a very late Joseph Smith

[vangelis]

Why did it take Jesus Christ 1800 years to restore the gospel, why did he wait so long?

What about those living 0-1800 years after christ? didnt they deserve the full gospel?

Or maybe Christ was buisy preaching the gospel on another planet for 1000 years?

[Jbs2763]

It took 1776 years for a country to be born that allowed religious freedom. Prior to that there was always a state sponsored religion, ie, The Church of England. The United States was the first country in history in which a new religion could be born. England just wouldn't have allowed it. Also, this was also the land or the Nephites and Lamanites. Everything "just happend" to work out perfectly for Joseph Smith, the geography, the timing, and the young government that would allow a new religion to be born....

[tubaloth]

QUESTION

Why did the Lord wait so long to restore the gospel?

ANSWER

Even a cursory knowledge of history from the time of Christ to the time of the Restoration makes it plain that God, in wisdom, could not have restored the gospel a moment before he did. One cannot rush the time of planting or the time of harvest. To impatiently sow new seed during winter storms will not hasten the day of germination. Let us briefly consider the time of the Great Apostasy and the time of the Restoration.

No exact date can be given as to when the purity of the gospel and the authority of the priesthood were lost. In the Old World it would have been after the death of the apostles and long before the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The New World dispensation of the gospel, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, lasted for four hundred years after the visit of Christ among the Nephites. Perhaps it lasted longer with them than among other of the lost tribes of Israel visited by the resurrected Christ, and perhaps not; we are without any knowledge to that effect (see 3 Ne. 16:1-4). In any event, if we are going to lay claim to the fulfillment of the prophecies of a restoration of all things in the last days, we are bound to the position that these same things were universally lost. Thus, as nearly as we can tell, there was a period of approximately fourteen hundred years in which the gospel and the priesthood were lost to the inhabitants of the earth. Thus the question, Why did the Lord allow such an extended period to pass before he caused the gospel to be restored?

History affords us a clear answer to our question. Consider the struggle associated with freeing the Bible from its papal prison and placing it in the hands of the common man. " `All reading of the scriptures, all discussion within one's own doors concerning faith, the sacraments, the papal or other religious matter, was forbidden under penalty of death,' writes [J. L.] Motley in The Rise of the Dutch Republic [burts' ed.]. `The edicts were no dead letter. The fires were kept constantly supplied with human fuel by monks who knew the art of burning reformers better than that of arguing with them. The scaffold was the most conclusive of syllogisms, and used upon all occasions' [1:68]." Continuing his account, Motley tells us that " `the number of Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his [Charles V's] edicts, and for the offense of reading the scriptures, or looking askance at a graven image, or of ridiculing the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in a wafer, has been placed as high as one hundred thousand by distinguished authorities, and has never been put at a lower mark than fifty thousand' [1:99]" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:186).

President Joseph Fielding Smith also wrote that "the English chronicler, Henry Kneighton, many years before had expressed the prevailing notion about the reading of the scriptures, when he denounced the general reading of the Bible, lamenting `lest the jewel of the church hitherto the exclusive property of the clergy and divines, should be made common to the laity.' Archbishop Arundel, in England, had issued an enactment that `no part of the scriptures in English should be read, either in public or in private, or be thereafter translated, under pain of the greater excommunication.' . . .

"In the reign of Henry VIII, the reading of the Bible by the common people, or those who were not of the privileged class, had been prohibited by act of parliament, and men were burned at the stake in England as well as in the Netherlands and elsewhere for having even fragments of the scriptures in their possession" (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:185-86).

The point here is that this was hardly the climate that would welcome the Book of Mormon.

The struggle for religious freedom did not come easily, even in the New World. Vermont did not enjoy a separation of church and state until 1807, Connecticut until 1818, New Hampshire until 1819, and Maine until 1820. Massachusetts was the last of the states to divorce herself from such an entanglement with religion, not doing so until 1833.

The manner in which those who embraced the restored gospel were persecuted attests that the Restoration could not have taken place any earlier than it did. It survived in the Americas only because the powers of heaven intervened to protect the Saints and because there was a place of refuge of sufficient size, distance, and difficulty to reach to which the Saints could flee for protection. Such a place did not exist in the Old World. Nevertheless, it still "cost the best blood of the nineteenth century" (D&C 135:6), for Joseph and Hyrum Smith were martyred in Carthage, Illinois, and thousands of the Saints died before the Lord's people found safety in the West.

Perhaps it should be noted that the question of why there was such an extended time before the gospel was restored is not entirely peculiar to Latter-day Saints. Protestants might likewise ask why the Lord allowed sixteen hundred years of confusion before making clear to us through Martin Luther and others what we are told today is the one and only system of salvation. And then the attendant questions, What is to become of all those in that interim period who didn't adhere to the modern system? Wouldn't a just God be required to save them by adherence to the Catholic system, given that he hadn't bothered to send anyone to show the true way in their lifetimes? Or, if we are to argue that salvation could be found in the Catholic system before the Reformation, why not after it?

(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 21.)

[tubaloth]

What about those living 0-1800 years after christ? didnt they deserve the full gospel?

Why did God have people wondering the wilderness for 40 years? We can always question the God's timing, usually he never gives a clear answer. Everybody deserves the full gospel. In the LDS church we believe everybody does get that chance. If it is not in this life, then it is in the next! We believe everybody well be taught the fullness of the gospel.

[HiJolly]

Why did it take Jesus Christ 1800 years to restore the gospel, why did he wait so long?

What about those living 0-1800 years after christ? didnt they deserve the full gospel?

Or maybe Christ was buisy preaching the gospel on another planet for 1000 years?

Riiiiiight... I hope the sarcasm is over with now...

I'd better preface these comments with the disclaimer that I am a Mormon Mystic, so, you are forewarned.

Regardless of apostacy and the corruptions of men that had crept into the Christian churches of the past, the spirit and inspiration of God ALWAYS strove to teach the pure in heart of the truths of heaven. We have many records of early prophets that were murdered, martyred, burned at the stake, etc. when they spoke out on the truths God had revealed to them.

I think there were a number of these prophets that could see what was happening and spoke out none the less because they felt that God had laid it upon them to teach the truth. They have been received in Heaven and have obtained that great reward of the martyrs, God be praised.

Others who did not feel the 'call' to preach, were able to live much longer and do more to share their experiences and beliefs. Case in point would be St. Teresa of Avila and St. Juan de la Cruz of 16th century Catholicism.

In reality many thousands of mystics lived and loved and flourished through the centuries of the dark ages, enlightenment, and early modern time, even up to the present time. Some of the most beautiful music composed or arranged by Mack Wilburg of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has been done with the words various middle-ages mystics. He and I both love the mystics, for they received much from God.

HiJolly

[ldsmissionary]

Why did it take Jesus Christ 1800 years to restore the gospel, why did he wait so long?

What about those living 0-1800 years after christ? didnt they deserve the full gospel?

Or maybe Christ was buisy preaching the gospel on another planet for 1000 years?

I used to believe that there was an apostasy and that God simply could not have restored the 'truth' a minute earlier than he did.

The facts simply don't support that belief for me anymore.

I used to think that the idea of an 'Apostasy' originated with the Mormons - the folks who 'restored' the gospel. Made sense to me at the time.

But then I discovered The 'Restoration Movement' (e.g. the Stone-Campbell movement) which began around 1800. Many groups sprang up from this movement. Many calling themselves the 'Church of Christ.' They all claimed a restored gospel.

Including a church started by Joseph Smith, Jr. Apparently, the LDS God chose to call his church the exact same name that all of the other restorationist churches were using, and many years earlier at that. Not very original or very forward thinking considering the church underwent several inspired name changes since. Why not call it what it would be called?

And does history really tell us that there was absolutely no other time or place that the Mormon church could have been started?

I guess it just depends on which religious glasses you're wearing.

[Moksha]

But then I discovered The 'Restoration Movement' (e.g. the Stone-Campbell movement) which began around 1800. Many groups sprang up from this movement.

Another group that truly deviated from Campbellism was the Voodoo-Noodlists. While their doctrine was stringent, it was easy to swallow and um-um good.

[ldsmissionary]

Another group that truly deviated from Campbellism was the Voodoo-Noodlists. While their doctrine was stringent, it was easy to swallow and um-um good.

Whoa, sign me up. I think Olive Garden is doing their never-ending pasta bowl.

[kona0197]

My question is why Joseph Smith? Why didn't the good Lord choose someone more popular or well known? I have a hard time swallowing the whole JS is a prophet thing. No offense.