If Mormonism is a Restoration of Primitive Christianity...

[_Jason Bourne]

Seeing as how the early Christians believed in an anthropomorphic material God, subordinationism, Deification, plurality of Gods, etc. I don't see the problem.

Some believed in deification but not in the same way LDS do. Some believed in subordination until declared heretical at the council of Nice. I am not sure about the idea of an anthropomorphic God.

But here is the rub for Mormons and indeed all Christians. For at least a 100 plus years there was no one orthodoxy. There were numerous competing sects. Even Paul led one of those competing sects and he did not always see eye to eye with the rest of the Church leaders. So which one had the true doctrine? I submit none had all the truth and perhaps there was not one truth. It seems to me that Jesus really did not even start a Church and his followers and converts to those followers all had differing ideas.

As time went on a proto-orthodox group emerged and eventually became the Orthodox. Of course the winners write the history and thus much of what BC says the early Christians ( what is really some sect of early Christians) believes was declared heretical.

So, when you talk of a restoration it becomes a restoration of what and what was truth and what was not and was there really any one that was more true than the other.

[_Jason Bourne]

Justin Martyr defends the practice and refers to it as one of the mysteries. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270

Early Christians did not believe in polygamy and in no instance do we see it as a requirement for the highest heaven. There is nothing in early Christianity like the doctrine of plural celestial marriage.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

As I said, the Bible and Book of Mormon aren't just static records, they are examples of a worldview that continues to the present. Canon doesn't close, in that regard. Certainly scriptures play a fundamental undergirding role, but even that role itself is undergirded by God continuing to act in history.

Or am I not understanding your point?

Well let me give you a "what if?" situation. What if Jesus was nothing more than a messiah extrapolated from the Old Testament, in other words, scriptural and prophetic embellishments were placed upon a possible real-life character who was actually nothing like the "superman" in Jesus. These would be legends, right? So Jesus is embellished by having him fulfil Old Testament prophecies, "goes into Egypt" to fulfil prophecy, Herod's slaughter of children to fulfil prophecy, etc., but none of it actually happened. It's just scriptural embellishment to boost faith in the message. And the Christian messiah is in fact nothing like the expected Jewish messiah.

So we can look at this in two ways - it's either historical reality that Jesus really did fulfil Old Testament prophecy, was the true messiah, or we can look at it as scriptural embellishment. I'm also thinking along the lines of Genesis 50 in the Inspired Version, where the extended non-KJV verses speak of Joseph Smith. The question is - were these extended verses in the original Genesis 50, but "lost", or did Joseph Smith make these "inspired extensions"? No such verses, by the way, have ever been found in any ancient manuscripts, so it's reasonable to assume that they were added by Joseph Smith, or as you would say, "God continuing to act in history". But what if God never did any such thing, and it was just Joseph Smith's pseudepigraphic extensions? None of it would be historical reality. From verse 23 on (IV) would all be invention, and Joseph of old never said these things, or made these prophecies. Given that we don't have a single MS supporting the Inspired Version, is it not more reasonable to believe that they are invention? So your concept of "God continuing to act in history" is more like God continuing to make up history.

Likewise, though you'll disagree, viewing the omission of BFTD in the Book of Mormon, considering all the numerous references to baptism, modes of baptism, infant baptism, etc., yet omitting what Joseph Smith wrote considering John the Revelator:

6 And further, I want you to remember that John the Revelator was contemplating this very subject in relation to the dead, when he declared, as you will find recorded in Revelation 20:12—And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Yet no where in the Book of Mormon do we find this teaching, though we supposedly have the Revelator's words in the Book of Mormon giving us the "lost scriptures" and teachings.

Ether 4:

15 Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which have been hid up from the foundation of the world from you—yea, when ye shall call upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel.
16 And then shall my revelations which I have caused to be written by my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember, when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that they shall be made manifest in very deed.
17 Therefore, when ye shall receive this record ye may know that the work of the Father has commenced upon all the face of the land.

So, according to D&C 128, the Revelator had baptism for the dead in mind, but when the Book of Mormon is unfolded in its "plainness", this teaching is mysteriously absent, and is only first publicly taught in 1840.

It may be an argument from silence, according to you, but it's a strong one, if you have the disposition to weigh evidence logically, and not "only by faith".

The problem is likely the fact that you and I appear to have different definitions of and expectations for scripture.

[_bcspace]

Justin Martyr defends the practice and refers to it as one of the mysteries. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270

Early Christians did not believe in polygamy

ON the whole, no. However, this is nothing that says this is a requirement for the Restoration.

There is nothing in early Christianity like the doctrine of plural celestial marriage.

How do you know this? There are actually some tantalizing implications that even they knew of and possibly practiced it.

[_Yoda]

How do you know this? There are actually some tantalizing implications that even they knew of and possibly practiced it.

Reference?

[_Jason Bourne]

There is nothing in early Christianity like the doctrine of plural celestial marriage.

How do you know this? There are actually some tantalizing implications that even they knew of and possibly practiced it.

If you can show me where polygamy was a required practice in order to enter the highes heaven and reward there in I would love to see it. I know of nothing at all in any other religion other than the LDS Church. Not in the Old Testament, not the New Testament not anywhere.

[_squawkeye]

The answer to these questions is simple. Have Pres. Monson ask the Three Nephites and John about what was taught and/or believed when they were here during the formative years of Christs Church. They are still around if the scriptural promises made back then are real. Why wouldn't they shed light on these things and clear things up once and for all?

[_harmony]

Justin Martyr defends the practice and refers to it as one of the mysteries. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270

Early Christians did not believe in polygamy and in no instance do we see it as a requirement for the highest heaven. There is nothing in early Christianity like the doctrine of plural celestial marriage.

Have I told you lately that I really really REALLY enjoy the way your mind works?

Straight to the heart of the matter, as always.

[_Jason Bourne]

Have I told you lately that I really really REALLY enjoy the way your mind works?

Straight to the heart of the matter, as always.

Many thanks!

[_Yoda]

And the crickets continue to chirp as we wait for BC to CFR.

;)