiliation) preached one of those grating sermons about who is saved and who isn’t.I think the doctrine of pre-destination is unattractive and counter-intuitive, but once you start looking for it it’s all over the New Testament. I think it can be taken to an extreme, but universal atonement vs limited atonement (i.e. some are condemned from the beginning with no chance of salvation) is raging in the Southern Baptist convention right now with camps calling each other heretics, etc.
Having grown up in the South, I have a lot of experience with the whole “who is saved?” arguments. I think the fact that the argument is raging is the evidence that the doctrine has seeped back into Christian consciousness. That’s a good thing.
Also, I don’t see Calvin’s evidence as convincing. I personally find his reading of the scriptures to be inconsistent with the Jewish theology upon which Christianity expanded. The temple included, for example, a Gentile court based on the Old Testament teachings that eventually all nations would come unto the one true God. This belief was central, with Jewish men expecting non-Jews to latch onto their tassels in the Messianic age and beg to be led to the Jewish God. Being “chosen” meant being set up as a light to lead others rather than an heir to a preeminent reward. I think Calvin looked at the scriptures through the lens of Greek education and Western philosophy rather than in it’s Jewish context with an understanding of the Hebrew prophet/poet literary style and with its underlying basis in Eastern thought.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.