I just looked it up. The Church Fathers were debating “predestination” well before the Nicene Creed, and continued debating them afterward. So yeah, what original predestination doctrine had been lost that Joseph needed to restore?
To justify claiming a “Great Apostasy” and the need for a “Restoration” people have to put words in Jesus’s mouth that he didn’t say. They have to make stuff up.
Actually, the problem seems to be that people over time put words in Jesus's mouth that He didn't say. And they're written right there in the Bible!
Greek/Hellenistic thought and metaphysics aren't found in the Bible. And it came first. It seems as though that were closest to Him would get the story more straight than some philosopher many years later.
If Jesus didn’t teach it, then it isn’t something lost that was restored.
I just looked it up. The Church Fathers were debating “predestination” well before the Nicene Creed, and continued debating them afterward. So yeah, what original predestination doctrine had been lost that Joseph needed to restore?
Predestination in the Bible? I guess you're referring to the scriptures Calvin grabbed? Look what happened with that.
I just looked it up. The Church Fathers were debating “predestination” well before the Nicene Creed, and continued debating them afterward. So yeah, what original predestination doctrine had been lost that Joseph needed to restore?
To justify claiming a “Great Apostasy” and the need for a “Restoration” people have to put words in Jesus’s mouth that he didn’t say. They have to make stuff up.
I am quite sure the LDSrestoration movement passionately rejected the doctrine of predestination and would have held that as a prime example of corrupt creed(westminster confession etc)
For the sake of looking for strong points to consider(could reject) I think the Lds church has been clear restoring priesthood , apostolic succession and prophetic leadership is the restoration. There is little point to looking for a new doctrine as restoration though new doctrines became possible le as a result. I realize there is a desire to see stuff like temple ritual in the early church lost but I think that is very questionable what is. Safer to argue these are completing expansions made possible by the restoration.
To justify claiming a “Great Apostasy” and the need for a “Restoration” people have to put words in Jesus’s mouth that he didn’t say. They have to make stuff up.
I am quite sure the LDSrestoration movement passionately rejected the doctrine of predestination and would have held that as a prime example of corrupt creed(westminster confession etc)
For the sake of looking for strong points to consider(could reject) I think the Lds church has been clear restoring priesthood , apostolic succession and prophetic leadership is the restoration. There is little point to looking for a new doctrine as restoration though new doctrines became possible le as a result. I realize there is a desire to see stuff like temple ritual in the early church lost but I think that is very questionable what is. Safer to argue these are completing expansions made possible by the restoration.
There’s no compelling evidence to suggest that Apostolic succession was needed to be restored. It never went away. Catholicism can trace its line of succession right back to the Apostles. Jesus wasn’t part of a priesthood. Others labelled him a High Priest but there is no evidence that he was ordained to, or passed on, anything resembling what the LDS Church calls “the priesthood”. This is just the church trying to paint a target around a hole that isn’t there.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
MG wrote: Just yesterday I mentioned that I’m not on board with God having a body of literal flesh and bone.
In that case you're not really on board with the apostasy and restoration since 49% of that is God having a body, 49% is baptism by immersion/baptism for the dead, and 2% is everything else.
You can't really say the number 1 distinct idea of Mormonism that was "restored" is incorrect.
"...gain control of land that FARMS owned..." -- Bill Hamblin
"Why did FARMS own land to begin with?" -- Me
I am quite sure the LDSrestoration movement passionately rejected the doctrine of predestination and would have held that as a prime example of corrupt creed(westminster confession etc)
For the sake of looking for strong points to consider(could reject) I think the Lds church has been clear restoring priesthood , apostolic succession and prophetic leadership is the restoration. There is little point to looking for a new doctrine as restoration though new doctrines became possible le as a result. I realize there is a desire to see stuff like temple ritual in the early church lost but I think that is very questionable what is. Safer to argue these are completing expansions made possible by the restoration.
There’s no compelling evidence to suggest that Apostolic succession was needed to be restored. It never went away. Catholicism can trace its line of succession right back to the Apostles. Jesus wasn’t part of a priesthood. Others labelled him a High Priest but there is no evidence that he was ordained to, or passed on, anything resembling what the LDS Church calls “the priesthood”. This is just the church trying to paint a target around a hole that isn’t there.
Levitical Priesthood, no. After the order of Melchizedek, yes.
Genesis records no beginning or end to Melchizedek’s life or priesthood, he serves as a symbol for a priesthood that is permanent and eternal.
I am quite sure the LDSrestoration movement passionately rejected the doctrine of predestination and would have held that as a prime example of corrupt creed(westminster confession etc)
For the sake of looking for strong points to consider(could reject) I think the Lds church has been clear restoring priesthood , apostolic succession and prophetic leadership is the restoration. There is little point to looking for a new doctrine as restoration though new doctrines became possible le as a result. I realize there is a desire to see stuff like temple ritual in the early church lost but I think that is very questionable what is. Safer to argue these are completing expansions made possible by the restoration.
There’s no compelling evidence to suggest that Apostolic succession was needed to be restored. It never went away. Catholicism can trace its line of succession right back to the Apostles. Jesus wasn’t part of a priesthood. Others labelled him a High Priest but there is no evidence that he was ordained to, or passed on, anything resembling what the LDS Church calls “the priesthood”. This is just the church trying to paint a target around a hole that isn’t there.
I’ve been trying to figure out what these “designing corrupters” sought to gain through the Nicene Creed, or even by putting words into Jesus’ mouth.
It’s easy to see how a claim to restored priesthood authority might benefit someone. It gives them the power to administer ordinances, speak for God, and collect tithes. But why wouldn’t the “designing corrupters” do the same thing? Wouldn’t they have held on to the priesthood, for example, to preserve that power?
It just seems like the opposite of what someone who was seeking to corrupt would do.
There’s no compelling evidence to suggest that Apostolic succession was needed to be restored. It never went away. Catholicism can trace its line of succession right back to the Apostles. Jesus wasn’t part of a priesthood. Others labelled him a High Priest but there is no evidence that he was ordained to, or passed on, anything resembling what the LDS Church calls “the priesthood”. This is just the church trying to paint a target around a hole that isn’t there.
I’ve been trying to figure out what these “designing corrupters” sought to gain through the Nicene Creed, or even by putting words into Jesus’ mouth.
It’s easy to see how a claim to restored priesthood authority might benefit someone. It gives them the power to administer ordinances, speak for God, and collect tithes. But why wouldn’t the “designing corrupters” do the same thing? Wouldn’t they have held on to the priesthood, for example, to preserve that power?
It just seems like the opposite of what someone who was seeking to corrupt would do.
I’m of the opinion it was to legitimise maintaining a patriarchy.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I’m of the opinion it was to legitimise maintaining a patriarchy.
I mean that’s just it—if they had left things the same they would have had that. Why corrupt something that already gave you a patriarchy if that’s what you wanted?
And what would the doctrine of the Trinity have to do with a patriarchy?
MG wrote: Just yesterday I mentioned that I’m not on board with God having a body of literal flesh and bone.
In that case you're not really on board with the apostasy and restoration since 49% of that is God having a body, 49% is baptism by immersion/baptism for the dead, and 2% is everything else.
You can't really say the number 1 distinct idea of Mormonism that was "restored" is incorrect.
God is corporeal. Joseph described what he saw. Later described as a glorified body of flesh and bone. Whatever that is, it's not flesh and bone in the literal sense that we would understand it in our biology class. It's something else.
I'm saying that we ought to be open to the idea that a glorified body of flesh and bone doesn't fit within our biological system which is carbon based.
Whatever it is is beyond our comprehension. We do know through accounts of those who have described God/angels as beings of light that there is something qualitatively different in what is being described as flesh and bone.
Like way different. That's essentially why I said it is pretty hard to think of a God who is compositionally exactly like us.
