NOM

Ever hear the claim that the Church contains the Restored Gospel? Have you ever wondered whether the followers of Jesus circa 60 AD would recognize much of anything from the LDS Church doctrine?

I am wondering if Joseph Smith would have been more accurate billing his newly minted creation as new and improved, rather than a restoration of all things.

What ideas or practices were truly restored to the way things were done in that 60-200 AD time period? Do any of these ideas or practices represent a restoration of all things?

moksha wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:02 pm Ever hear the claim that the Church contains the Restored Gospel? Have you ever wondered whether the followers of Jesus circa 60 AD would recognize much of anything from the LDS Church doctrine?

I am wondering if Joseph Smith would have been more accurate billing his newly minted creation as new and improved, rather than a restoration of all things.

What ideas or practices were truly restored to the way things were done in that 60-200 AD time period? Do any of these ideas or practices represent a restoration of all things?

Lately I feel like JS was more interested in restoring the old testament, rather than the new testament.... plural wives & concubines, Abraham lineage, etc. But it's all so very alpha male and God as destroyer centric.

I'm thinking that if emphasis had been placed on new and improved it would have made for a better missionary sales pitch a century later. Why launder your clothes with that old religion, when you could get them whiter and brighter with the new improved stuff - that would make a compelling presentation.

moksha wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:02 pm Ever hear the claim that the Church contains the Restored Gospel? Have you ever wondered whether the followers of Jesus circa 60 AD would recognize much of anything from the LDS Church doctrine?

I am wondering if Joseph Smith would have been more accurate billing his newly minted creation as new and improved, rather than a restoration of all things.

What ideas or practices were truly restored to the way things were done in that 60-200 AD time period? Do any of these ideas or practices represent a restoration of all things?

It's crazier than that. The followers of Brigahm Young in 1860 would think that 2017 Saints were in apostasy and that the unfortunate 1830 Saints were not yet prepared for the fulness of the (polygamous) gospel. The oft repeated claim that we had to "restore" plural marriage seems unusual since First Century Christians would have considered this a pagan practice relegated to the time of Abraham at best.

First century Christians were passionately arguing about whether or not to continue keeping Mosaic Kosher laws and if Christian converts needed circumcision. The temple was still of central importance but functioned more as a meeting place, not just for ordinances. Besides, those ordinances were Mosaic in nature. There were still men referred to as "prophets" at that time, but it was more of a missionary calling. The organization of the church was spread over major cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Syrna, and Rome. Any "secret" teachings were distrusted as gnostic heresy and this seems to be endles repeat of "sacred not secret" is constantly repeated about modern LDS ordinances. After the Temple of Herod was destroyed in the first Jewish revolt, the Christians did not see temples as important any longer.

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:48 am First century Christians were passionately arguing about whether or not to continue keeping Mosaic Kosher laws and if Christian converts needed circumcision.

Let's hope the Church never restores mandatory circumcisions of males, but if they did, I suspect it could be verified during the bishop's interview.

This is a classic bit of Sunstone satire form 1992: Joseph Smith visits Redwood City First Ward. This is how Joseph Smith would react to the modern LDS church in the 1990s. I can only imagine some amusing additions since then.