Mormon Apologists

[TasteForTruth]

In order for something to be restored, there must be an earlier, surviving form of it which has been altered over time. My profession is architectural restoration and I restore buildings all of the time. I have never restored a building which did not exist. It is literally impossible. Moreover, I have not received any revelation in my line of work informing me as to the previous form of a building. Architectural restoration is a forensic science.

There are times when buildings are reconstructed, as in the case of many structures in Nauvoo, Illinois, not the least of which is the new LDS temple there. There is no doubt that this building was demolished decades prior to its reconstruction. Although the exterior does closely resemble photographic evidence of the former building, it is, nevertheless a reconstruction, and not a restoration.

You yourself have asserted that the ECF's do not play a role in Mormon apologetics and that the Restored Gospel came by revelation. Mormon apologetics rests firmly on that assertion. There is absolutely no evidence in the historic record of the Restored Gospel until Mr. SMith came on the scene, is there?

I do not agree that there isn't any such evidence, but I will agree in order to emphasize that it is a spiritual matter, not a "forensic science" matter.

 

[Albion]

I do not agree that there isn't any such evidence, but I will agree in order to emphasize that it is a spiritual matter, not a "forensic science" matter.

It seems that he does have a good point. The so-called "Restored Gospel" (as I understand it, and that may not be good enough) really doesn't bring back a lost Gospel does it?

 

[TasteForTruth]

It seems that he does have a good point. The so-called "Restored Gospel" (as I understand it, and that may not be good enough) really doesn't bring back a lost Gospel does it?

Yes, I believe it does bring back a lost Gospel.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not grumpy. I made my point and I stand by it—you reap what you sow. Honestly, I don't know what you expect, though I do understand laughing when you see improperly used words. I think that is funny. But I didn't find your post funny.

I didn't think you would find it funny nor did I post it to make people laugh. I did post it to give people an idea to consider, and I seem to have been successful.

Here is a new idea for you:

If what you believe is "another testament" (i.e. the BoM) then it makes sense to me that you say so, rather than referring to it as the Restored Gospel. Although this term is much favored by various Mormon denominations, do you know when it first came into use?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I believe it does bring back a lost Gospel.

If, indeed, it brings back something that has been lost completely, then, at best, it might be termed a reconstituted or reconstructed gospel, or even rediscovered. As it is, the gospel you believe has no evidence of having been restored if, indeed, it was lost.

 

[TasteForTruth]

If, indeed, it brings back something that has been lost completely, then, at best, it might be termed a reconstituted or reconstructed gospel, or even rediscovered. As it is, the gospel you believe has no evidence of having been restored if, indeed, it was lost.

Yes, you said that before. And I continue to say that I do not understand this to be a "scientific" matter. And two posts ago, to mitigate our forever circling each other in this way, I ceded the point. So if you would like to continue this discussion, please approach me from the standpoint that:

1. I agree that there is no forensic, scientific evidence that the Restored Gospel, as known today, existed anciently.
2. I believe that the Restored Gospel is Christ's gospel
3. I believe that the Restored Gospel is a restoration using these definitions:
   1. The act of restoring something or someone to a satisfactory state
   2. Getting something back again
   3. The state of being restored to its former good condition
4. I believe that the Restored Gospel is a restoration using this definition, although because of dispensational differences it applies more loosely than the former three:
   1. Some artifact that has been restored or reconstructed (the term "Some artifact" is too narrow in this context, and I would replace it with something more abstract, like "Something")

 

[Albion]

Yes, I believe it does bring back a lost Gospel.

But as you said, it isn't known to be anything that's been restored; you just prefer to think that it is and choose to call it by that term.

So, let's look a little deeper. Is the so-called "Restored Gospel" believed by you or the LDS generally to be writing that once was widely known among Christians but then lost?

 

[TasteForTruth]

But as you said, it isn't known to be anything that's been restored;

I ceded that point not because I agree with it, but so that we can continue to discuss the issue.

you just prefer to think that it is and choose to call it by that term.

The term "Restored Gospel" is our term, yes. We use it primarily for purposes of clarification. Otherwise we would simply say "Gospel," which we typically do amongst ourselves.

So, let's look a little deeper. Is the so-called "Restored Gospel" believed by you or the LDS generally to be writing that once was widely known among Christians but then lost?

No. That is far too narrow. This is how we define "Gospel":

God’s plan of salvation, made possible through the atonement of Jesus Christ. The gospel includes the eternal truths or laws, covenants, and ordinances needed for mankind to enter back into the presence of God. God restored the fulness of the gospel to the earth in the nineteenth century through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Gospel
​

There is one Gospel—God's plan of salvation. And in any given dispensation, God reveals whatever portion of that Gospel He deems appropriate for the people to whom He reveals it.

As I said, the term "Restored Gospel" is a term we use primarily for the sake of external clarification (among other Christians, for example). So yes, we understand that the same truths were held anciently which have been revealed modernly, to the extent that God revealed them. And from there we expect to find evidence that what we believe today is what was believed anciently to the extent that man's records are complete and undefiled.

To approach this any other way is to place ourselves in your very position—one in which your views are subject to change with man's opinions, conclusions, and "scientific" discoveries. This is why I say it is a spiritual matter, not a scientific matter. We trust God first, and we trust man to the extent that our trust in God will permit. But we do not and should not reverse that order. To do so would, for us, fulfill the words of Paul to the Ephesians, who taught that the edification of the church was for the body of Christ, to the end that we (the body) would not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness..."

 

[Albion]

I ceded that point not because I agree with it, but so that we can continue to discuss the issue.

Well, that doesn't do me any good. I'm asking if it is actually thought to be something that once was widely-known among Christians and then got lost. That would be necessary if there were to be any accuracy to the term "Restored" Gospel or "Restored" anything else, for that matter.

No. That is far too narrow.

Oh. Then this is the answer to my question above. You are using the term "Gospel" to mean anything relating to Jesus, apparently. I'd say that you are entitled to do that internally, but it's not a good idea to use with the rest of us since you know that it misleads.

As I said, the term "Restored Gospel" is a term we use primarily for the sake of external clarification (among other Christians, for example).

I can't imagine doing such a thing unless you are admitting to wanting to deceive us about the nature of your religion. ??

 

[TasteForTruth]

Well, that doesn't do me any good. I'm asking if it is actually thought to be something that once was widely-known among Christians and then got lost. That would be necessary if there were to be any accuracy to the term "Restored" Gospel or "Restored" anything else, for that matter.

You point out that I answered this...

Oh. Then this is the answer to my question above. You are using the term "Gospel" to mean anything relating to Jesus, apparently. I'd say that you are entitled to do that internally, but it's not a good idea to use with the rest of us since you know that it misleads.

Misleading? Don't you think that's a self-centered conclusion? If I grow up a Mormon learning about the "Gospel," and you grow up an Anglican learning about the "Gospel," and we meet on the street and start discussing the "Gospel," who will be misleading whom when it becomes clear that we understand the terms somewhat differently? Don't we discuss to come to mutual understanding, or is it automatically deceptive if I don't bring the same understanding as you to the discussion by default?

I can't imagine doing such a thing unless you are admitting to wanting to deceive us about the nature of your religion. ??

You don't call the Gospel "restored" do you? If you do not, then our term communicates that there is a distinction. How is this deceptive? We have crafted a term to avoid misunderstanding!

 

[Clearly]

Taste of Truth :

Perhaps I do not understand the basis of your discussion with bbbbbbb but I am finding it difficult to understand the basis for bbbbbbbs disagreement (though you seem to understand it). As I look at bbbbbbbs’ example in criticising the LDS claim, whereas I see it as an absolutely wonderful example of what happened in the restoration of gospel principles. One startst out with a very good and liveable gospel and it is restored and renovated. Nothing is gotten rid of or changed that is structurally sound and only that which needs changing or renovated is changed. I love bbbbbbbs’ example in post # 39 as an example of what the restoration actually was.

bbbbbbb said in post # 39 In order for something to be restored, there must be an earlier, surviving form of it which has been altered over time. My profession is architectural restoration and I restore buildings all of the time. I have never restored a building which did not exist. It is literally impossible.

I am not sure why the LDS “restoration” is being described as the creation of a gospel which 'did not exist" as is being intimated (that makes no sense to me as I do not think that is the LDS claim)


But rather I love bbbbbbbs wonderful example of the LDS claim of restoration as an improvement of an existing, but “run down” old building, (an existing gospel building which is quite worthy of remodeling, and restoring to an original form). As far as I know, the gospel in some form has ALWAYS existed and thus I am always referring to historical evidence of early base claims and debris of gospel principles in early Judao-Christian texts. Thus, it makes no sense to claim it did not exist in it’s base form and in it's disparate parts.

Perhaps I could use the example of the Catholic Church as one vresion of the gospel that is perfectly intact and liveable, but simply in need of restoration and reformation to it's original form. I think, as an LDS convert, that it would have been perfectly fine to have been raised in the Catholic faith or the Anglican faith (i.e. one of the Roman Catholic “derivatives&#8221 and then to have simply renovated or restored certain aspects of the early Christian faith to the wonderful framework the Catholic Faith already provides. (I could have used methodist, or lutheran, etc as examples, but I feel that the catholics and their derivatives are more “historical” in nature - perhaps that simply reflects a personal bias)

For examples :

Consider the Wonderful basis of the Gospel as it exists in the Catholic Church. The Catholic base claims are an incredibly fine basis for simple renovation and restoration. (Obviously the protestants HAVE already attempted a “renovation” of catholicism by “re-forming” aspects of the catholic base claims)

The Catholic claim that God exists and that he is an intelligent and all powerful and loving God (rather than an arbitrary god of some of the ancient theologies) is a perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

The catholic base claim that God the Father is the instigator of creation and that God involves other beings in heaven in coordinating and carrying out his plan for mankind is a wonderful and correct basis of belief.

The Catholic Claim that Jesus came to earth and offered his life as a sacrifice and became the redeemer of mankind and is the only savior that all mankind must look to for salvation is a perfectly fine and correct and intact basis of belief.

The Catholic Claim that mankind must render faith in Jesus and obedience to God and Jesus in order to expect their blessings is perfectly fine and correct basis of belief

The Catholic Claim that God’s love and Grace and Charity underlie all of God’s motives in arranging for the salvation of mankind is a perfectly fine and correct basis of belief.

The Catholic Claim that God expects mankind to respect and honor him and remember and learn of him through the mechanism of certain liturgies and engaging in certain symbolic actions is perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

The Catholic Claim that God expects mankind to be humble and repent of their sins as manifest by certain actions in their lives is a perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

The Catholic Claim that God gives certain authority to mankind in order to accomplish specific ordinances and blessings and guidance (though I think their descriptions use different wording) is a perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

I think for example, that the gospel of Jesus Christ as existed in the Roman Catholic model is quite good and perhaps many of the protestants left more of the Gospel behind than they took with them. All of the wonderful and correct doctrines possessed by the Catholic Church were in no need of restoration at all and their members can be perfectly happy believing in as most of them represent completely accurate gospel principles. NONE of these specific base doctrines needed to be brought back to the earth. It was merely in need of renovation/restoration of certain aspects of it. (some of those aspects might be of differing levels of importance, but it did not need a "ground up" renovation of all principles).

I think that I could enlarge this list of intact gospel principles as held in the Catholic theology by many times If I was to be diligent in looking for the religious principles that the Catholics Church teaches that are a perfectly correct and fine basis upon which a relatively intact gospel (“building&#8221 exists which can be renovated and restored to a pristine glory and condition.


bbbbbbb said in post # 39 : “ Moreover, I have not received any revelation in my line of work informing me as to the previous form of a building. Architectural restoration is a forensic science. “ While this might be true, I don’t see how it is relevant to the premise since prophets have always been given revelation to guide and return Israel and others to the more correct gospel principles.


bbbbbbb said in post # 39 : “You yourself have asserted that the ECF's do not play a role in Mormon apologetics and that the Restored Gospel came by revelation. Mormon apologetics rests firmly on that assertion. There is absolutely no evidence in the historic record of the Restored Gospel until Mr. SMith came on the scene, is there? “

I think the premise here has many incorrect assumptions and is mal-contexted :

1) Mormon historian apologists DO use the ECFs and have always done so as far as I am able to tell. (E.g. nibley, et al). I have often referred to the ECFs in the past, though I think the modern trend is to look at the sacred texts from earlier periods than the ECFs that describe Judao-Christian traditions of the earlier periods. (for example, the Apostolic Fathers are earlier than the theolgian-Early church Fathers, Qumran, hamadi, epigrapha, et al and etc are all older....)



2) “There is absolutely no evidence in the historic record of the Restored Gospel until Mr. SMith came on the scene, is there? “ :

This premise is obviously incorrect since the historical apologists USE prior descriptions of early Judao-christianity in the vast amounts of early judao-christian texts as proof that these doctrines DID exist. My main historical interest IS the early descriptions of Judao-Christian doctrines which witness to the existence of LDS base doctrines within them in the ancient Judao-Christian worldview.

For example : the LDS claim that Adam was given the promise of a redeemer may have been “new” to most of modern christianity, but it was simply a repeat of early christian claims that are present in their texts. The early doctrine of pre-mortal existence is present in a vast amount of early literature; the decensus literature, the creation council literature, creation literature, war in heaven literature, etc. There is a tremendous amount of historical record that witnesses the early Judao-christian with the parallel LDS base claims existed.

Certain principles such as “authority” might be better described as “restored”, but I am perfectly fine using the term “reconstructed” for the LDS gospel rather than the word “restored” for many of the LDS base doctrines.

Clearly
fudrnell

 

[bbbbbbb]

Clearly, if you would like to address my posts, please feel free to do so. I don't think its really fair to expect Taste for Truth to answer for me.

I will do my best to address your questions, in green, as follows:

Taste of Truth :

Perhaps I do not understand the basis of your discussion with bbbbbbb but I am finding it difficult to understand the basis for bbbbbbbs disagreement (though you seem to understand it). As I look at bbbbbbbs’ example in criticising the LDS claim, whereas I see it as an absolutely wonderful example of what happened in the restoration of gospel principles. One startst out with a very good and liveable gospel and it is restored and renovated. Nothing is gotten rid of or changed that is structurally sound and only that which needs changing or renovated is changed. I love bbbbbbbs’ example in post # 39 as an example of what the restoration actually was.

bbbbbbb said in post # 39 In order for something to be restored, there must be an earlier, surviving form of it which has been altered over time. My profession is architectural restoration and I restore buildings all of the time. I have never restored a building which did not exist. It is literally impossible.

I am not sure why the LDS “restoration” is being described as the creation of a gospel which 'did not exist" as is being intimated (that makes no sense to me as I do not think that is the LDS claim)

As I understand the LDS claim, it is that God the Father revealed the Restored Gospel to Joseph Smith and that the essence is that it was a revelation, and not the product of academic research as in the case of other restoration denominations such as the Campbellits and the Primitive Baptists. Because the product was revelatory in nature does not necessarily mean that it never existed previously; however, if it did there would be other evidence for its existence. No verifiable evidence (by non-Mormon sources) has been discovered to date. As a result, many, including myself, believe that the Restored Gospel did not exist until it was revealed to Joseph Smith.

But rather I love bbbbbbbs wonderful example of the LDS claim of restoration as an improvement of an existing, but “run down” old building, (an existing gospel building which is quite worthy of remodeling, and restoring to an original form). As far as I know, the gospel in some form has ALWAYS existed and thus I am always referring to historical evidence of early base claims and debris of gospel principles in early Judao-Christian texts. Thus, it makes no sense to claim it did not exist in it’s base form and in it's disparate parts.

Thank you for the compliment. I agree entirely that if the Restored Gospel was an actual return to the original gospel as taught and practiced by the Apostles, one could make that claim in truth.

Perhaps I could use the example of the Catholic Church as one vresion of the gospel that is perfectly intact and liveable, but simply in need of restoration and reformation to it's original form. I think, as an LDS convert, that it would have been perfectly fine to have been raised in the Catholic faith or the Anglican faith (i.e. one of the Roman Catholic “derivatives”) and then to have simply renovated or restored certain aspects of the early Christian faith to the wonderful framework the Catholic Faith already provides. (I could have used methodist, or lutheran, etc as examples, but I feel that the catholics and their derivatives are more “historical” in nature - perhaps that simply reflects a personal bias)

For examples :

Consider the Wonderful basis of the Gospel as it exists in the Catholic Church. The Catholic base claims are an incredibly fine basis for simple renovation and restoration. (Obviously the protestants HAVE already attempted a “renovation” of catholicism by “re-forming” aspects of the catholic base claims)

The Catholic claim that God exists and that he is an intelligent and all powerful and loving God (rather than an arbitrary god of some of the ancient theologies) is a perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

The catholic base claim that God the Father is the instigator of creation and that God involves other beings in heaven in coordinating and carrying out his plan for mankind is a wonderful and correct basis of belief.

The Catholic Claim that Jesus came to earth and offered his life as a sacrifice and became the redeemer of mankind and is the only savior that all mankind must look to for salvation is a perfectly fine and correct and intact basis of belief.

The Catholic Claim that mankind must render faith in Jesus and obedience to God and Jesus in order to expect their blessings is perfectly fine and correct basis of belief

The Catholic Claim that God’s love and Grace and Charity underlie all of God’s motives in arranging for the salvation of mankind is a perfectly fine and correct basis of belief.

The Catholic Claim that God expects mankind to respect and honor him and remember and learn of him through the mechanism of certain liturgies and engaging in certain symbolic actions is perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

The Catholic Claim that God expects mankind to be humble and repent of their sins as manifest by certain actions in their lives is a perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

The Catholic Claim that God gives certain authority to mankind in order to accomplish specific ordinances and blessings and guidance (though I think their descriptions use different wording) is a perfectly fine and correct basis for belief.

I think for example, that the gospel of Jesus Christ as existed in the Roman Catholic model is quite good and perhaps many of the protestants left more of the Gospel behind than they took with them. All of the wonderful and correct doctrines possessed by the Catholic Church were in no need of restoration at all and their members can be perfectly happy believing in as most of them represent completely accurate gospel principles. NONE of these specific base doctrines needed to be brought back to the earth. It was merely in need of renovation/restoration of certain aspects of it. (some of those aspects might be of differing levels of importance, but it did not need a "ground up" renovation of all principles).

I think that I could enlarge this list of intact gospel principles as held in the Catholic theology by many times If I was to be diligent in looking for the religious principles that the Catholics Church teaches that are a perfectly correct and fine basis upon which a relatively intact gospel (“building”) exists which can be renovated and restored to a pristine glory and condition.

I recommend that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to understand their belief system. I think you may find that although most of the principles you have outlined are accurate, they are the very things that Joseph Smith and his followers found to be abhorrent. As discussed on other threads here, Messrs. Smith and Young, in particular, were quite vocal in deriding other Christian denominations of their day and rejected their creeds and teachings outright. Thus, the Restored Gospel was never intended to be a reworking or a reformation of any gospel as taught in orthodox Christianity. As they say, any resemblance between the two is merely coincidental.

One might (and many have) make the case that there is as much, or more, affinity between the Restored Gospel and Freemasonry (which has some very laudable principles) as there is between the Restored Gospel and orthodox Christianity.

bbbbbbb said in post # 39 : “ Moreover, I have not received any revelation in my line of work informing me as to the previous form of a building. Architectural restoration is a forensic science. “ While this might be true, I don’t see how it is relevant to the premise since prophets have always been given revelation to guide and return Israel and others to the more correct gospel principles.

Here you have addressed the very concept I have attempted to bring out. Prophets were sent to Israel to return them to the Law, pure and simple. There was no "gospel" in the Old Testament. The point was to return to obedience to God as revealed in the Law. The Law remains with us to this day and one can return to it without resorting to any divine revelation. The prophetic gift in the LDS is not to return people to the Law, as did the OT prophets, but to guide them into the Gospel Principles of the Restored Gospel. Many of these have little or no basis in the Bible nor in church history.

bbbbbbb said in post # 39 : “You yourself have asserted that the ECF's do not play a role in Mormon apologetics and that the Restored Gospel came by revelation. Mormon apologetics rests firmly on that assertion. There is absolutely no evidence in the historic record of the Restored Gospel until Mr. SMith came on the scene, is there? “

I think the premise here has many incorrect assumptions and is mal-contexted :

1) Mormon historian apologists DO use the ECFs and have always done so as far as I am able to tell. (E.g. nibley, et al). I have often referred to the ECFs in the past, though I think the modern trend is to look at the sacred texts from earlier periods than the ECFs that describe Judao-Christian traditions of the earlier periods. (for example, the Apostolic Fathers are earlier than the theolgian-Early church Fathers, Qumran, hamadi, epigrapha, et al and etc are all older....)

This is actually a conundrum for Mormonism. It has been clearly taught that the Great Apostasy began at the death of the Apostles. Thus, the ECFs were responsible for that Apostasy. As a result, any Mormon apologist treads on volcanic ash if they cite as authoritative those very men who destroyed the Church of Jesus Christ of Former Day Saints.

2) “There is absolutely no evidence in the historic record of the Restored Gospel until Mr. SMith came on the scene, is there? “ :

This premise is obviously incorrect since the historical apologists USE prior descriptions of early Judao-christianity in the vast amounts of early judao-christian texts as proof that these doctrines DID exist. My main historical interest IS the early descriptions of Judao-Christian doctrines which witness to the existence of LDS base doctrines within them in the ancient Judao-Christian worldview.

For example : the LDS claim that Adam was given the promise of a redeemer may have been “new” to most of modern christianity, but it was simply a repeat of early christian claims that are present in their texts. The early doctrine of pre-mortal existence is present in a vast amount of early literature; the decensus literature, the creation council literature, creation literature, war in heaven literature, etc. There is a tremendous amount of historical record that witnesses the early Judao-christian with the parallel LDS base claims existed.

Certain principles such as “authority” might be better described as “restored”, but I am perfectly fine using the term “reconstructed” for the LDS gospel rather than the word “restored” for many of the LDS base doctrines.

Clearly
fudrnell

I have no great problem with the term "reconstructed" as opposed to "restored". The issue remains the method by which it was reconstructed. It is the problem of eisegesis versus exegesis. One can, if one so desires, mine the ECFs and other apocryphal literature and etermined a hsitorical base for virtually any belief. As I said, one is treading on volcanic ash in doing so.

 

[Albion]

Misleading? Don't you think that's a self-centered conclusion?

No. If you describe one of your doctrines in a deceptive way, that's probably going to mislead someone hearing about it who understands the normal meaning of the word. You know this, of course, so I consider it intentional.

If I grow up a Mormon learning about the "Gospel," and you grow up an Anglican learning about the "Gospel," and we meet on the street and start discussing the "Gospel," who will be misleading whom when it becomes clear that we understand the terms somewhat differently?

You will be misleading me because you know the usual meaning that is held by the whole Christian world but not the LDS. There would be no reason for me to suspect that you have assigned a special meaning to words that everyone else thinks mean something else.

You don't call the Gospel "restored" do you?

No.

If you do not, then our term communicates that there is a distinction. How is this deceptive? We have crafted a term to avoid misunderstanding

If you were to preface your comments to me by explaining that what you are about to say doesn't mean what it seems, you mignt have a point...although the obvious next question to be asked "Is why speak to me in code rather than by using words that communicate to me effectively?" However, I know all this now only because I've extracted it from you by question and answer. You were more than willing to mislead me in the beginning.

 

[TasteForTruth]

No. If you describe one of your doctrines in a deceptive way, that's probably going to mislead someone hearing about it who understands the normal meaning of the word. You know this, of course, so I consider it intentional.


You will be misleading me because you know the usual meaning that is held by the whole Christian world but not the LDS. There would be no reason for me to suspect that you have assigned a special meaning to words that everyone else thinks mean something else.


No.


If you were to preface your comments to me by explaining that what you are about to say doesn't mean what it seems, you mignt have a point...although the obvious next question to be asked "Is why speak to me in code rather than by using words that communicate to me effectively?" However, I know all this now only because I've extracted it from you by question and answer. You were more than willing to mislead me in the beginning.

You extracted all this from me? What, are you an interrogator now and I'm a shifty criminal? You got out the rubber hose and I finally caved and spilled the beans? LOL! You gotta be kidding me!

You know, it's ironic... but all of a sudden I feel like I've been deceived. All this time you led me on to believe that you wanted to engage in discussion. Had you been forthright coming in that you were going to give me the third degree, I'd have gladly declined. Interesting how everyone sees things from a different vantage point, eh?

 

[skylark1]

No. If you describe one of your doctrines in a deceptive way, that's probably going to mislead someone hearing about it who understands the normal meaning of the word. You know this, of course, so I consider it intentional.


You will be misleading me because you know the usual meaning that is held by the whole Christian world but not the LDS. There would be no reason for me to suspect that you have assigned a special meaning to words that everyone else thinks mean something else.


No.


If you were to preface your comments to me by explaining that what you are about to say doesn't mean what it seems, you mignt have a point...although the obvious next question to be asked "Is why speak to me in code rather than by using words that communicate to me effectively?" However, I know all this now only because I've extracted it from you by question and answer. You were more than willing to mislead me in the beginning.

Albion,

I don't think that TasteForTruth is trying to deceive or mislead you by his choice of words. Rather, I think that he is trying to clarify and avoid misunderstandings.

Perhaps it isn't clear (to me) why you believe that what he wrote is misleading. Could you clarify what you find to be deceitful?

My initial guess was that it was related to his use of the term restored. Even though in his experience the term restored gospel is used more in speaking to members ouside of the LDS Church, a perusal of the church's website (or even a google search) shows that the term is used within their church as well. If I was having a conversation with a group of people that were predominantly LDS and I wanted to use the term gospel to mean it in the way that it is used by traditional Christians, I would try to clarify what I meant, least they think that I was speaking of the gospel as defined by LDS.

 

[Albion]

You extracted all this from me? What, are you an interrogator now and I'm a shifty criminal? You got out the rubber hose and I finally caved and spilled the beans? LOL! You gotta be kidding me!

Well, in our church the word "extracted" means a colloquy and not anything like you're thinking. I use the word that way to avoid misunderstanding. I couldn't put myself in your position and not be true to our own views by using another word, don't ya know?

Seriously, I had to talk with you back and forth and ask several questions of you before I understood that you were using a word in an unusual way, knowing that I would think it meant something else. To me, that experience proves my point.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Well, in our church the word "extracted" means a colloquy and not anything like you're thinking. I use the word that way to avoid misunderstanding. I couldn't put myself in your position and not be true to our own views by using another word, don't ya know?

I'm not really all that amused. I don't think your original comments were written tongue-in-cheek. But if you're attempting to lessen their impact, I do appreciate that.

Seriously, I had to talk with you back and forth and ask several questions of you before I understood that you were using a word in an unusual way, knowing that I would think it meant something else. To me, that experience proves my point.

There are a lot of different viewpoints being discussed on these forums. The very term "Christian" will mean who knows how many things to just as many persons. Since everyone typically speaks from his own experience and uses words primarily as he understands them, rather than accuse people of attempting to deceive you, wouldn't it be more conducive to good-faith discourse to simply allow the conversations to evolve as they evolve, giving others the benefit of the doubt? There is nothing to gain by engaging in name-calling and finger-pointing.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Albion,

I don't think that TasteForTruth is trying to deceive or mislead you by his choice of words. Rather, I think that he is trying to clarify and avoid misunderstandings.

Perhaps it isn't clear (to me) why you believe that what he wrote is misleading. Could you clarify what you find to be deceitful?

My initial guess was that it was related to his use of the term restored. Even though in his experience the term restored gospel is used more in speaking to members ouside of the LDS Church, a perusal of the church's website (or even a google search) shows that the term is used within their church as well. If I was having a conversation with a group of people that were predominantly LDS and I wanted to use the term gospel to mean it in the way that it is used by traditional Christians, I would try to clarify what I meant, least they think that I was speaking of the gospel as defined by LDS.

Thanks, Skylark. I appreciate your perspective here. You are correct; I was not trying to deceive anyone.

 

[Clearly]

bbbbbbb ;

My point to taste of truth was that, though you thought your example (somehow...) was supposed to be a criticism of LDS claims, I think your example of a relatively intact building being “renovated” and “restored” was a wonderful example supporting and explaining the mechanics involved in the restoration of the gospel as I understand it. I will probably use your exact example in the future to support LDS claims. (I honestly thought it was a wonderful and clever example).


1) bbbbbbb clarified : “Because the product was revelatory in nature does not necessarily mean that it never existed previously; however, if it did there would be other evidence for its existence.

This caricature also has contextually incorrect assumptions. The restoration was NOT entirely “revelatory in nature” Authentic Christian theology that was NOT missing needed NO “restoration” of a revelatory nature.

For example : The base truth that Jesus is the redeemer of mankind and that all must have faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ was NOT missing from christianity. The LDS merely agree with and add their own witness to this eternal truth.

If you are restoring a historical building, I assume you may incorporate what is good in a current structure needing historical restoration, rebuild when necessary, subtract accretions that are improper to the restoration, and add what is missing during this process of restoration (I am not a builder, so I hope my view of building restoration more correct than your multiple theories on gospel restoration)

Thus Joseph Smith taught the LDS : “If the presbyterians have any truth, embrace that. If the Baptists and Methodists have truth, embrace that too. Get all the good in the world if you want to come out a pure Mormon.” (Words of J. S. Contemp accounts of nauvoo discour..)

This “...first and fundamental principle of our holy religion” was to be free “…to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another.” (Pers writings J.S., ed. D. Jessee, 84)

Thus the LDS feel completely free to say to the Catholics (as an example) , “I believe your doctrine regarding the existence of spirit world after death, and I honor your belief in this principle, but I disagree with details on the nature of purgatory.”

I am not an apologist but I agree with P. Pratts observation that “We can never understand precisely what is meant by restoration, unless we understand what is lost or taken away.”.

I think the “restoration” is often described by LDS (rightly or wrongly) as "something that was lost that is restored or found or brought back". (I may describe it this way when trying to make a specific point in a certain context).

However, T. Givens reminds us that other restorationists described the problem of apostasy as unwarranted accrual of false precepts as much as it is a restoration of obscure and lost doctrines.

In this larger context, apostasy may involve the contamination of authentic precepts; a discarding of authentic precepts; an obscuring of some precepts; the addition of counterfeit and unauthentic precepts; etc, etc..

If this is true, then restoration/reformation will remove contaminations from teachings, will bring back authentic precepts that have been discarded; will clarify obscure precepts; will discard counterfeit and unauthentic precepts, etc. etc. It seems to be more like a process of collecting and assimilating what was neglected and obscure and not particularly an ex-nihilo creation in the main..






2) bbbbbbb said regarding the restored gospel’s existence prior to Joseph Smith : No verifiable evidence (by non-Mormon sources) has been discovered to date.

To survive, this next theory of yours must purposefully close it’s eyes to the vast amount of evidence that the gospel did exist prior to Joseph Smith (which was his claim) .

As an example : All of christianity uses some version of the bible as verifiable evidence that Jesus was the redeemer of the world. The LDS use this same evidence for this base claim. The Christian world in general uses the biblical literature as “verifiable evidence” as to many gospel principles and their existence anciently. The LDS use this same evidence.

However, the LDS are able to use many other sources of historical evidence that the gospel precepts existed before this restoration. (though I think it is historians who are mainly aware of and interested in this early literature - probably not most "average" LDS)

I understand you are not a period historian, but your theory ignores the incredible amount of Early Judao-Christian literature written by the early Judao-Christians themselves; the sacred and profane literature of early Judao-Christians, the mishnas, the diaries, the hymns, the epigraphia, nag hamadi, onchy, brooklyn, manuscripts, qumran, etc.. Though I think many discrete elements of non-base claims are revelatory, the theory you are suggesting that such data doesn’t exist is senseless in the presence of this avalanche of historical data. (unless you meant your theory in some other way than it sounds...)





3) bbbbbbb said : ” I think you may find that although most of the principles you have outlined are accurate, they are the very things that Joseph Smith and his followers found to be abhorrent.

I agree that my points regarding correct Catholic claims were both accurate and demonstrate that your theory that "the LDS would “abhor” the catholics teaching" the very same things the also LDS teach is incorrect.

The LDS claim is that Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer of the World and that all mankind must come unto him for salvation. Neither this truth nor the catholics become “abhorrent” when Catholics or anyone else witnesses to this truth. The same is true of all other truths taught by the Catholics. On each example I gave, the LDS are completely in agreement with the Catholics and will witness to the truth of these same catholic doctrines. Where we do not agree, we do not agree.






4) bbbbbbb said : Prophets were sent to Israel to return them to the Law, pure and simple. There was no "gospel" in the Old Testament. The point was to return to obedience to God as revealed in the Law. The Law remains with us to this day and one can return to it without resorting to any divine revelation. The prophetic gift in the LDS is not to return people to the Law, as did the OT prophets, but to guide them into the Gospel Principles of the Restored Gospel. Many of these have little or no basis in the Bible nor in church history.

I think I have to agree somewhat with a couple of your points and disagree with others.

You are speaking from the modern context of your own worldview (all of us do this).

However, this was not the worldview of early Judao-christians who did believe that the ευαγγελια existed in some form from the time of Adam.

For example, in the early Christian tradition, Adam taught Seth about the redemption promised him from god when God told him : “ I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’3...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. [...] I will raise up the body I received from you..... and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.” (Testament of Adam 3:1-4)

This promise is the same witness recorded in the early christian text Life A & E (apoc) 28:1-4 when God tells Adam : “.... at the time of the resurrection I will raise you again and then there shall be given to you from the tree of life, and you shall be immortal forever. “

It is the same witness in the gospel of nicodemus where adam is to be told that “... after the completion of fifty-five hundred years from the creation of the world, the only-begotten son of God shall become man and shall descend below the earth. And he shall anoint him with that oil. And he shall arise and wash him and his descendants with water and the Holy spirit. And then he shall be healed of every disease.” (chr 3)

If such witnesses to such restored gospel principles existing among the ancient Judao-Christians are correct, then Ignatius was perfectly correct to claim that “Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity,...” (Ign - Magn).

Thus this early teaching that Adam met his savior and was promised redemption not only existed BEFORE Joseph Smith claimed it, but the multiple consistent repetition of such themes creates a different context for Old Testament history if Adam actually was a “Christian” (i.e. he expected the messiah as a redeemer).

We all see through different contextual lenses. I understand the context you are using for your description of “the Law”, but it is not the same context as the ancients.

I think the reason that you do not see many of these principles in the bible is because you do not have this historical background, nor does your personal “church history” have this historical background, but the early Judao-Christian εκλεσσια DID have this background.

As you become more aware of early Judao-Christian history (should you chose to do so) and their texts, you will then see remnants of the earliest orthodox gospel and will look back on these early theories of yours with an entirely different context.




5) This is actually a conundrum for Mormonism. It has been clearly taught that the Great Apostasy began at the death of the Apostles. Thus, the ECFs were responsible for that Apostasy. As a result, any Mormon apologist treads on volcanic ash if they cite as authoritative those very men who destroyed the Church of Jesus Christ of Former Day Saints.

The premise underlying this next theory is incorrect as well. Apostasy as a principle has ALWAYS happened.

Many of the themes in several of the New Testament epistles deal with the problem of apostasy as it is occurring even during the time BEFORE the death of the apostles. The apostolic fathers (long before most “church” fathers) tell us apostasy was going on in their time. The Church Fathers tell us it is going on in their time. Forum christians today continue to debate with one another to convince others to “return” to the “right belief.

Just as I will probably quote your example of the restoration of a building (meant as a criticism) as a wonderful example in support of the mechanism and model of the restoration, then also, on points where I think the ECFs are correct, I will certainly quote them as such and when they are wrong, I will quote them in that context as well. That is the historical perogative.



Bbbbbbb I wish you the very best experience in your spiritual journey. I also envy your skills in building and think that is a cool set of skills to have.


clearly
sedrtzzk





taste of truth - I also felt we underwent a "bait and switch" and admit disappointment and felt the claim was a deception. That was not the posters best behavior and usually it is better than that.

 

[TasteForTruth]

The restoration was NOT entirely “revelatory in nature” Authentic Christian theology that was NOT missing needed NO “restoration” of a revelatory nature.

For example : The base truth that Jesus is the redeemer of mankind and that all must have faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ was NOT missing from christianity. The LDS merely agree with and add their own witness to this eternal truth.

I believe this is an excellent point. These obvious commonalities are outright dismissed by some when comparing the Restored Gospel to the NT Gospel, as if they were entirely new concepts to the world.

I also appreciated how you pointed out that when people challenge the authenticity of the Restored Gospel, they frequently do so from the standpoint of claiming exclusive rights to the Bible as "evidence." And any attempt to persist in claiming the Bible as evidence is dismissed under the claim that we're engaging in eisegesis.