Restoration of priesthood and the gospel

[askandanswer]

We teach that the Priesthood was restored to the Earth in 1829 but Joseph Fielding Smith (and others) taught that, “there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.)” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:45). So it would seem that the Priesthood was “restored” to a place where it already existed. We teach that the church and the gospel were restored in 1830. Was the gospel restored in the same way that the Priesthood was restored, that is, was it brought back to a place where it already existed? Or is the word restored being used in two different ways here? The verse referred to here by President Smith, to me, seems to support the idea that it is the Gospel, rather than the Priesthood which was promised to always be on the Earth.

 

Moses 5:59

And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was.  Amen.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know what interpretation or meaning Joseph Fielding Smith had or meant, etc., but the priesthood authority was definitely removed from the earth during the Great Apostasy.

[omegaseamaster75]

when was the Melchizedek priesthood restored?  I forget the date....

[classylady]

I would assume the Three Nephites and John had the Priesthood, and in that sense, it was still on the earth.

[Vort]

when was the Melchizedek priesthood restored?  I forget the date....

An Ensign article from the late '70s that I read in about 1984 said it was no later than May 29, 1829, and possibly a few days before.

[Just_A_Guy]

The date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is one of the hairier issues of LDS history. As I recall, there are a couple of hearsay accounts who claim that either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery related that they had received the Melchizedek Priesthood a time that they were fleeing from "their enemies" immediately following a court hearing. 

 

I'd have to look up specifics, but from what I can recall--Historians can place Joseph in court proceedings before 1829, and we can also put him in one in the spring of 1830 or 1831.   But, there is no evidence of Joseph's involvement in any court proceedings  between the date of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood (May 15, 1829) and the restoration of the Church on April 6, 1830.  This suggests, from a historical standpoint, that either a) someone's memory was flawed, or b ) when the Church was organized, Joseph didn't technically have the Melchizedek Priesthood yet.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

when was the Melchizedek priesthood restored?  I forget the date....

I ask in fun, but like Just A guy said it's kind of a sticky wicket....you would think that for one of the single most important happenings in church history someone might remember when it actually happened...

[Just_A_Guy]

Of course, while we know that the Church was organized on April 6, 1830 with six members; but accounts vary as to which specific individuals constituted those original six.

 

My conspiracy theory is that while Joseph Smith didn't have the MP yet, John the Revelator (who did have the MP) was there and was one of the six.  Thus, the Church *did* have the proper authority as of that date--but John's presence couldn't be publicly revealed.  The folks involved didn't think to get on the same page about the identities of the original members; and hence, the conflicting accounts.

 

Seems legit, right? 

 

---

 

A little more seriously, though:  We do *not* have the full account of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  D&C 128:20 mentions "The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light!", followed immediately by a reference to "The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!"

 

Hmm.  Michael, or Adam, assisting his posterity to distinguish true messengers from false ones; setting the process in motion by which Satan will be dismissed from the earth; and then Peter, James and John instructing Adam's posterity more perfectly in the ways of the priesthood.  Sounds familiar, no?  And apparently it all literally happened on an undefined date between 1829-1831, there on the banks of the Susquehanna.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Ratbag]

Of course, while we know that the Church was organized on April 6, 1830 with six members; but accounts vary as to which specific individuals constituted those original six.

 

My conspiracy theory is that while Joseph Smith didn't have the MP yet, John the Revelator (who did have the MP) was there and was one of the six.  Thus, the Church *did* have the proper authority as of that date--but John's presence couldn't be publicly revealed.  The folks involved didn't think to get on the same page about the identities of the original members; and hence, the conflicting accounts.

 

 

This is from the Church website:

 

 

The Doctrine and Covenants attests in several places that the higher priesthood was subsequently restored. In Section 27 (August 1830), the Lord refers to the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as something which had already taken place. He speaks of “Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them” (D&C 27:12).

 

In Section 20, given four months earlier (April 1830), the Lord refers to Joseph and Oliver’s prior ordinations to the priesthood, speaking of commandments which “were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; and to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand” (D&C 20:2–3).

 

The earliest scriptural account referring to a bestowal of the higher priesthood, however, is contained in Section 18, dated a year prior, June 1829. As preface to this section, the Prophet recorded in his history: “The following commandment will further illustrate the nature of our calling to this Priesthood, as well as that of others who were yet to be sought after” (History of the Church, 1:61–62; italics added). From the verses that follow, it is apparent that by this time, Joseph and Oliver had already received the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that David Whitmer had also received an injunction to serve as an apostle. The Lord stated: “And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called” (D&C 18:9; italics added). In explanation of this development, President Brigham Young related to the Saints: “Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer were the first Apostles of this dispensation, though in early days of the Church David Whitmer lost his standing” (Journal of Discourses, 6:320). David maintained that he had received an early priesthood ordination at the hands of the Prophet Joseph during the month of June 1829.

[askandanswer]

I think the exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is a clear example of a known unknown. Now that we’ve made some progress towards narrowing down the likely timeframe in which the Priesthood was restored, thanks to ratbag, let’s return to the OP – was it already on the earth when it was restored (and the presence on the earth of John and the 3 Nephites suggests it was, as pointed out by Classylady) and if so, was the church “restored” in the same way that the Priesthood was, ie, was it already here, as suggested by Moses 5:59, although perhaps in the same kind of limited, or secretive kind of way that the Priesthood was. Any answer suggesting that the church was in no way present before 1830 or even 1820 will need to take into account the fact that God promised Adam in Moses 5:59 that the Gospel “should be in the world until the end thereof.”

 

The only way around it that I can see, and maybe this is the right answer, is that the church and the gospel are two separate things and while the gospel may have always been here, perhaps the church has not. Any thoughts anyone? 

[Vort]

The only way around it that I can see, and maybe this is the right answer, is that the church and the gospel are two separate things and while the gospel may have always been here, perhaps the church has not. Any thoughts anyone? 

I am baffled by your confusion, or by what conundrum you see that can only be resolved by recognizing "that the church and the gospel are two separate things".

 

But in any case, your statement is obvious on its face. it's like saying "living and breathing are two different things". Yes, they are. The two words refer to different things.

 

I have heard others struggling to make this distinction, and I really cannot understand what is so earth-shattering about it.

 

But if you are implying that the Church and the gospel are utterly distinct and unrelated, then you are clearly wrong. The Church exists only because it is the vehicle of the gospel on the earth. The Church is literally the kingdom of God on earth. its duty and privilege is to preach the gospel.

 

And on the other hand, the gospel cannot be taught on the earth in its fulness without the Church. That is why the Church was restored: The gospel can be promulgated only in the context of the kingdom of God. Without Priesthood authority and the mechanisms to spread the kingdom forth, the gospel cannot effectively be conveyed to anyone, and indeed doesn't even make sense.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Vort

[Ratbag]

I think the exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is a clear example of a known unknown. Now that we’ve made some progress towards narrowing down the likely timeframe in which the Priesthood was restored, thanks to ratbag, let’s return to the OP – was it already on the earth when it was restored (and the presence on the earth of John and the 3 Nephites suggests it was, as pointed out by Classylady) and if so, was the church “restored” in the same way that the Priesthood was, ie, was it already here, as suggested by Moses 5:59, although perhaps in the same kind of limited, or secretive kind of way that the Priesthood was. Any answer suggesting that the church was in no way present before 1830 or even 1820 will need to take into account the fact that God promised Adam in Moses 5:59 that the Gospel “should be in the world until the end thereof.”

 

The only way around it that I can see, and maybe this is the right answer, is that the church and the gospel are two separate things and while the gospel may have always been here, perhaps the church has not. Any thoughts anyone? 

 

 

Here is what is on the church website.

 

 

After the Savior ascended into heaven, men changed the ordinances and doctrines that He and His Apostles had established. Because of apostasy, there was no direct revelation from God. The true Church was no longer on the earth. Men organized different churches that claimed to be true but taught conflicting doctrines. There was much confusion and contention over religion. The Lord had foreseen these conditions of apostasy, saying there would be “a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. … They shall … seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it” (Amos 8:11–12).

Gospel Principles,

Ch. 17: The Church of Jesus Christ Today

 

Jesus organized His Church when He was on the earth. His Church stayed on the earth for a time after He returned to heaven. When the people stopped teaching and believing His true teachings, Jesus took the priesthood and His Church from the earth.

 

For many years, people lived without the true gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. The people organized many churches, based on their own ideas and some teachings from the Bible. But these churches did not have our Father in Heaven’s priesthood. They did not have all the teachings of Jesus. They did not have continual revelation from Jesus. They did not have all the spiritual gifts.

 

The people began to want to know the truth about our Father in Heaven. They began to search for the truth about our Father in Heaven and His teachings. Some of them realized that the true gospel and Church of Jesus Christ were no longer on the earth. Our Father in Heaven knew that the time had come to restore the true gospel and Church of Jesus Christ to the earth.

Gospel Fundamentals

Ch. 19: The Church of Jesus Christ Today

 

I think it is pretty clear that the Savior's church was removed from the earth along with the priesthood in general.  Of course, we do know that John the Revelator and the Three Nephites held the priesthood, but no other person had it.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Ratbag

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not sure John the Revelator and the Three Nephites count as to the priesthood being on the earth, however, as the implication of the priesthood being on the earth is that mortal men have it, and John the Revelator and the three Nephites are something else.

[Vort]

The Priesthood is the power of God, and is eternal. My understanding is that it has always been upon the earth, held by some man or men.

 

The gospel, the good news of Christ's sacrifice and the salvation he offers, is likewise eternal. The knowledge of the gospel has not always been found upon the earth, except perhaps by those men who held the Priesthood.

 

The kingdom of our God is eternal. However, it manifestly has NOT been always upon the earth. On the contrary, there have been many seasons of apostasy requiring the kingdom of God (today clothed as the Church) to be restored.

 

No Church on earth = no gospel manifest to mankind. The existence of the true Church on the earth is prima facie proof that the gospel is restored. By definition, apostasy of the Church means the kingdom of God ceases to exist on the earth, and thus the gospel is no longer available. But since we know the Church as a whole will not apostatize until Christ comes again personally upon the earth (at which point I assume the Church as we know it will cease to be, or will be subsumed into whatever comes next), this is not something we need worry about.

[askandanswer]

 

I think it is pretty clear that the Savior's church was removed from the earth along with the priesthood in general.  Of course, we do know that John the Revelator and the Three Nephites held the priesthood, but no other person had it.

 

Yes, I would agree that the Savior's church was removed from the earth. Did the gospel go with it, which would seem to constitute a breaking of the promise, or decree, made in Moses 5:59, or did it stay, even in the absence of the church?

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's a few relevant excerpts from James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy:

___

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel and the re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the Holy Priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of Priesthood and power, since the "meridian of time."

 

We affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church gradually drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist.

 

If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth to-day it must have been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church

 

 It is illogical to assume that the gospel was to be brought to earth by a heavenly messenger if that gospel was still extant upon the earth. Equally unreasonable is it to say that a restoration or re-establishment of the Church of Christ would be necessary or possible had the Church continued with rightful succession of priesthood and power. If the gospel had to be brought again from the heavens, the gospel must have been taken from the earth. Thus the prophecy of a restoration is proof of an apostasy general and complete.

[askandanswer]

Thus the prophecy of a restoration is proof of an apostasy general and complete.

 

This quote is interesting and informative but for me it raises many questions which I will respond to when I have a bit more time. All I can say at this moment is that the above conclusion might not be totally reliable as, if it is the case that the Priesthood has always existed on the earth, as taught by President Joseph Fielding Smith and others, then the restoration of the Priesthood in 1829 does not constitute proof of its total absence so a restoration of the church, or of the gospel, would not constitute proof of their absence.

Edited March 1, 2015 by askandanswer

[tubaloth]

Moses 5:59

And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was.  Amen.

 

I think we are missing the word Should.  I haven't read what Joseph Fielding Smith said.  But the Should is the key.  I think the Lord always wanted his priesthood/gospel to be on the earth.  But that doesn't always mean it would be. 

 

As I recall, there are a couple of hearsay accounts who claim that either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery related that they had received the Melchizedek Priesthood a time that they were fleeing from "their enemies" immediately following a court hearing.

 

Yeah there was a guy, don't remember his name, In Nauvoo around 1844 that remembers Joseph Smith telling the account of getting the M. Priesthood.    This guy didn't start sharing this account until later like 1860's.    It might have even been Joseph F Smith some apostles went to record the event from the guy.    The problem is the Church at that time started to share this store over the pulpit.  But after some time and actually examining the account there became to many holes that it wasn't a very reliable source.  The account is still a verify interesting read.  You take it for what it is. 

[The Folk Prophet]

This quote is interesting and informative but for me it raises many questions which I will respond to when I have a bit more time. All I can say at this moment is that the above conclusion might not be totally reliable as, if it is the case that the Priesthood has always existed on the earth, as taught by President Joseph Fielding Smith and others, then the restoration of the Priesthood in 1829 does not constitute proof of its total absence so a restoration of the church, or of the gospel, would not constitute proof of their absence.

 

If you are so determined on this, it would help if you could provide an actual link to the Joseph Fielding quote so we can see/read it in context.

 

The quote in Moses is fairly easy to explain (see tubaloth's excellent point above as an example). But claiming that Joseph Fielding Smith also taught this is hard to deal with out of context.

[Vort]

I think we are missing the word Should.  I haven't read what Joseph Fielding Smith said.  But the Should is the key.  I think the Lord always wanted his priesthood/gospel to be on the earth.  But that doesn't always mean it would be. 

No, I don't think this works. I think this is ignoring the plain meaning in context, which is that "it" would be "in the world" until the end "thereof".

 

If I said that I told my child I would always come to his wrestling matches, what would you think I meant? Would you say, "Well, Vort didn't actually promise his child that he's always be present. Rather, he said he would be there, which means that there's a condition attached; he would if something were a certain way. But maybe he won't be." No, of course not. The meaning is clear. Similarly, "should" in the above context is clearly the future complete tense of "shall", with no meaning of "maybe".

 

My questions are: What is the antecedent of "it", what does it mean for "it" to be "in the world", and does the "end thereof" refer to the end of the world or the end of "it"? And to answer my own questions: "It" appears to refer not to the Priesthood, but to the gospel. To be "in the world" clearly cannot mean to be openly accessible to everyone, or even to a chosen people, since we have had many apostasies throughout history. So it must mean that it exists in some form, even if just a pilot light awaiting conditions to grow. And I assume the "end thereof" refers to the end of the world (meaning the end of our time and the plan here for our sakes), and not the "end of the gospel", which is eternal.

[askandanswer]

If you are so determined on this, it would help if you could provide an actual link to the Joseph Fielding quote so we can see/read it in context.

 

The quote in Moses is fairly easy to explain (see tubaloth's excellent point above as an example). But claiming that Joseph Fielding Smith also taught this is hard to deal with out of context.

 

Sorry, you're right, I should have done this in my first post.

 

Joseph Fielding Smith (Quorum of the Twelve)

The Lord, of necessity, has kept authorized servants on the earth bearing the priesthood from the days of Adam to the present time; in fact, 

there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood

. (Moses 5:59.) Even in the days of apostasy, and apostasy has occurred several times, the Lord never surrendered this earth and permitted Satan to have complete control. Even when the great apostasy occurred following the death of the Savior's apostles, our Father in heaven held control and had duly authorized servants on the earth to direct his work and to check, to some extent at least, the ravages and corruption of the evil powers. These servants were not permitted to organize the Church nor to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, but they did check the advances of evil as far as the Lord deemed it necessary. (

Answers to Gospel Questions,

 2:45)

And

 

The apostasy refers to the absence of the kingdom (i.e, Church) of Jesus Christ on the earth. This is not to say that there may not be some who hold the priesthood, but they have no authority or authorization to establish the Church or perform its ordinances.

Presidents J. Reuben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee went so far as to teach that the presence of such priesthood holders during periods of apostasy were, in their opinion, a necessity:

President [J. Reuben] Clark said something that startled some folks years ago. He said, "It is my faith that the gospel plan has always been here, that his priesthood has always been here on the earth, and that it will continue to be so until the end comes" (in Conference Report, October 1953, p. 39). When that conference session was over there were many who said, "My goodness, doesn't President Clark realize that there have been periods of apostasy following each dispensation of the gospel?" I walked over to the Church Office Building with President Joseph Fielding Smith and he said, "I believe there has never been a moment of time since the creation that God has abandoned the earth to Satan. There has always been someone holding the priesthood on the earth to hold Satan in check." And then I thought of Enoch's city with perhaps thousands who were taken into heaven and were translated. They must have been translated for a purpose and may have sojourned with those living on the earth ever since that time. I have thought of Elijah—and perhaps Moses; for all we know they were translated beings, as was John the Revelator. I have thought of the Three Nephites. Why were they translated and permitted to tarry? For what purpose? An answer was suggested when I heard President Smith make the above statement. Now, that doesn't mean that the kingdom of God has always been present, because these men did not have the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to the world. But these individuals were translated for a purpose known to the Lord. There is no question but what they were here.^[1]   ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 486

By way of interest,while searching for other sources to support the idea that the Priesthood has always been on the earth I came across this from the ask gramps site. While it is certainly note definitive, and seems to be unsourced, I found it interesting.  http://askgramps.org/3967/if-there-are-still-3-nephites-walking-earth-today-this

[The Folk Prophet]

It strikes me that the quotes you drew your question from also answer your question.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

No, I don't think this works. I think this is ignoring the plain meaning in context, which is that "it" would be "in the world" until the end "thereof".

 

If I said that I told my child I would always come to his wrestling matches, what would you think I meant? Would you say, "Well, Vort didn't actually promise his child that he's always be present. Rather, he said he would be there, which means that there's a condition attached; he would if something were a certain way. But maybe he won't be." No, of course not. The meaning is clear. Similarly, "should" in the above context is clearly the future complete tense of "shall", with no meaning of "maybe".

 

My questions are: What is the antecedent of "it", what does it mean for "it" to be "in the world", and does the "end thereof" refer to the end of the world or the end of "it"? And to answer my own questions: "It" appears to refer not to the Priesthood, but to the gospel. To be "in the world" clearly cannot mean to be openly accessible to everyone, or even to a chosen people, since we have had many apostasies throughout history. So it must mean that it exists in some form, even if just a pilot light awaiting conditions to grow. And I assume the "end thereof" refers to the end of the world (meaning the end of our time and the plan here for our sakes), and not the "end of the gospel", which is eternal.

 

Upon looking closer at tubolath's thought, I agree with you Vort that it's a real stretch to read "should" as "ought". However, I also think the whole Three Nephite explanation (even as given by the likes of Joseph Fielding Smith and J. Reuben Clark) is insufficient to explain Moses 5:59.

 

Stating that there were men on the earth with the priesthood but who were not authorized to use it is functionally equivalent to not having the priesthood on the earth. Moreover, as you've point out, the scripture is really about the "gospel". And more than that, the scripture is speaking of ordinances. Having beings on the earth who technically have the priesthood but are unauthorized to use it to perform saving ordinances doesn't read to me as the gospel being on the earth to some level as an unbroken chain from Adam on. And we know the chain was broken. Whether translated beings held the priesthood or now, the authority for them to pass it on never came. The pilot light idea fails in that regard.

 

My take is that this scripture is a promise of restoration. It is saying that the gospel will be restored. The continuity of it is no more implicit than a husband promising a new bride that he'll always be there for her. 

 

This is why, in my mind, the Three Nephite/John explanation is lacking.

[Traveler]

I read quickly through this thread - perhaps I missed something but it appears to me that many do not understand the difference between the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood.  It is my understanding that the keys of the priesthood were restored.  It is the keys that unlock the ordinances of salvation - and without the keys such ordinances cannot be performed.

 

As to the restoration of doctrine - a key understanding I believe has to do with restoring the true doctrines of salvation and the gospel of repentance.  The operative word here is the word true.  I believe I first gained insights into the word true back in my college days when I had a nifty TR3 sports car with spoke wheels and again with a lifetime of cycling.   I have learned it is most important to have "true" wheels.  This is an extension to the meaning of true that few seem to realize or care much about.  Such an understanding of true goes far beyond static definitions of being correct or rhetorically provable.  This includes dynamic understanding of applying balance in motion.  A wheel can rotate and move the vehicle attached down the road and thus many argue that it is a true wheel when in reality the wheel is not true and as the vehicle picks up speed the untrue wheel will cause interferences that cannot be seen or realized with a static vehicle that is not moving.

 

To me ancient scriptures can have many what we call or understand as truths but is not true doctrine - for the very reason that such understanding is static and when put into motion the wheels fall off.  This is why I believe there is so much problem today with traditional static religion and the dynamics of modern science.  This is why there are truths taught in all religions but only one true and living dynamic church (kingdom of G-d) that can move (dynamically change) us that we may become Saints of G-ds and able to abide his presents.

[Blackmarch]

We teach that the Priesthood was restored to the Earth in 1829 but Joseph Fielding Smith (and others) taught that, “there has never been a moment from the beginning that there were not men on the earth holding the Holy Priesthood. (Moses 5:59.)” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:45). So it would seem that the Priesthood was “restored” to a place where it already existed. We teach that the church and the gospel were restored in 1830. Was the gospel restored in the same way that the Priesthood was restored, that is, was it brought back to a place where it already existed? Or is the word restored being used in two different ways here? The verse referred to here by President Smith, to me, seems to support the idea that it is the Gospel, rather than the Priesthood which was promised to always be on the Earth.

 

Moses 5:59

And thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until the end thereof; and thus it was.  Amen.

interesting question. well I would assume that the word was also restored- Joseph certainly wasn't told to go learn the teachings of any one church. and even the Book of mormon says that the words from the jews would lose some things.

however knoweledge and authority whlie they are in the same room aren't the same thing.

perhaps the idea is that if you only have part of a truth then you would need it to be restored to a full truth.

but on the other hand if you have part of a truth you still have a truth.