do mormons have the holy spirit?

[ParkerD]

What is the Mormon gospel according to the Scriptures? What must I do to be saved?

2nd Adam,
I think I had already answered those questions. Here was my answer earlier on this thread:

The gospel is truly the most important “good news” that anyone can find in the world. It is the knowledge, confirmed by the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, that the Son of God descended from His divine joint throne with God the Father, was sent to this earth to be born of a mortal virgin Mother, Mary, to live a perfectly exemplary life and show us how to follow His example, then to offer Himself as the infinite and eternal sacrifice for all the sins of the world so that He could proffer His grace and mercy bringing humankind into the presence of God, sinless if we have repented and have claimed His mercy through calling upon Him in faith, hope, and charity.

He is Jesus Christ, who died on the cross of Calvary and was resurrected with full power over death so that each human soul will be resurrected. He is the perfect judge of all men, our Redeemer and Savior, and the One who Advocates our cause before God the Father, with equity and perfect love and compassion. He is the Prince of Peace, and the Light of the World. His way to God is the Only Way, and is the way of repentance, obedience to the commandments, baptism by immersion, sanctification and purification through gaining the Holy Spirit and keeping the Spirit so that one can be guided toward the growth, joy, and peace that the gospel brings into the hearts and lives of each soul who lives by the gospel covenants they make.

You would need the Holy Spirit in order to “be saved” if you mean “be sanctified”. Once you have the Holy Spirit, then you are going to be the one who knows what God wants you to do in your life to become a better person. So that will not be knowledge that I have–it will be knowledge about yourself that you have, given to you by God.

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam,
I think I had already answered those questions. Here was my answer earlier on this thread:

The gospel is truly the most important “good news” that anyone can find in the world. It is the knowledge, confirmed by the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, that the Son of God descended from His divine joint throne with God the Father, was sent to this earth to be born of a mortal virgin Mother, Mary, to live a perfectly exemplary life and show us how to follow His example, then to offer Himself as the infinite and eternal sacrifice for all the sins of the world so that He could proffer His grace and mercy bringing humankind into the presence of God, sinless if we have repented and have claimed His mercy through calling upon Him in faith, hope, and charity.

He is Jesus Christ, who died on the cross of Calvary and was resurrected with full power over death so that each human soul will be resurrected. He is the perfect judge of all men, our Redeemer and Savior, and the One who Advocates our cause before God the Father, with equity and perfect love and compassion. He is the Prince of Peace, and the Light of the World. His way to God is the Only Way, and is the way of repentance, obedience to the commandments, baptism by immersion, sanctification and purification through gaining the Holy Spirit and keeping the Spirit so that one can be guided toward the growth, joy, and peace that the gospel brings into the hearts and lives of each soul who lives by the gospel covenants they make.

You would need the Holy Spirit in order to “be saved” if you mean “be sanctified”. Once you have the Holy Spirit, then you are going to be the one who knows what God wants you to do in your life to become a better person. So that will not be knowledge that I have–it will be knowledge about yourself that you have, given to you by God.

Thanks, and I will read it when I have the time. However, you are suppose to present the Mormon gospel through the Bible Alone. Therefore, I need a presentation of the Mormon gospel through scripture references and scripture proofs.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks, and I will read it when I have the time. However, you are suppose to present the Mormon gospel through the Bible Alone. Therefore, I need a presentation of the Mormon gospel through scripture references and scripture proofs.

2nd Adam,
The Bible contains “here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10,13) of the precepts of the gospel. The Mormon gospel is in the entire Bible. For the scripture references, start with Genesis 1:1 and read all the way through Revelation 22:21 and you will have the scripture references. (I still suggest you use the KJV for doing that.)

I really mean that.

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam,
The Bible contains “here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10,13) of the precepts of the gospel. The Mormon gospel is in the entire Bible. For the scripture references, start with Genesis 1:1 and read all the way through Revelation 22:21 and you will have the scripture references. (I still suggest you use the KJV for doing that.)

I really mean that.

I thought I had this conversation already? Could you at least expound this passage for me?

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

[ParkerD]

I thought I had this conversation already? Could you at least expound this passage for me?

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

2nd Adam,
If you’re asking if I believe what Paul wrote, I do. I agree with him.

 

[zerinus]

For me, if there was a Great Apostasy, then the LDS Church could be true, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses could be true,or the Seventh Day Adventist Church could be true, or the Churches of Christ could be true, etc.

I don’t buy that. As far as I can tell, the LDS Church is the only church that stakes a viable claim to a “Restoration”. The JWs or 7th-day Adventists don’t even come close. The JW organization was started by Charles Taze Russell whose story is given in the Wikipedia as follows:

In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed an independent group to study the Bible; in particular, Russell cited contributions by Advent Christian Church pastor George W. Stetson, and George Storrs, an Adventist preacher and former Millerite. In 1877 Russell jointly edited a religious journal, Herald of the Morning, with Nelson H. Barbour. In July 1879, after separating from Barbour, Russell began publishing the magazine Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, highlighting his interpretations of biblical chronology, with particular attention to his belief that the world was in “the last days”. In 1881, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was formed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to disseminate tracts, papers, doctrinal treatises and bibles; three years later, on December 15, 1884, Russell became the president of the Society when it was legally incorporated in Pennsylvania.

Watch Tower supporters gathered as autonomous congregations to study the Bible and Russell’s writings. Russell firmly rejected as “wholly unnecessary” the concept of a formal organization for his followers, and declared that his group had no record of its members’ names, no creeds, and no sectarian name. The group became known as “Bible Students”. Russell died on October 31, 1916, and control of the Watch Tower magazine was temporarily passed to an Editorial Committee as outlined in Russell’s will, with an Executive Committee in control of the Society.

How does that come close to the LDS concept of the Restoration, with its visions of the Father and the Son, ministration of angels, restoration of the priesthood, large quantities of revelations and addition to canonized scripture, the full organization of the Church with prophets, Apostles, and all the officers as in the ancient Church? The 7th-day Adventists don’t fare any better. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia about the start of the 7th-day Adventist movement:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is the largest of several “Adventist” groups which arose from the Millerite movement of the 1840s. The Millerites (after William Miller) were part of the wave of revivalism in the United States known as the Second Great Awakening. Miller predicted on the basis of Daniel 8:14-16 and the “day-year principle” that Jesus Christ would return to Earth on October 22, 1844. When this did not happen, most of his followers disbanded and returned to their original churches.

A small number of Millerites came to believe that Miller’s calculations were correct, but that his interpretation of Daniel 8:14 was flawed. Beginning with a vision reported by Hiram Edson on October 23, these Adventists (as this group of Millerite believers came to be known) arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ’s entrance into the “Most Holy Place” of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming. Over the next decade this understanding developed into the doctrine of the investigative judgment: an eschatological process commencing in 1844 in which Christians will be judged to verify their eligibility for salvation and God’s justice will be confirmed before the universe. The Adventists continued to believe that Christ’s second coming would be imminent, although they refrained from setting further dates for the event.

How does that come close to the Mormon concept of the Restoration? Not by a long shot! None of them claimed to be Apostles or prophets, or receive authority from God to organize His true Church.

 

[TheosisM]

I don’t buy that. As far as I can tell, the LDS Church is the only church that stakes a viable claim to a “Restoration”. The JWs or 7th-day Adventists don’t even come close. The JW organization was started by Charles Taze Russell whose story is given in the Wikipedia as follows:

In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed an independent group to study the Bible; in particular, Russell cited contributions by Advent Christian Church pastor George W. Stetson, and George Storrs, an Adventist preacher and former Millerite. In 1877 Russell jointly edited a religious journal, Herald of the Morning, with Nelson H. Barbour. In July 1879, after separating from Barbour, Russell began publishing the magazine Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, highlighting his interpretations of biblical chronology, with particular attention to his belief that the world was in “the last days”. In 1881, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was formed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to disseminate tracts, papers, doctrinal treatises and bibles; three years later, on December 15, 1884, Russell became the president of the Society when it was legally incorporated in Pennsylvania.

Watch Tower supporters gathered as autonomous congregations to study the Bible and Russell’s writings. Russell firmly rejected as “wholly unnecessary” the concept of a formal organization for his followers, and declared that his group had no record of its members’ names, no creeds, and no sectarian name. The group became known as “Bible Students”. Russell died on October 31, 1916, and control of the Watch Tower magazine was temporarily passed to an Editorial Committee as outlined in Russell’s will, with an Executive Committee in control of the Society.

How does that come close to the LDS concept of the Restoration, with its visions of the Father and the Son, ministration of angels, restoration of the priesthood, large quantities of revelations and addition to canonized scripture, the full organization of the Church with prophets, Apostles, and all the officers as in the ancient Church? The 7th-day Adventists don’t fare any better. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia about the start of the 7th-day Adventist movement:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is the largest of several “Adventist” groups which arose from the Millerite movement of the 1840s. The Millerites (after William Miller) were part of the wave of revivalism in the United States known as the Second Great Awakening. Miller predicted on the basis of Daniel 8:14-16 and the “day-year principle” that Jesus Christ would return to Earth on October 22, 1844. When this did not happen, most of his followers disbanded and returned to their original churches.

A small number of Millerites came to believe that Miller’s calculations were correct, but that his interpretation of Daniel 8:14 was flawed. Beginning with a vision reported by Hiram Edson on October 23, these Adventists (as this group of Millerite believers came to be known) arrived at the conviction that Daniel 8:14 foretold Christ’s entrance into the “Most Holy Place” of the heavenly sanctuary rather than his second coming. Over the next decade this understanding developed into the doctrine of the investigative judgment: an eschatological process commencing in 1844 in which Christians will be judged to verify their eligibility for salvation and God’s justice will be confirmed before the universe. The Adventists continued to believe that Christ’s second coming would be imminent, although they refrained from setting further dates for the event.

How does that come close to the Mormon concept of the Restoration? Not by a long shot! None of them claimed to be Apostles or prophets, or receive authority from God to organize His true Church.

Oh I’m sure you don’t buy it. You’re imposing the Mormon standard of a restoration (including how it is to occur and what it is supposed to be restoring) on other groups. The point here is that the LDS Church is not the only religion to claim a Great Apostasy, and not the only church to claim to restore lost beliefs, and/or to be the restored and only Church of Christ. It frankly is irrelevant if it supposedly occurred with angels, visions, or additions to scripture. So again, if I came to the conclusion that there was a Great Apostasy (I just finished reading Tad Callister’s ‘The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration’), that does not mean that the LDS version of a Restoration is any more valid than any other (from a non-Mormon perspective), unless one imposes the LDS standard of how it was supposed to occur and what was supposed to be restored. Your post assumes a lot of that ‘how and what’, and whether that’s actually what was supposed to happen and what was supposed to be restored.

 

[zerinus]

Oh I’m sure you don’t buy it. You’re imposing the Mormon standard of a restoration (including how it is to occur and what it is supposed to be restoring) on other groups. The point here is that the LDS Church is not the only religion to claim a Great Apostasy, and not the only church to claim to restore lost beliefs, and/or to be the restored and only Church of Christ.

Claiming Apostasy does not make a Restoration. The Apostasy claim has been made at one point or another by all Protestant groups. Here is a link that tells you all about it. They didn’t claim a Restoration. They claimed a Reformation.

The claim of “restoring lost truths” doesn’t get you very far either—unless you are claiming it by direct revelation from heaven. All Protestant Reformers claimed to be “restoring lost truths” in that sense of the term. Where do you draw the line between Reformation and Restoration? Your attempt to blur the distinction between the two is disingenuous to say the least.

It frankly is irrelevant if it supposedly occurred with angels, visions, or additions to scripture.

Again, where do you draw the line between Restoration and Reformation? To me, only God can do a Restoration. Man can only do a Reformation. If the Priesthood authority is lost (and that is the central issue), it can only be obtained by a Restoration, not a Reformation. The priesthood is the authority given by God to man to act on His behalf. That authority, if genuine, can only come from God. That means that an angel, or a God, or somebody form heaven has to come down to earth to give it to you. You can’t just take it upon yourself by a “Reformation”. That is where angels and revelations come into it.

So again, if I came to the conclusion that there was a Great Apostasy (I just finished reading Tad Callister’s ‘The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration’), that does not mean that the LDS version of a Restoration is any more valid than any other (from a non-Mormon perspective), unless one imposes the LDS standard of how it was supposed to occur and what was supposed to be restored.

See above. All Protestants claimed Apostasy at some point. So by your reckoning they all did Restorations. But they didn’t think so! You seem to know more about what they accomplished than they knew themselves! LOL!

Your post assumes a lot of that ‘how and what’, and whether that’s actually what was supposed to happen and what was supposed to be restored.

Okay, since you insist on muddying the waters by blurring the distinction between Restoration and Reformation, I won’t use the word Restoration at all. I will express it with a different choice of vocabulary. How about this: Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received authority from God by revelation to re-establish His true Church on earth after that authority was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church. What is your answer to that?

 

[TheosisM]

Claiming Apostasy does not make a Restoration. The Apostasy claim has been made at one point or another by all Protestant groups. Here is a link that tells you all about it. They didn’t claim a Restoration. They claimed a Reformation.

Who is claiming a Reformation? I’m not talking about any random Protestant group.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#Restorationist_perspective

The claim of “restoring lost truths” doesn’t get you very far either—unless you are claiming it by direct revelation from heaven. All Protestant Reformers claimed to be “restoring lost truths” in that sense of the term. Where do you draw the line between Reformation and Restoration? Your attempt to blur the distinction between the two is disingenuous to say the least.

Actually it isn’t. The difference here is that the Reformers, specifically Luther, did not believe that a new church had to be formed, or that authority was lost. Luther instead sought to reform the Catholic Church from within. It was only later that a whole new church named after him was formed. This contrasts with Restoration, which is the belief that during some sort of Apostasy in the early Church history, authority was lost and doctrines were corrupted, therefore no true Christianity existed until they arrived on the scene to correct that. Reformation is correcting an existing structure and beliefs, Restoration is independent of any existing structure and beliefs, and is related to primitivism. Reformation obviously includes restoration elements. You want to define restoration based on your own personal beliefs, whereas I simply see it as how everyone else does.

Again, where do you draw the line between Restoration and Reformation? To me, only God can do a Restoration. Man can only do a Reformation. If the Priesthood authority is lost (and that is the central issue), it can only be obtained by a Restoration, not a Reformation. The priesthood is the authority given by God to man to act on His behalf. That authority, if genuine, can only come from God. That means that an angel, or a God, or somebody form heaven has to come down to earth to give it to you. You can’t just take it upon yourself by a “Reformation”. That is where angels and revelations come into it.

See above. That is your definition of restoration and reformation, and again, you are imposing LDS beliefs on what priesthood is, and how a restoration can occur. A number of other churches fall under the Restorationism category, and do not follow such definitions. Please look into Swedenborgianism (not strictly restorationist, though it interestingly has a number of similarities to Mormonism), Ellen G. White, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc.

See above. All Protestants claimed Apostasy at some point. So by your reckoning they all did Restorations. But they didn’t think so! You seem to know more about what they accomplished than they knew themselves! LOL!

See above. You are conflating Great (total) Apostasy with apostasy, and what exactly Luther and company aimed to do. There is a clear difference between them and Restorationist groups, whether they claim to have been prophets, visited by angels, etc. Familiarize yourself with the Restoration Movement. You seem to think that churches that placed in the Restorationist category by historians and theologians should not be there because they aren’t claiming a restoration like the Mormons do, LOL!

Okay, since you insist on muddying the waters by blurring the distinction between Restoration and Reformation, I won’t use the word Restoration at all. I will express it with a different choice of vocabulary. How about this: Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received authority from God by revelation to re-establish His true Church on earth after that authority was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church. What is your answer to that?

Again, see above, I have not muddied any waters, you are simply imposing LDS views on what a Restoration has to entail, and what it has to restore.

The founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church claimed visions from God restoring the truth, including the only true church, and the future remnant church.

Iglesia ni Cristo’s founder claimed to receive a commission from God to restore the true church.

Now I’m assuming you will want to further restrict how one receives authority from God and other details.

The list goes on and even includes various Christian cults and NRMs. The point of all of this is that there are multiple churches in existence claiming a Great Apostasy, and a restoration of the original church. It is not logical to limit restorationist churches to those that claim visions, angels, prophets, new scriptures, etc., because that is using the Mormon understanding of their own restoration to say what a restoration is and what is to be restored. Restorationism typically includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Churches of Christ, Christadelphians, Iglesia ni Cristo, and a number of other groups. So again, if one comes to the conclusion that a Great and total Apostasy occurred of the ancient Church, it does not logically follow that the LDS Church is the restoration, that it has more of a claim to restoration than any other church, or even that any of the churches in existence today are that restoration, since the restoration could be occurring in the future. This is of course when faith comes in.

 

[dianaiad]

If the Holy Bible is not the final authoritative source of divine revelation from above, than anything goes.

it is NOT the final authoritative source, sir. God is. He can tell anybody anything He wants to, and at any time. Are you going to claim that He cannot?

Your position reminds me of a story I have told before. I was watching a televangelist one day, and something that he said sent chills down my back. It was one of those moments that mark lifetimes; you know the sort; you remember what you were wearing when JFK was killed (OK, maybe you are too young for that. I’m not.) Or perhaps you remember the day we landed on the moon, or the day the Challenger exploded (yeah, I know…I’m old.) Or 9/11. I’ll bet you remember that.

Anyway, this moment was one of those, for me.

This preacher held the bible up towards the studio lights, and he said (utterly seriously–I waited around to be certain because I did NOT believe anybody COULD be serious about this…) “If JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF came down and told me that the words in this Holy Book were incorrect in any way, I’d turn my back on Him, and HOLD TO THE BOOK!”

As I said, chilling.

This man was setting the bible up as a graven image to be worshiped in the place of God or His Son, and that impression stayed with me. Whenever I hear 'sola scripturia," I remember that man, and I remember what the logical conclusion is for those who hold to that idea. If it is “only scripture,” (meaning, only the Bible,) then it really IS only the bible. God can go away now, He’s done.

Mormonism is as valid as Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, Paganism, Jehovah Witness, or Atheism. How has God revealed Himself to his creation?

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his seret unto his servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7.

Before Christ, the prophets spoke of His coming. During Christ’s lifetime, He spoke to His servants, the apostles (who, because He spoke to them, were prophets.) After His death and resurrection, Christ gave revelation to His apostles (who, because he spoke to them, were prophets.) Paul recieved direct revelation from Christ, therefore He was a prophet and an apostle. Therefore Christ continued to reveal Himself to His prophets and apostles after His death and resurrection. Therefore, your interpretation of that verse in Hebrews has a logical hiccup.

As to whether Mormonism is as valid as Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, Paganism, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Atheism (wow, THERE’s a list that tells me a lot about you!) it’s true. From outside all of these systems, I imagine that it is. Or rather, that it might be as INvalid as all these. The question is—how do you find out which one has truth in it? Or, if all have some truth (and I believe that every belief system has some truth) which one has all of it, or most of it? How can you do that without some form of divine revelation?

God has spoken through His Son as recorded in the Scriptures. Hebrews 1 is Scripture proof to refute claims of Mormonism. God’s supreme revelation to mankind is His Son and not through apparent modern day prophets. The Jesus recorded in the Scriptures alone is the living Jesus Christ who saves sinners. The Hindu Jesus, the Muslim Jesus, and the Mormon Jesus are not the historic Jesus revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. - Hebrews 1

(grin) yes, indeed. The problem, of course, that even as you read those words, you are reading words of a prophet who was writing AFTER Christ’s resurrection. If the interpretation you give these words is correct, then they are self contradictory. Many words that you accept as scripture were written besides, and after, the above words were written…and the bible itself was not compiled for a couple more centuries, by men with whom you disagree. In fact, your argument is a huge paradox.

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. - The Apostle Paul

Well, I love your quotes, sir…especially as if your interpretation of that verse in Hebrews is correct, you can’t use them.

In fact, if your interpretation of that verse is correct, none of us would know anything about Christ, because, well…

He never wrote a word, except for some scribbling in the dust He did once. Everything we know of Him is from apostles and prophets…everything. We read THEIR words…and there is nothing in the bible anywhere to say that such communication between God and His children would cease.

None.

No, sir…Catholics don’t claim the sort if divine revelation that Mormons do, but they do claim a sort of continuing revelation. If Christ IS, there has to be at least that; either it has continued, or it has been restored, one or the other.

But to say that it stopped and that there can be no more? That is a completely untenable position.

 

[TheosisM]

I wouldn’t compare Mormonism to Wicca, UGH! Wicca is a joke.

 

[zerinus]

Who is claiming a Reformation? I’m not talking about any random Protestant group.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#Restorationist_perspective

Actually it isn’t. The difference here is that the Reformers, specifically Luther, did not believe that a new church had to be formed, or that authority was lost. Luther instead sought to reform the Catholic Church from within. It was only later that a whole new church named after him was formed. This contrasts with Restoration, which is the belief that during some sort of Apostasy in the early Church history, authority was lost and doctrines were corrupted, therefore no true Christianity existed until they arrived on the scene to correct that. Reformation is correcting an existing structure and beliefs, Restoration is independent of any existing structure and beliefs, and is related to primitivism. Reformation obviously includes restoration elements. You want to define restoration based on your own personal beliefs, whereas I simply see it as how everyone else does.

See above. That is your definition of restoration and reformation, and again, you are imposing LDS beliefs on what priesthood is, and how a restoration can occur. A number of other churches fall under the Restorationism category, and do not follow such definitions. Please look into Swedenborgianism (not strictly restorationist, though it interestingly has a number of similarities to Mormonism), Ellen G. White, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc.

See above. You are conflating Great (total) Apostasy with apostasy, and what exactly Luther and company aimed to do. There is a clear difference between them and Restorationist groups, whether they claim to have been prophets, visited by angels, etc. Familiarize yourself with the Restoration Movement. You seem to think that churches that placed in the Restorationist category by historians and theologians should not be there because they aren’t claiming a restoration like the Mormons do, LOL!

Again, see above, I have not muddied any waters, you are simply imposing LDS views on what a Restoration has to entail, and what it has to restore.

The founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church claimed visions from God restoring the truth, including the only true church, and the future remnant church.

Iglesia ni Cristo’s founder claimed to receive a commission from God to restore the true church.

Now I’m assuming you will want to further restrict how one receives authority from God and other details.

The list goes on and even includes various Christian cults and NRMs. The point of all of this is that there are multiple churches in existence claiming a Great Apostasy, and a restoration of the original church. It is not logical to limit restorationist churches to those that claim visions, angels, prophets, new scriptures, etc., because that is using the Mormon understanding of their own restoration to say what a restoration is and what is to be restored. Restorationism typically includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Churches of Christ, Christadelphians, Iglesia ni Cristo, and a number of other groups. So again, if one comes to the conclusion that a Great and total Apostasy occurred of the ancient Church, it does not logically follow that the LDS Church is the restoration, that it has more of a claim to restoration than any other church, or even that any of the churches in existence today are that restoration, since the restoration could be occurring in the future. This is of course when faith comes in.

I am no more bound by your definition of “Restoration” than you are bound by mine. Since the word “Restoration” appears to be a problem here, the solution is simple. I will ditch the word “Restoration” and use other choice of vocabulary to express my views:

Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received divine authority from God by revelation and ministration of angels to re-establish God’s true Church on earth with the fullness of the priesthood and Apostolic authority after that authority and priesthood was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church.
​

I don’t know of any other church that matches that claim.

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam,
If you’re asking if I believe what Paul wrote, I do. I agree with him.

I’m sorry my friend, when I asked you to explain Romans 1:16-17 and you answer like you did, it is apparent you have no idea what is the gospel of God according to Scripture. If you did, then you would not be able to remain in the LDS Church.

I know Mormons claim that they have higher knowledge than Christians. About 10 years ago, I knew of a men’s Bible Study on Romans held at the Calvary Chapel that I attended. Several Mormons were allowed to attend, and went through the Book of Romans in an Evangelical Bible Study. The Mormons motive was to enlighten the Christians. I guess what; one of the Mormons learned the truth of the Gospel (by the grace of God and the illumination of the Spirit of the Book of Romans). When he knew the truth, he left the Mormon Church. He was alienated from his Mormon family and friends. What a testimony… and the cost the he paid was rubbish as compared to knowing the One True God through the One True Jesus Christ. Would you like to go through the Book of Romans together?

 

[2nd_Adam]

it is NOT the final authoritative source, sir. God is. He can tell anybody anything He wants to, and at any time. Are you going to claim that He cannot?

I agree with you in a bigger sense. God is always the final authority. The question is really about how God reveals Himself to us. General revelation (Rom 1 – what God has made) is revelation to all mankind, but it is revelation that renders all mankind guilty before God. Special revelation or Biblical Revelation is how God authoratively reveals Himself to mankind. However, the Bible is a closed book to men without the Spirit of God. The illuminating work of the Spirit of God is required to understand Scripture in an effectual way. Why did Jesus speak in parables? There is a concealment of truth to the non-elect, and a concealment of truth to those who are His. It is impossible for God to lie; therefore, God never contradicts Himself in what He has revealed in Special Revelation (Holy Bible).

Since this thread is about Mormons not having the Spirit of God, then you are not able to understand and receive the gospel of God according to Scripture in an effectual way. If you are an Elect of God in the Mormon Church… led by the Spirit of God, you will eventually leave the Mormon Church.

1 Corinthians 2

Proclaiming Christ Crucified

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Wisdom from the Spirit

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we (orthodox Christians) have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person (Mormons) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants) have the mind of Christ.

Have a nice day!

 

[ParkerD]

I’m sorry my friend, when I asked you to explain Romans 1:16-17 and you answer like you did, it is apparent you have no idea what is the gospel of God according to Scripture. If you did, then you would not be able to remain in the LDS Church.

I know Mormons claim that they have higher knowledge than Christians. About 10 years ago, I knew of a men’s Bible Study on Romans held at the Calvary Chapel that I attended. Several Mormons were allowed to attend, and went through the Book of Romans in an Evangelical Bible Study. The Mormons motive was to enlighten the Christians. I guess what; one of the Mormons learned the truth of the Gospel (by the grace of God and the illumination of the Spirit of the Book of Romans). When he knew the truth, he left the Mormon Church. He was alienated from his Mormon family and friends. What a testimony… and the cost the he paid was rubbish as compared to knowing the One True God through the One True Jesus Christ. Would you like to go through the Book of Romans together?

2nd Adam,
You’re funny. I understand the book of Romans better than you do. So what if a Mormon who was unknowledgeable (their own fault) and non-practicing (their own fault) decided they needed to follow some other set of beliefs. That is precisely what the Savior talked about in the parables of the sower and of the wheat and the tares. It’s going to happen. It is planned for the sifting process within God’s perfect plan of salvation. It is just fine.

I have no problem with discussing the KJV book of Romans. I love the writings of Paul, though some are a bit incomplete or “hard to be understood”, as Peter wrote. (2 Peter 3:16)

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam,
You’re funny.** I understand the book of Romans better than you do**. So what if a Mormon who was unknowledgeable (their own fault) and non-practicing (their own fault) decided they needed to follow some other set of beliefs. That is precisely what the Savior talked about in the parables of the sower and of the wheat and the tares. It’s going to happen. It is planned for the sifting process within God’s perfect plan of salvation. It is just fine.

I have no problem with discussing the KJV book of Romans. I love the writings of Paul, though some are a bit incomplete or “hard to be understood”, as Peter wrote. (2 Peter 3:16)

If you understand the book of Romans better than I do, please expound the thesis statement of Romans:

Romans 1:16-17

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

 

[TheosisM]

I am no more bound by your definition of “Restoration” than you are bound by mine. Since the word “Restoration” appears to be a problem here, the solution is simple. I will ditch the word “Restoration” and use other choice of vocabulary to express my views:

Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received divine authority from God by revelation and ministration of angels to re-establish God’s true Church on earth with the fullness of the priesthood and Apostolic authority after that authority and priesthood was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church.
​

I don’t know of any other church that matches that claim.

Yes Zerinus, I agree, I am no more bound by your definition of Restoration than you are to mine. My point is that your definition of Restorationism is unnecessarily limited and skewed to Mormonism, and basically states that Mormonism is the only religion that claims to be Mormonism. I do understand that that’s how you define it, since that’s what you believe. This goes back to my point which started this whole sub-discussion, that there are multiple churches that claim a Great Apostasy and a Restoration (and clearly fall under the ‘Restorationist’ umbrella (not defined by me or you), which also includes all of the Mormon churches besides the largest one), *whether or not they claim that the Restoration occurred the way it did in the LDS Church, that they restored what the LDS Church did, etc. *

So, thanks for your definitions, and I understand that that’s what you believe. For me (which is what I stated originally), the Orthodox Church has just as much a valid claim to being the true Church with valid apostolic succession (if there was no Great Apostasy), and if there was a Great Apostasy, I see other churches that can also be the restored church besides the LDS Church (or any of the other churches that ‘broke’ off), including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and the Churches of Christ (which descend from the ‘Restoration Movement’). I hope you can understand that, and that’s all I meant in my original post.

 

[zerinus]

Yes Zerinus, I agree, I am no more bound by your definition of Restoration than you are to mine. My point is that your definition of Restorationism . . .

It looks like you and I have a more serious problem of communication. I am not “defining Restorationism” at all. I am simply making a statement:

Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received divine authority from God by revelation and ministration of angels to re-establish God’s true Church on earth with the fullness of the priesthood and Apostolic authority after that authority and priesthood was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church.​

And I don’t know of any other church that matches that claim. Does that register this time, or do I have to repeat it again?

 

[2nd_Adam]

It looks like you and I have a more serious problem of communication. I am not “defining Restorationism” at all. I am simply making a statement:

Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received divine authority from God by revelation and ministration of angels to re-establish God’s true Church on earth with the fullness of the priesthood and Apostolic authority after that authority and priesthood was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church.​

And I don’t know of any other church that matches that claim. Does that register this time, or do I have to repeat it again?

This appearst to be an accurate statement from my very limited knowledge of restoration theolgy. I know the Church of Christ is a brand of restoration theology. However, the LDS restoration appears to be much different than the Church of Christ restoration views.

 

[TheosisM]

It looks like you and I have a more serious problem of communication. I am not “defining Restorationism” at all. I am simply making a statement:

Mormonism is the only religion that claims to have received divine authority from God by revelation and ministration of angels to re-establish God’s true Church on earth with the fullness of the priesthood and Apostolic authority after that authority and priesthood was lost through the Apostasy of the original Church.​

And I don’t know of any other church that matches that claim. Does that register this time, or do I have to repeat it again?

Who said that I was talking about your above statement? I was repeating your first sentence that we do not have to agree on each others definitions (“I am no more bound by your definition of “Restoration” than you are bound by mine”)

As I said repeatedly, I am talking about my original point (that there are other churches that can be the restored church), to which you responded that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, SDAs, etc. do not have a viable claim to a Restoration because according to you, they do not compare to the Mormon concept of Restoration. You are merely repeating yourself in the above ‘statement’, but now you are saying that it is not a definition of ‘restoration’, and I did not state that it was.

We started discussing the fact that other churches fall under ‘Restorationism’, then moved to your claim that other churches’ ‘restoration’ claims do not come close to the Mormon ‘restoration’ (because they weren’t done in the same or similar way), and now to taking away the word ‘restoration’ but saying exactly the same thing, and in essence saying that Mormonism is the only church that claims to be Mormonism, which is irrelevant to the original point of this entire sub-discussion, which was:

I think that the Orthodox Church also has a legitimate claim to being the “one true Church”. I agree with the general point your statement, however I think that it isn’t as cut and dry. For me, if there was a Great Apostasy, then the LDS Church could be true, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses could be true,or the Seventh Day Adventist Church could be true, or the Churches of Christ could be true, etc. If there was no Great Apostasy, then (again for me) the Catholic Church could be true (which of course I believe is the truth), or the Orthodox Church could be true.

Please read with your eyes open next time.