The Mormon "Restored Gosple"

[TasteForTruth]

I must have misread and/or misunderstand what you had written. I'm sorry!

Thanks for explaining.

I don't think there's any need to apologize. I didn't emphasize the point very strongly in my first post.

 

[Rescued One]

"In the premortal spirit world, God appointed certain spirits to fulfill specific missions during their mortal lives. This is called foreordination. Foreordination does not guarantee that individuals will receive certain callings or responsibilities. Such opportunities come in this life as a result of the righteous exercise of agency, just as foreordination came as a result of righteousness in the premortal existence."
Foreordination

God appoints someone to a task and knows whether or not they'll do it. He has perfect knowledge. If you want something done, you assign the chore to a seemingly responsible person. You are only hoping that they'll be obedient; but to be sure, you have to wait and see. God doesn't have to wait and see. He knows the future.

Don't compare God to a mortal parent; that would be like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[TasteForTruth]

"In the premortal spirit world, God appointed certain spirits to fulfill specific missions during their mortal lives. This is called foreordination. Foreordination does not guarantee that individuals will receive certain callings or responsibilities. Such opportunities come in this life as a result of the righteous exercise of agency, just as foreordination came as a result of righteousness in the premortal existence."
Foreordination

God appoints someone to a task and knows whether or not they'll do it. He has perfect knowledge. If you want something done, you assign the chore to a seemingly responsible person. You are only hoping that they'll be obedient; but to be sure, you have to wait and see. God doesn't have to wait and see. He knows the future.

Don't compare God to a mortal parent; that would be like comparing apples to oranges.

I happen to think it's an appropriate analogy.

 

[Rescued One]

I happen to think it's an appropriate analogy.

Please explain how you would compare God to mortals.

 

[Rescued One]

Why is it "playing games" for God to allow more than one person to agree to do something? (which is what foreordination amounts to in LDS doctrine) If all seven of my children will agree to do a chore for me, is it "playing games" with six of them if I thank them all for their willingness and ensure each of them that—should appropriate conditions exist at some time in the future—they will be called upon to perform that chore, even if I can eventually only assign one of them to do it?

In connection with the early church, whom did God foreordain to the task of perpetuating the priesthood? Someone who did not remain loyal to Christ? He already knew who would or wouldn't be loyal to Christ. An earthly parent doesn't know the future. He guesses at it. God knows every detail of the future. Foreordination surely means more than thanking individuals for tasks they will not perform.

 

[TasteForTruth]

In connection with the early church, whom did God foreordain to the task of perpetuating the priesthood? Someone who did not remain loyal to Christ? He already knew who would or wouldn't be loyal to Christ. An earthly parent doesn't know the future. He guesses at it. God knows every detail of the future. Foreordination surely means more than thanking individuals for tasks they will not perform.

Yes, it does mean more than thanking individuals, whether they perform or not. As our doctrine states, foreordination is constituted by an appointment from God to fulfill specific missions in mortality, and by our pre-mortal agreement to fulfill them. source

On your question about the NT church, the Apostles (who with the chief corner stone (Jesus Christ) constitute the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19-20)) were called (foreordained) and chosen to perpetuate the Priesthood, for that is inherent in the Apostleship (D&C 27:12-13). All the Apostles remained loyal to Christ.

At the same time, the Apostles are to be "upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church," (D&C 107:22) meaning that the members of the church share in an indirect—albeit real—way the responsibility placed upon the Apostles. So back a few posts when we were talking about the members of the NT church being partly to blame for the apostasy... that is the case as well. Not the faithful ones, of course, but those who abandoned the church, in which they ceased to uphold the Apostles with their confidence, faith, and prayers.

So while I was prone to place the greater portion of the blame upon those who killed the Apostles or otherwise prevented them from performing their duties in the Church, it is not appropriate to excuse from any culpability those who abandoned the Church, who were identified earlier in that post as certainly being partly complicit in the Church's collapse. In either case, however, the Apostles remained true.

 

[Rescued One]

Yes, it does mean more than thanking individuals, whether they perform or not. As our doctrine states, foreordination is constituted by an appointment from God to fulfill specific missions in mortality, and by our pre-mortal agreement to fulfill them. source

On your question about the NT church, the Apostles (who with the chief corner stone (Jesus Christ) constitute the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19-20)) were called (foreordained) and chosen to perpetuate the Priesthood, for that is inherent in the Apostleship (D&C 27:12-13). All the Apostles remained loyal to Christ.

At the same time, the Apostles are to be "upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church," (D&C 107:22) meaning that the members of the church share in an indirect—albeit real—way the responsibility placed upon the Apostles. So back a few posts when we were talking about the members of the NT church being partly to blame for the apostasy... that is the case as well. Not the faithful ones, of course, but those who abandoned the church, in which they ceased to uphold the Apostles with their confidence, faith, and prayers.

So while I was prone to place the greater portion of the blame upon those who killed the Apostles or otherwise prevented them from performing their duties in the Church, it is not appropriate to excuse from any culpability those who abandoned the Church, who were identified earlier in that post as certainly being partly complicit in the Church's collapse. In either case, however, the Apostles remained true.

God chose to have those people on earth who LDS claim fell away. It is his decision when and where each person is born. To say that individuals caused the demise of the Church that Christ established is to say that man has power over God. It is God who is omnipotent, not man.

 

[TasteForTruth]

God chose to have those people on earth who LDS claim fell away. It is his decision when and where each person is born. To say that individuals caused the demise of the Church that Christ established is to say that man has power over God.

I disagree. God allows man to do things which He does not desire him to do, which He commands him not do do, and which result in destruction when he does them. Sin itself is the greatest example of this. It is not God's will that men sin, He commands men not to sin, and yet men sin. And their sins cause the destruction of things both physical and spiritual—things which God created. By your logic, man has power over God because he sins.

It is God who is omnipotent, not man.

No one has claimed otherwise in this thread. Ever.

 

[RufustheRed]

Seems like God bringing Christ to the earth explained it pretty well.

How does that compare God to mortals?

 

[Rescued One]

I disagree. God allows man to do things which He does not desire him to do, which He commands him not do do, and which result in destruction when he does them. Sin itself is the greatest example of this. It is not God's will that men sin, He commands men not to sin, and yet men sin. And their sins cause the destruction of things both physical and spiritual—things which God created. By your logic, man has power over God because he sins.
No one has claimed otherwise in this thread. Ever.

And you say that men caused the demise of God's church. The New Testament predicts only a partial apostasy of people in the church.


Matthew 7
[24]Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: [25]And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. [26]And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: [27]And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There is no prediction that the church will not grow.

Then when you compare the primitive church with the LDS church, you see how different they are:

The primitive church did not have one man(apostle or prophet) at its head. Christ was the only head of His church.They did not have any office called seventies. They had no patriarchs. New Testament deacons were adults. There was no Aaronic priesthood because Christ became our sacrifice for sin. He also became the only High Priest we'll ever need.

 

[TasteForTruth]

And you say that men caused the demise of God's church. The New Testament predicts only a partial apostasy of people in the church.

I don't agree, but coming to consensus on this point is beyond the scope of this thread, if it were possible at all.

There is no prediction that the church will not grow.

I have not said that there was such a prediction.

Then when you compare the primitive church with the LDS church, you see how different they are:

The primitive church did not have one man(apostle or prophet) at its head. Christ was the only head of His church.They did not have any office called seventies. They had no patriarchs. New Testament deacons were adults. There was no Aaronic priesthood because Christ became our sacrifice for sin. He also became the only High Priest we'll ever need.

This also is not germane to the OP. If you want to discuss the differences (perceived or documented) between the NT church and the LDS church, it's probably better to start a new thread.

It seems that between my last post and this one, the connection to the OP was lost. The last on-topic material was this:

God chose to have those people on earth who LDS claim fell away. It is his decision when and where each person is born. To say that individuals caused the demise of the Church that Christ established is to say that man has power over God.

To which I responded:

I disagree. God allows man to do things which He does not desire him to do, which He commands him not do do, and which result in destruction when he does them. Sin itself is the greatest example of this. It is not God's will that men sin, He commands men not to sin, and yet men sin. And their sins cause the destruction of things both physical and spiritual—things which God created. By your logic, man has power over God because he sins.

I think the ball has bounced back to your side of the court, as the logic you employed did not, in my mind, pass muster in regards to the OP.

 

[Rescued One]

I don't agree, but coming to consensus on this point is beyond the scope of this thread, if it were possible at all.

I have not said that there was such a prediction.

This also is not germane to the OP. If you want to discuss the differences (perceived or documented) between the NT church and the LDS church, it's probably better to start a new thread.

I don't understand why the Gospel of Jesus Christ needed to be "restored". Will someone please explain why God Himself, Jesus Christ, was unwilliing or unable to care for,preserve, and maintain His Church, for so many years that She needed to be restored.

Well, TasteforTruth, if the church needed to be restored, it would have to have been restored. But if Joseph Smith simply started another church that isn't identical to the original church, then there was no restoration.

It seems that between my last post and this one, the connection to the OP was lost.

I disagree with your opinion.

 

[TasteForTruth]

The primitive church did not have one man(apostle or prophet) at its head. Christ was the only head of His church.They did not have any office called seventies. They had no patriarchs. New Testament deacons were adults. There was no Aaronic priesthood because Christ became our sacrifice for sin. He also became the only High Priest we'll ever need.

This also is not germane to the OP. If you want to discuss the differences (perceived or documented) between the NT church and the LDS church, it's probably better to start a new thread.

Well, TasteforTruth, if the church needed to be restored, it would have to have been restored. But if Joseph Smith simply started another church that isn't identical to the original church, then there was no restoration.

Again, from a difference of perspective and/or definition, I disagree.

I disagree with your opinion.

OK