Church Needed To Be Restored

[Guest Grand Puba]

Joseph Smith said the church needed to be restored. The RC church says the line from St. Peter has never been broken to the present day Pope. Where was it broken and when? I hope I’m not being offensive, I’m just trying to get some answers to some questions that I have. Yes, I have talked to the missionaries. However some questions are beyond their scope. I am seriously investigating the LDS church and seeking answers to my questions.

[Jason]

To my knowledge, no LDS theologian has ever given a specific date when the Great Apostasy was "complete".

[Guest Yediyd]

To my knowledge, no LDS theologian has ever given a specific date when the Great Apostasy was "complete".

Jason, I know that you don't share my beliefs...but I have read many of your post and have come to the conclusion that you are sincere, and not just up here to argue and tear down, that is evidence of good character, and a good heart...(it's ok, I won't tell anyone....)

[MaidservantX]

I do not know that this is church doctrine, per say, but remarks I seem to remember on the subject include the idea that 1) Peter and the apostles all died/ were matyred -- and who exactly was it that DID carry on from Peter (and I personally have certainly never studied that history); AND even more importantly, 2) the huge difficulties of the Council of Nicea, particularly the lack of the Holy Ghost and revelation therein and the idea that a committee of Greek men (hoo boy!) got together and decided what religion was. (I take responsiblity for this version of events, lol).

Also, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider their heritage to include many of the acts of great men, such as Martin Luther, in moving forward with the spirit in bringing us one step closer to the restored church -- we believe God inspired (and still inspires) many great religious men. Also, you will not find the church against such things as Islam or the prophet Muhammed.

[the_jason]

I'm not sure why this is important in deciding to join the church. As long as you believe that it was lost and later restored, it doesn't matter when. Sometimes people get too caught up in the mysteries of God that they fail to see the basic principles right in front of them. If you believe the church is true get baptized. It's that simple.

[Jason]

...who exactly was it that DID carry on from Peter....

Which city? It is generally decided that St. Peter placed successors in at least the churches of Antioch and Rome.

Rome: St. Linus (67 AD) succeded St. Peter as Apostle/Bishop.

Antioch: St. Evodius (40 AD) succeeded St. Peter as Apostle/Bishop.

And there is some speculation about other areas of Asia Minor, but nothing I'm aware of that 's concrete.

AND even more importantly, 2) the huge difficulties of the Council of Nicea, particularly the lack of the Holy Ghost and revelation therein...

So how do you know the Holy Ghost did not sustain those actions? Did you study the records of the council and pray about them with a sincere heart as directed in 3rd Nephi 11?

To be honest, I have yet to meet a Latter-day Saint who has, but maybe someone here will surprise me?

<div class='quotemain'> To my knowledge, no LDS theologian has ever given a specific date when the Great Apostasy was "complete".

Jason, I know that you don't share my beliefs...but I have read many of your post and have come to the conclusion that you are sincere, and not just up here to argue and tear down, that is evidence of good character, and a good heart...(it's ok, I won't tell anyone....)

Gee whiz...

Honestly, I have know of some CoC (formerly RLDS) theologians who place 1st Nicea as the point when the Great Apostasy was "complete" but even that seems a bit ridiculous considering the number of dissenting Apostolic-Bishops throughout the world.

[MaidservantX]

To Jason: :) I don't know. What little I have read about it . . . reference lost in the mists of time . . . I always got the impression it was chaotic. But . . . maybe I'm making that up.

Usually I ask God questions I actually have, not ones I don't have. I realize I could miss out on a lot of stuff with that modus operandi, but it is all I have time for at the moment.

And, peculiar to myself, I do not rely on a burning in my bosom or similar as my indication of whether the Holy Ghost is present or is confirming things to me; that's actually a good way for me to get it wrong.

Just conversing here, not presenting a thesis. But your point(s) are correct, of course, and thanks for the St. Peter succession info.

[Jason]

Sure. Im not blaming anyone here, nor am I trying to cause a commotion. Just pointing out a supposed fact.

[Dr T]

A thesis is taking a position and putting it forward and defending it. That happens in conversation too, X.

[CrimsonKairos]

Did you study the records of the council and pray about them with a sincere heart as directed in 3rd Nephi 11?

I don't need to read the records, just the Nicene Creed itself (or the Athanasian Creed for that matter). When you read something and it makes Grimm's Fairy Tales seem reasonable...well, that's when I cease suspending my disbelief. B)

[Palerider]

I'm not sure why this is important in deciding to join the church. As long as you believe that it was lost and later restored, it doesn't matter when. Sometimes people get too caught up in the mysteries of God that they fail to see the basic principles right in front of them. If you believe the church is true get baptized. It's that simple.

took the words right out of my mouth!!!!!

[Guest Yediyd]

Did Dr. T's cat get yer tongue?

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

Did you study the records of the council and pray about them with a sincere heart as directed in 3rd Nephi 11?

I don't need to read the records, just the Nicene Creed itself (or the Athanasian Creed for that matter). When you read something and it makes Grimm's Fairy Tales seem reasonable...well, that's when I cease suspending my disbelief. B)

Well be reasonable CK, is a Triune God anymore "mysterious" than the Mormon godhead with God the Son, God the Father, God the Grandfather, God the Great-grandfather, and his uncle twice removed?

[prisonchaplain]

I do not know that this is church doctrine, per say, but remarks I seem to remember on the subject include the idea that 1) Peter and the apostles all died/ were matyred -- and who exactly was it that DID carry on from Peter (and I personally have certainly never studied that history);

One suggestion is that Jesus never meant to institute a rigid hierarchy, with a fixed number of Apostles, disciples, deacons, overseers, etc. Therefore, those who carried on the apostles work were, well, those who did.

AND even more importantly, 2) the huge difficulties of the Council of Nicea, particularly the lack of the Holy Ghost and revelation therein

Eh? Who said the Holy Ghost and the revelation of God chose to be a "no show" at this particular council?

and the idea that a committee of Greek men (hoo boy!)

Come on! Somebody's gotta stand up for the Greeks here? After all, Acts 10 shows that the Greeks (i.e. Gentiles) also received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

got together and decided what religion was. (I take responsiblity for this version of events, lol).

In seriousness, LDS theologians hae indeed criticized the Council of Nicea as being a purely political event, full of chaos by vying factions, in which the stronger group (not the God-ordained one) triumphed. In the end, such a negative assessment is rooted as much in faith as it is in history.

Also, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider their heritage to include many of the acts of great men, such as Martin Luther, in moving forward with the spirit in bringing us one step closer to the restored church -- we believe God inspired (and still inspires) many great religious men. Also, you will not find the church against such things as Islam or the prophet Muhammed.

Your church is both exclusive (the Restoration), and broad-minded (multiple kingdoms of heaven, a very limited hell).

[CrimsonKairos]

Well be reasonable CK, is a Triune God anymore "mysterious" than the Mormon godhead with God the Son, God the Father, God the Grandfather, God the Great-grandfather, and his uncle twice removed?

Now, now, Jason, that's bad form. You and I both know the LDS teaching is that the Godhead consists of only three Beings. No more, no less.

In addition, there is no official LDS declaration of belief or document that asserts a faith-wide belief in anything like God the Grandfather, etc...

To steal a famous quote and apply it to the discussion at hand...ahem: "Using the Nicene Creed to understand the Godhead is like a blind man trying to find a black cat in a dark room."

[Dr T]

But LDS do believe in God upon God ad infinitum.

[CrimsonKairos]

The comparison is fruitless. Why?

You may not believe that we are literal children of God, and that we may become just like He is through the atonement of Christ. That's okay. But the belief is reasonable. If we are children of God, we may grow to become gods. A duckling becomes a duck. A puppy becomes a dog. There is nothing strange about this idea, regardless of whether you choose to believe it.

On the other hand, the Nicene Creed is not reasonable. One version I found online, the Catholic version of the creed appears in bold below, my comments in italics:

We believe (I believe) in one God,

the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

and of all things visible and invisible.

Okay, so there is only one God, and that God--God the Father--made heaven and earth.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only begotten Son of God,

and born of the Father before all ages.

(God of God) light of light, true God of true God.

Wait, now we have another God on the scene even though there is ostensibly only "one God." Specifically, this new God--God the Son--came from the first God...that makes two Gods, not one, no matter how you slice it.

Begotten not made,

consubstantial to the Father,

by whom all things were made.

So the first God made the heavens and earth, no, no, wait...the second God--who is really the first God ontologically--made everything. Say whaaaaaa?

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven.

And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary

and was made man;

So the Holy Spirit--who is really the first God, not a third God--was the father of God the Son who, if you'll recall, was the first God...oh not in name, but ontologically speaking...is everyone still with me? It gets better.

Was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,

suffered and was buried;

and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.

And ascended into heaven,

sits at the right hand of the Father,

I think sitting beside yourself is only possible if you're schizophrenic or in la-la land. But God the Son does it...I mean, God the Father...I mean the Holy Spirit...I mean...um...

and shall come again with glory

to judge the living and the dead,

of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.

Nothing inscrutable here at least.

And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost,

the Lord and Giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father (and the Son),

who together with the Father and the Son

is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets.

So not only is Jesus Lord, but the Holy Spirit is Lord too. But wait, I thought there was only one Lord God? Yet here the count is now three Gods, two Lords, and a partridge in a pear tree (sorry, couldn't resist). But they're all really one God so there's no risk of being called polytheists or being accused of worshipping more than one God. How are they one God? In essence, duh! What does that mean? It's part of the beautiful mystery of God...

And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins.

And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Again, at least this part makes sense.

That, folks, is what I call beyond unbelievable, let alone understandable. I'm simple-minded, but that's just me.

[Guest Grand Puba]

Sorry, didn't mean to open a can of worms.

[prisonchaplain]

The comparison is fruitless. Why?

You may not believe that we are literal children of God, and that we may become just like He is through the atonement of Christ. That's okay. But the belief is reasonable. If we are children of God, we may grow to become gods. A duckling becomes a duck. A puppy becomes a dog. There is nothing strange about this idea, regardless of whether you choose to believe it.

I don't want to argue that such a belief is un or anti reasonable. However, it is one that has remained on the fringes of Christian thinking. Additionally, belief in human deification hinges on our premortal eternal existence. Otherwise, you have a finite created being supposedly being able to reach the same essential existence as the eternal Creator. And, all these beings had to be reborn in this life having forgotten their eternal past.

Apples and oranges, perhaps. However, I would submit that both the Trinity and the LDS doctrine of humanity (and Godhead) are frought with mystery--not necessarily a bad thing.

...

As I perused the comments about the rest of the creed I found a repeated tendency to conflate the persons of the Godhead with separate gods. However, if God and only God is eternal, then it might help to think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same way you think of yourselves--as having eternal essences. If so, and if Jesus is the only begotten (i.e. NOT CREATED) of the Father, then only He can be co-equal with the Father. Also, only He can ever be "God of God." We might become godlike, but as created beings, we can never be what He is. We are not literally his children of essence, but rather we are his highest creation.

That, folks, is what I call beyond unbelievable, let alone understandable. I'm simple-minded, but that's just me.

IMHO you find the Trinity, as described in the Nicene Creed, unbelievable and unreasonable, because you do not endorse it, and you are convinced that the council that produced it was not ordained of God, nor had any inspiration or revelation in the proceedings.

Otherwise, like so many thoughtful souls, you might find great beauty, mystery, and strength from the teaching.

[Snow]

To my knowledge, no LDS theologian has ever given a specific date when the Great Apostasy was "complete".

I think it is clear that the LDS position, from theologians or otherwise, is that the apostasy was pretty much a done deal by within a generation or so after the deaths of the original apostles - certainly no later than the end of the 2nd century.

[MaidservantX]

I recommend the book "Sons and Daughters of God: The Loss and Restoration of Our Divine Inheritance" by Joseph Fielding McConkie. This is not a research book; it is most definitely to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. And he makes no bones about his points -- some might even find it harsh. However I enjoyed its clarity and throroughness. This is the book from which I read regarding the Nicea Council.

[CrimsonKairos]

Additionally, belief in human deification hinges on our premortal eternal existence.

Exactly. That was my point. IF we are literally spirit beings begotten by God the Father, THEN it is reasonable to believe that the child may become like the Father. I wasn't trying to argue the correctness of the LDS position, just that the beliefs "make sense" in a very simple, logical way. The Nicene Creed turns my brain inside out.

Otherwise, you have a finite created being supposedly being able to reach the same essential existence as the eternal Creator.

I know, wouldn't that be a ridiculous teaching? It's a good thing that the LDS beliefs include no such nonsense.

However, I would submit that both the Trinity and the LDS doctrine of humanity (and Godhead) are frought with mystery--not necessarily a bad thing.

Well it becomes a bad thing when it has the effect of obstructing a basic understanding of God. Eternal life is to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ who He sent to us. The Nicene Creed hinders, not helps, my knowing God and Christ. Just my personal experience, PC, no hard feelings bro. B)

As I perused the comments about the rest of the creed I found a repeated tendency to conflate the persons of the Godhead with separate gods.

English is funny that way. When I read, "God from God," I get the following impression: "There is one God who begot or birthed another God." How is that not two Gods? I don't really wanna argue with you about it, PC, because I respect you and your beliefs too much. I did want to explain why I personally find it a hard pill to swallow. But I guess that's why we belong to different religions, even though we hope to return to the same God. :)

We might become godlike, but as created beings, we can never be what He is. We are not literally his children of essence, but rather we are his highest creation.

If I didn't believe God was the literal Father of my spirit body (much like my dad is the literal father of my physical body, but not my consciousness), then I would agree: it is unreasonable to assume that a creation can ever equal its creator, whether a robot or a puppet (forget pinochio for a moment, lol).

I do believe Jesus Christ was the First Begotten spirit Son of God the Father, and the Only Begotten physical Son of God the Father. Another way I say it is, "Jesus is the Wholly Begotten Son of God."

Interestingly, Paul refers to Jesus as the "Firstbegotten" in Hebrews 1:6. Now before you say, "Well yeah, he was the First begotten of the dead as it says in Revelations 1:5," remember that Paul is talking of Jesus's status when he came to this earth...he had just been born, hadn't died let alone been resurrected, so there is another way that Jesus is the Firstbegotten.

Of all the spirit children of God the Father, Jesus is the Firstborn, with the rights of the firstborn (primogeniture), and is literally our older spirit brother.

IMHO you find the Trinity, as described in the Nicene Creed, unbelievable and unreasonable, because you do not endorse it, and you are convinced that the council that produced it was not ordained of God, nor had any inspiration or revelation in the proceedings.

Actually PC, it's the other way around. I don't believe the council was ordained or inspired to produce the Creed because the Creed's teachings are unbelievable and unreasonable to me. It's like this: "This doesn't make sense to me. It contradicts the scriptures...not in policy or changeable details like who may have the gospel preached to them, but in the very being of God and Christ as declared by Christ in the New Testament. God must not have inspired this creed since it is at odds with scriptures."

Again, this is my personal view and I'm not trying to convince you of anything PC, other than that I am not prejudiced against the creed because of my upbringing. I find its theology incompatible with the Bible, but that doesn't mean you have to.

[the Ogre]

...you find the Trinity, as described in the Nicene Creed, unbelievable and unreasonable, because you do not endorse it, and you are convinced that the council that produced it was not ordained of God...

Personally, I find the Nicene Creed to be a pile of tripe and a good example of how the Gnostics railroaded Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Christian Orthopraxis. G-d and The M-ssiah are perfectly apprehensible beings, physical, distinct, and passionate and sharing a common mission and interest in the exaltation of humanity. The Nicene Creed was a political document created out political necessity.

I know a lot of people believe this document to be true, but this document has led to a lot of confusion regarding the nature of divinity and I am sorry it exists.

Aaron the Ogre

[MaidservantX]

Let me see if I can express this as I am thinking it.

If one does admit that the Nicene Creed (and other changes over the centuries to the Adamic and Messianic gospel) is inadequate and had modified the truths of the Bible and the Primitive Church (and the Adversary had at least something to do with that) --

beginning with that admission for this next statement --

I find it very telling that the truth that is missing is that God has a body and that Jesus Christ is physically Heavenly Father's Son.

(By the way, much of what we talk about here on lds talk does not constitute what might be found in an LDS sunday school, let's say; however, every three year old is taught explicitly that 1. they are Heavenly Father's literal spirit children; and that 2. Jesus Christ is literally Heavenly Father's physically begotten Son.)

The Adversary (again, admitting this postulate) apparently is quite comfortable with Jesus Christ as a Redeemer, as this truth has never been lost. (I have my theories of why.) Also many things about the mission and reality of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father have never been lost; just the idea of corporeal nature of God and the fact that we are offspring.

I wonder what problem exactly the Adversary has with this.

[CrimsonKairos]

Well Satan's never going to have a physical body, so why would he want us believing that ours are divine, patterned after God's? He'd want us to treat them not as temples, but as toys.