Criticism of LDS doctrine of Restoration
From Wikinfo
- See also the main article, Restoration (Mormonism)
Critics of the Latter-Day Saint doctrine of Restoration argue that the Latter-Day Saints misread the core texts upon which they base this doctrine.
They argue that Acts 3:21, the basis of the doctrine, refers either to the restoration of Israel or the restoration with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, not the restoration of the body of the church. Church members respond by asking, how could there be a "restitution of all things" if presumably Jesus Christ had so recently bestowed all things and there had been no apostasy?. Furthermore, Mormons do not rely exclusively on scriptural evidence, but see these as supporting the revelations given to Joseph Smith.
Some critics believe that there was no break in Apostolic Succession, referring to Matthew 16:18, of which the King James Version reads: "And I [Jesus] say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Critics argue that in this scripture, Christ promises that his church is to be permanently established, and therefore, no great apostasy is possible. Church members respond that this scripture does not promise that the church will continue without fail, and that the rock upon which Christ will establish his church is revelation. For proceeding Jesus' promise, Jesus asks the Apostles, "whom say ye that I am?" (verse 15) Peter answers, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (verse 16) Jesus replies, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven." That is, Mormons say, Peter received a heavenly revelation of the truth, and it is by personal revelation that Jesus will bring each individual to know the truth.
Critics argue that Galatians and 2 Thessalonians do not refer to a total apostasy of the church. The Bible does not promise a restored church. Critics argue further that Mormons do not properly interpret The Bible by using exegesis. They cite the Mormons' interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as an example of eisegesis. Critics say it refers to an end-time apostasy in the future, not to an event some 1800 years before the Mormon church, and that the text states the event is scheduled after the "man of lawless [the antichrist] is revealed."
Some have pointed out that no clear succession of leadership was officially outlined or doctrinally established with clarity by Joseph Smith, which resulted in a crisis of succession immediately following his death.[1] This may have been due to the restoration having been originally considered as an event intended to last Smith's lifetime, hence the "Latter-days" theme and Smith's prophecies of the coming end of times. But students of Joseph Smith's writings are familiar with declarations he made about how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would grow to become a large organization with members throughout the earth, though missionary work began modestly during his lifetime. (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1969)
| This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Criticism of LDS doctrine of Restoration. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. The text of this Wikinfo article is available under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. |
