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..
"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."
Joseph Smith himself claimed divine revelation for the Restored Gospel and no other source. He did not claim to be a great and profound Biblical scholar whose intense research aided and abetted his production of the Restored Gospel. Thus, it is entirely justified to state that the Restored Gospel is entirely revelatory in nature.
2) bbbbbbb said regarding the restored gospels 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 its 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 doesnt exist is senseless in the presence of this avalanche of historical data. (unless you meant your theory in some other way than it sounds...)
You state "However, the LDS are able to use many other sources of historical evidence that the gospel precepts existed before this restoration." I submit that the LDS, even if they are able to do so, do not do so. Not only does your average LDS member not do so, but the LDS missionaries and bishops do not do so and have not done so in my own personal experience. Nor are such sources cited on LDS apologetic websites such as FairLDS and FairMormon. If these sources provide documentation for the Restored Gospel, then it strikes me as more than peculiar that no use of them is made.
By contrast, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists and members of CF regularly use such sources to buttress their arguments.
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.
Once again I recommend that you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church to understand Catholic dogma. I think you will end up agreeing that there is more similarity between Mormonism and Freemasonry than there is between Roman Catholicism and Mormonism.
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.
Salvation and justification are freely discussed in both testaments of the Bible and, as Paul explains in detail in Romans, justification commenced with Abraham's faith. However, the OT is understood to contain the Law and the Prophets, as described by Jesus Himself - not the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel. The only similarity between the Restored Gospel and the Old Testament is the Ten Commandments. Even then, Mormonism has redefined the Fourth Commandment as being religious activities on the first day of the week and not resting on the Sabbath.
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.
Here is the discussion regarding the Great Apostasy from the Mormon perspective from the longer entry on the subject in Wikipedia -
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
LDS Church members believe that
Joseph Smith, Jr. was called by God to restore the true teachings of Jesus Christ
According to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the Great Apostasy started not long after Jesus'
ascension[14] and continued until
Joseph Smith's
First Vision in 1820. To
Latter-day Saints, the Great Apostasy is marked by:
Beginning in the 1st century and continuing up to the 4th century AD the various
emperors of the
Roman Empire carried out violent persecutions against Christians.
[19] Apostles,
bishops,
disciples and other leaders and followers of
Jesus who would not compromise their faith were persecuted and martyred.
The LDS Church declares that all
Priesthood leaders with authority
[14] to conduct and perpetuate church affairs were either
martyred, taken from the earth, or began to teach impure doctrines, causing a break in the necessary
Apostolic Succession. Latter-day Saints believe that what survived was but a fragment of the light and truth that Jesus had established: the Church of Jesus Christ, as established by him, was no longer to be found on the earth. Survivors of the persecutions were overly-influenced by various pagan philosophies either because they were not well indoctrinated in Jesus' teachings or they corrupted their Christian beliefs (willingly, by compulsion, or with good intentions but without direct revelation from God to help them interpret said beliefs) by accepting non-Christian doctrines into their faith. Latter-day Saints believe that many plain and simple truths of the gospel of Christ were, therefore, lost.
[14]
Latter-day Saints understand various writings in the
New Testament to be an indication that even soon after Jesus'
ascension the Apostles struggled to keep early Christians from distorting Jesus' teachings and to prevent the followers from dividing into different ideological groups.
[20] Latter-day Saints claim that various Old Testament and New Testament scriptures, including teachings of Christ himself, prophesy of this "falling away" or "apostasy." The Christian believers who survived the persecutions took it upon themselves to speak for God, interpret, amend or add to his doctrines and ordinances, and carry out his work without proper authority and divine direction from God to do so. During this time, important doctrines and rites were lost or corrupted.
[21] Latter-day Saints point to the doctrine of the
Trinity adopted at the
Council of Nicaea as an example of how pagan philosophy corrupted Jesus' teachings.
Mormonism teaches that God, the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are not
one substance, but three separate and distinct beings forming one
Godhead.
[22] The Latter-day Saints reject the early
ecumenical councils for what they see as misguided human attempts without divine assistance to decide matters of doctrine, substituting debate or politics for divine
revelation. Latter-day Saints believe that the often heated proceedings of such councils were evidence that the church was no longer led by revelation and divine authority.
Thus, Latter-day Saints refer to the "restitution of all things" mentioned in
Acts 3:20-21 and claim that a
restoration of all the original and primary doctrines and rites of Christianity was necessary.
[20] The LDS believe that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to a 14-year old boy named
Joseph Smith and called him to be a prophet.
[23] Later Peter, James, and John, three of Christ's apostles in the New Testament, appeared from heaven to Smith and ordained him an apostle.
[24] Through Christ's Priesthood authority and divine direction from Christ, the LDS believe that Joseph Smith was called and ordained to re-establish Christ's church. Hence, members of the LDS faith refer to their church as "The Church of Jesus Christ." The term "latter-day saints" refers to the fact that members of Christ's church were originally called "saints" and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church in these, what LDS and other Christian denominations believe, are the last days prior to prophesied second coming of Jesus.
[25] Latter-day Saints maintain that other religionsChristian or otherwisehave a
portion of the truth, though mingled with inaccuracies due to misinterpretations of some doctrines, such as the nature of the Godhead, how
Adam and Eve's
choice in the Garden of Eden and their fall advanced the
Plan of salvation, the need for modern divine revelation through living
prophets and apostles, and the universal divine potential of mankind. They claim that
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of Jesus' original church, has the authentic Priesthood authority, and all doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel, fulfilling many of the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and Malachi in the Old Testament and also the prophesies of Peter and Jesus in the New Testament. (See Ref.) They also maintain that many other religions, Christian and otherwise, advance many good causes and do much good among the people insofar as they are led by the light of Christ, "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)
If you find any of this to be incorrect you are free to amend the Wikipedia article.