A date for the "Great Apostasy"

[Arandur]

If you’re interested in other influences, you should check out Alexander Campbell and (to a lesser degree) the history of the millenialists, the predecessors of the Seventh Day Adventists (Millerites, I think), who shared some quite similar ideas regarding restorations and end times with JS and his followers. Campbell, at least (and I think the Millerites, as well), is referenced often in restorationist apologetic works that I’ve seen, weaksauce though Campbell is (“having the appearance of Godliness, but denying the power thereof”). They commonly lift wholesale Campbell’s justifications of a need for a restoration–including the idea that miracles and the Gifts of the Spirit and all sense of Divine inspiration/revelation had been absent from Christianity for more than a millenia. This is blatant igorance of the lives of the Saints, the miracles (even contemporary miracles and Saints), and the Holy Spirit’s action within the Church. It was a solution without a problem, based on a denial of all evidence.

You might also consider that JS was simply responding (in his youth) to the spirit of the times, which was rife with many competing revivalist movements and a desire by some to have all the uncertainties and competing claims resolved by some God-wrought intervention–sending of a prophet or revelation. He was simply meeting the demand of the times, and caught up in the same desire himself.

Furthermore, as View of the Hebrews (which was far from the only other work to suggest an Israelite/Lost Tribe connection with the Native Americans) gives evidence, there was a fascination at the time with the Americas and the mystery of their past (and the past of the Native Americans). We can see this even today in the commonly-believed notion that the MesoAmericans were expecting a “bearded white God-man” very like Christ when the conquistadors first arrived, and that they thought the conquistadors were that man (Queatzalcoatl). Scholars have since shown that this was a fabrication, one that the conquistadors and the colonizing Spanish wanted to believe. Yet shouldn’t we have been suspicious of such a thing–and any use of such an idea to justify a new religious movement and alternative history like JS’s BoM–simply from the symbolism? I mean, the winged serpent god, really? Should we have believed that was a good thing, to assume that such a vision of their god was equal to He who would crush the Serpent, our God who has the Serpent killed and raised on a rod, our Lord who comes again to cast down the deception of the great multi-headed Serpent of Revelation?

On the theme of influences…consider that the American Republic was still new. Its ideals were a thing of wonder and reverance, its new identity a source of much moralizing about essential manifest destiny. At the same time, there was the tension that the Anglican church, embraced by so many colonists, was now associated with the tyrant thrown off (the King of England).

So here arises, by popular demand, the solution to all these problems: a religion claiming to have a God-appointed and inspired Prophet who would restore miracles and prophecy and new scripture. It offered a fanciful and Anglo-centric (in terms of the ideas of the British) explanation of the mysterious history of America. It was a highly nationalist religion–a good replacement for the nationalist Anglican church–that preyed upon the newfelt pride of the young Republic, building up throughout the BoM distinctly American ideals and carrying that through with ideas of the coming of Zion and paradise in the very heart of America, and that this new religion should also command and direct the state itself as a theocracy–or a “theocratic democracy,” as the restorationists would prefer to put it (JS, of course, ran for president and had instituted a militia and civil law for his followers). You can see that in the structure of the restoration churches’ governing bodies–taking many structural ideas and explicit ideals from the United States government. And then it took all this with a call to “Go West” and settle new lands, with the communal support for doing so and a sense of purpose.

It’s no wonder those messages all rolled into one played well among their audience.

 

[Arandur]

What I have found so interesting recently is a strong undercurrent of OT nostalgia that runs through the whole BoM movement (though the CoC seems to be rejecting that, lately, for liberal, cultural Christianity). They want prophets of old. They want strict laws, even down to what they should eat (see the “Word of Wisdom,” which JS conceived–by Brigham Young’s account–after meetings wherein the leadership was doing things he found disruptive or distasteful). They want a vision of God more akin to that of the OT, and a theocratic government. They want an earthly Jerusalem (Zion) and an earthly promised land. They want to claim heritage to the Israelites, and value lineage and bloodline, even dynasties (particularly Smith’s dynasty)–as if even the Prophets of the OT were ever dynastically determined, which really points to the fact that they want a dynastic King (of Smith’s dynasty), a Priest-Prophet-King (cf all their “priesthood of Melchizedek” stuff). And they want one on earth (I’m always mystified when they criticize the popes or canon law when their concept of a head of church is far, far more dictatorial all-encompassing in power).

What it boils down to is that after the revelation of the Word Himself, after the Incarnation, the BoM-believers want a return to pre-Incarnation times. They want a hand-holding God who dictates rules to them in continuing, detailed, everyday matters through new scripture (the Doctrine and Covenants) that places them under a Law akin to the Old Law. They want a

They want to be treated like little children, the Israel that never grew up, was never ushered into adolescence or adulthood of faith as Christ did for us. They want the Father and not co-heirship with the son, not the responsibility of an adult faith or a King who is brother as well–but they still want the Atonement He offers. They want the End Times to come, but on their own, material terms; they don’t really want to be part of the spiritual Last Age that Jesus brought His Church into.

They’re caught in the past, and have trouble seeing God’s Fathering of His children throughout Salvation History, because they can’t seem to get past the childhood of the OT and into the maturing faith of the NT. They have trouble seeing this, because they yearn for the ease of a God who leaves them little responsibility but dictates as to a child who cannot see the richer life He is bringing them up into.

 

[KathleenGee]

Great posts! Arandur…I notice the same exclusive focus on the OT by non-denominational American fundamentalists.

They see no witness of faith beyond the New Testament because they reject the next step: Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation, and Revelation is now witnessed by His believers living in Christ’s Church. The Mormons and non-denominationals are seeking restoration points, but can’t find any.

If both Mormons and non-denominationals would objectively study the history of the Catholic Church, and not its inner scandals, they would see the next testament, the next chapter…Christ lived out among His believers.

Going back to my reference regarding ‘Catholic in the Ozark’, it gives a very good understanding of why Martin Luther, who Mormons think was heroic, in removing the 7 books of Sacred Scripture.

Luther was trying to go back to the Hebrew texts…but these were not the traditional interpretation of the Septuagint that the apostles had followed.

The Holy Spirit has always been at work in the universal Catholic Church, but it does not mean its members are perfect.

 

[Arandur]

PorknPie, I recently listened to an hour talk by Michael Barber on Revelation (an audio CD from St. Joseph Communications). Interesting stuff. He builds on Scott Hahn’s “Lamb’s Supper” and takes it to the next level, bringing in some more, interesting details that I hadn’t ever heard before.

I especially like how he pointed out that the Temple was constructed to be the representation of, or rather the actual embodiment in one place of, the entire world/universe. It truly transforms your thinking when you realize that the centrality and importance of the Temple is bound up in the idea that it was, for the Israelites, the entire world in one place. That changes how you must look at Revelation, at everything Jesus said about the Temple, at Jesus himself (as Temple), at our Church, and at the workings of God through Salvation History (particularly with the destruction of the temples).

It also showed me the great blasphemy of any idea of a new earthly temple–a key goal of many “restorationists.” For to propose an earthly “Zion” as the “City of God,” with temple and so forth–even to propose that the supposed Israelite settlers of the Americas in the BoM would build a temple (or multiple) on this continent–is to reject Jesus Christ. It is to reject the true and eternal Temple of his Incarnate Body. It is to reject his mastery and creation of the world (to replace it with one’s own). It is to create an idol of the true temple of Heaven (the beatific vision), a new Tower of Babel owned and created by human hands. It is to reject Christ’s chief work–the Church, his Body on earth–and thus to reject the New Covenant.

 

[Arandur]

I wanted to add something else, different angle. I’ve been reading the Catechism for this Year of Faith (there’s a great program from Flocknote that emails you a small excerpt of the Catechism every day–check it out!)

Check this out (CCC 65):

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

There will be no further Revelation.

Now, I’ve come across Hebrews 1:1-2 before and seen how it alone refutes the Joseph Smith story and many of his doctrines, and how it coincides with many other passages to build an even stronger case (for instance, that the Apostles knew that they were entering and ushering in the Last Days, not Joseph Smith, and that Christ’s Word would last to the end; that John was the last Prophet of his kind for none else would be necessary after Christ; that the essential message and character of God’s revelation was different and partial before Christ–hence this idea of Christian Gospel being preached before Christ in the JST of the Bible and the BoM is nonsense, contradictory to the New Testament).

What I really liked about this was St. John of the Cross’s comment, and how well-stated it is. It calls out any who would seek more than Christ (like Joseph Smith and Mohammed).

I would say this also includes any who would wish to lapse back into OT immaturity and denial of the New Covenant. Usually this involves desiring the handholding, training-wheels fathering of God in the OT, but not wanting the strict laws and teaching punishments that come with such fathering, rather wanting the freedom and benefits of Christ’s Atonement but without the responsibilities that came after. It’s like a child wanting to stay in their early childhood with the parents taking care of everything and keeping him from having to think or work too hard, but not wanting any of the rules or punishments from childhood–instead wanting the freedom of adulthood. Basically the crisis of culture today–adults who never grow up, remaining immature, wanting freedom and license to do whatever they want, wanting no real consequences from their actions, wanting no responsibility, wanting to have everything taken care of for them.

Any thoughts? Particularly regarding CCC 65 and St. John of the Cross?

 

[donatist59]

While rummaging through my books, I cam across one entitled:“570: Early Christianity from the Apostles to the Apostasty.” The author is a one R.Ben Madison, M.A. Mr. Madison is a RLDS “Restorationist”

Dear Batman,

Thanks for referencing my book! You might be interested to know that I was a high priest, a Mormon for thirty years, I was Church Historian of a Mormon denomination for a decade and I wrote my master’s thesis on Mormon history, wrote a book defending Mormon claims and have published numerous articles on Mormon history from a faith-promoting perspective. Within the last five years, the cumulative weight of Mormon historical gaffes finally came crashing down on my head, and I had to abandon Mormonism completely.

It was, in fact, the realization that there was no “great apostasy” which was the last straw for my Mormon connection. Today I am happily berthed in the Episcopal Church.

 

[batman1973]

Dear Batman,

Thanks for referencing my book! You might be interested to know that I was a high priest, a Mormon for thirty years, I was Church Historian of a Mormon denomination for a decade and I wrote my master’s thesis on Mormon history, wrote a book defending Mormon claims and have published numerous articles on Mormon history from a faith-promoting perspective. Within the last five years, the cumulative weight of Mormon historical gaffes finally came crashing down on my head, and I had to abandon Mormonism completely.

It was, in fact, the realization that there was no “great apostasy” which was the last straw for my Mormon connection. Today I am happily berthed in the Episcopal Church.

Praise God! Glad to see that your out of Mormonism. Still, that book is well researched.

 

[pablope]

Dear Batman,

Thanks for referencing my book! You might be interested to know that I was a high priest, a Mormon for thirty years, I was Church Historian of a Mormon denomination for a decade and I wrote my master’s thesis on Mormon history, wrote a book defending Mormon claims and have published numerous articles on Mormon history from a faith-promoting perspective. Within the last five years, the cumulative weight of Mormon historical gaffes finally came crashing down on my head, and I had to abandon Mormonism completely.

It was, in fact, the realization that there was no “great apostasy” which was the last straw for my Mormon connection. Today I am happily berthed in the Episcopal Church.

Well…are you going to write a book why there is no “Great Apostasy”? (just asking…

 

[donatist59]

Praise God! Glad to see that your out of Mormonism. Still, that book is well researched.

Thanks again. I had lots and lots of fun researching that book – it was when I really discovered how much I loved doing Church history. You can tell from some sections of that book (e.g. on the real presence in the eucharist, p. 83, or the sign of the cross, p. 208) that I was already starting to “turn” to historic Christianity. The real turning point came when my wife and I visited Egypt in 2004 and I toured the Coptic Quarter of Cairo. I had a Coptic Egyptian roommate in college (1983), and it really hit me how absurd it was as a Mormon to believe that these Egyptian Christians who had witnessed for Christ under 1,400 years of Islamic brutality were not “really” Christian, whereas I was supposedly a “real” Christian living comfortably in the American midwest. If there was a “Great Apostasy” in 570, I think I set out the best case for it that’s ever been set out. I just don’t believe my own conclusion is valid any more.

 

[donatist59]

Alexander Campbell (cf Campbellites, and the Stone-Campbell movement) was another contemporary (prior) “Restorationist,”

This is a valid point as far as the word goes, but a reading of Campbell’s writings will show that he viewed the terms “reformation” and “restoration” as essentially synonymous. Campbell’s approach was to read the Bible, figure out what the original church was supposed to look like, and do that – the same approach as taken by lots of other primitivist sects. Joseph Smith’s innovation was to put the emphasis on a new infusion of divine activity; it was not men “restoring” the church based on their reading of the Bible, it was God “restoring” the church by returning long-lost priesthood authority to the earth.

As an ex-Mormon, I don’t believe God actually did restore the church (it was already here; it didn’t need to be restored). But Smith’s and Campbell’s approaches were very different.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks, Donatist. I see the distinction you’re making. Smith wasn’t the only one to posit divine authority doing the “restoration,” though. Others have had similar messianic visions of themselves and their visions, and I’ve even heard some Protestants speak of Luther and/or some of his peers as divinely inspired, though not in the sense of “restoring” priesthood authority, of course.

Interesting that your SN is “donatist.” As I think I mentioned before in this thread (and as referenced in the OP), I’ve observed an undercurrent of donatism in the Restoration movements. Some seem to agree with the Donatists that you have to have a “pure” line of priests, free from any major personal corruption or fault in beliefs. Others seem to think that even today, their own priests lose their efficacy if they are sinful–an idea which, logically, would negate the efficacy of their whole priesthood or at least any assurance their faithful could have that they received any valid ordnance or preaching or whatever from their priests.

I thought the OT should have settled the idea pretty soundly (and regularly) that the sins of those anointed and in authority do not negate their authority or the validity and succession of their offices. King Saul, whom David always ultimately respected because he remained the Lord’s anointed; King David himself (a murderer and adulterer); the Davidic line rife with open and severe apostasy and misdeeds; the collapse and condemnation of the Northern Kingdom and 10 lost tribes for separating from the (corrupt yet still anointed) valid, authoritative line of David…

If God kept His Chosen People together despite all this, how much less would He cast aside and let fail the Church of His Beloved Son for the faults of its members? And, of course, the ultimate NT evidence against the Donatist line of thinking are the Apostles themselves–Judas the Betrayer, whose office is not vacant until his suicide; Peter the Denier, the triple-apostate who thrice publicly repudiated his allegiance to Christ and yet remained the Prince of the Apostles; and the 11 who left Christ at the very Cross, when our Lord most dearly desired the comfort of their presence, loyalty, and love.

If Christ’s love overcomes even those failures, sins, and abandonments, who are we to judge on our own that Christ now stops building his Church because of the faults of the very sinners to whom he offers Salvation?

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks, Donatist. I see the distinction you’re making. Smith wasn’t the only one to posit divine authority doing the “restoration,” though. Others have had similar messianic visions of themselves and their visions, and I’ve even heard some Protestants speak of Luther and/or some of his peers as divinely inspired, though not in the sense of “restoring” priesthood authority, of course.

You know what I find very interesting? Not one of those that claim to have restored “priesthood authority” even realize that the primary purpose of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God on behalf of the people.

Mormons, what sacrifice do your “priests” offer to God? What is their purpose? As it is with many Christian terms, you have co-opted and re-defined the meaning of the words “priest” and “bishop”, not at all understanding even the purpose and role that each plays within the Church.

 

[donatist59]

Interesting that your SN is “donatist.” As I think I mentioned before in this thread (and as referenced in the OP), I’ve observed an undercurrent of donatism in the Restoration movements.

Indeed – they have to justify their own existence, so identifying some ancient branch of Christianity as the “true” branch that was snuffed out by the Great and Abominable Church (the Book of Mormon’s name for catholic Christianity) is a necessity. BTW my handle is taken from my email address, which is many years old and I’m too lazy to change it.

But what makes Mormonism profoundly different from Campbellism is the Mormon emphasis on priesthood and authority, not its emphasis on revelations and visions. If you can manage to track it down, there’s a volume called Restoration Studies I (1980, edited by Maurice Draper) with an essay on the ‘catholicity’ of early Mormonism written by William D. Russell (professor of history at Graceland and the fellow who performed my wedding). Russell makes the case that Protestantism is fundamentally about bypassing ecclesiastical vehicles to God, which makes Mormonism’s claim to be the One True Church completely un-protestant.

 

[donatist59]

You know what I find very interesting? Not one of those that claim to have restored “priesthood authority” even realize that the primary purpose of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God on behalf of the people.

Bingo! That’s largely why I left Mormonism. I grew increasingly uncomfortable with Mormonism’s doubletake on the sacraments of the Church. While Mormons believe that baptism is efficacious, that confirmation really does confer the Holy Spirit, and that ordination actually does bestow a divine power that otherwise isn’t there (all well and good), Mormons then turn right around and insist that the eucharist is a purely symbolic ‘memorial supper’. (Which is really ironic since the Book of Mormon itself speaks of “the body and blood of Christ” in very literal terms, and the only time that Mormons kneel – ever – in public worship is when the eucharist is confected, if I can use those un-Mormon terms).

How can they claim to be “original Christianity” if they got that part so fundamentally wrong?

 

[donatist59]

For instance, that the Woman of Revelation 12 is just the Church and not also Mary

That’s the weird part. The Utah Mormon Church doesn’t rely on the passage in Rev. 12 because it would get the chronology all wrong. Utah Mormons believe that as soon as the Twelve Apostles were dead (end of the 1st century) the Church collapsed into oblivion. First Clement (for example) was written by the leaders of a wicked and apostate church. Some Mormon authors have tried to claim that “true” Christianity, or at least bits of it, were kept alive by the Gnostics. (Try Eugene Seaich’s jaw-droppingly eccentric “Ancient Texts and Mormonism” for a taste; I bought this book at Deseret Book back in the 1980’s so it obviously passed the correlation, i.e. censorship, process.)

But if you take the 1,260 year calculation from Rev. 12, and apply this to the restoration in 1830 (the Church “coming out of the wilderness” – see D&C 5:14), that means an apostasy in the year 570. And no Utah Mormon author that I know of has tried to make a historical case for the ancient church surviving that late, mostly (I suspect) because there is no ancient church that resembled Utah Mormonism in any significant theological way.

When I wrote “570: Early Christianity from the Apostles to the Apostasy,” I was writing for “Missouri Mormons” whose churches broadly resemble early Orthodoxy in key ways. So I was able to establish what I thought was a plausible timeline for the Apostasy in ways that my audience could relate to.

 

[Ismael]

Oh I completely agree. There was no great apostasy. However, there are those who believe there was. I just thought this would be an interesting share is all

In that case the date will shift at the last point where the people who believe in the ‘Great Apostasy’ will claim these people were the last ‘real Christians’… which is very subjective and will shift from point of view to point of view.

 

[Arandur]

You know what I find very interesting? Not one of those that claim to have restored “priesthood authority” even realize that the primary purpose of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God on behalf of the people.

Mormons, what sacrifice do your “priests” offer to God? What is their purpose? As it is with many Christian terms, you have co-opted and re-defined the meaning of the words “priest” and “bishop”, not at all understanding even the purpose and role that each plays within the Church.

Yeah, that’s a good point. I think I have it in my notes somewhere…more often use it with certain Protestants, that “altars” imply sacrifice, that priests’ main function is sacrifice and secondarily, mediation.

Also interesting is that for a group so concerned about “proper translation,” restorationists tend to have enormous blinders about the Hebrew and Greek languages–even as they try to appeal to them.

For instance, they make up words (“telestial”), redefine words (“translation” itself), and then ignore some rather obvious things (“presbyter” = “priest” = “elder,” they are not separate offices).

Donatist, I have been reflecting on the appeal of restorationism and its core purposes recently. Dr. Peter Kreeft has pointed out that what most successfully draws Protestants into the Church is when they realize that by joining the Church they can be a “better” Protestant–in the sense that the things which mattered to them most as Protestants are more fully realized in the Church. This builds on the widely-observed notion that most if not all heresies and schisms focus on some aspect of the Catholic faith to the exclusion of something else, which leads to a distortion…or they are responding to a corruption or failure in practice in some area by the Church that may well need reform…

In any case, it seems to me that restorationists were a response to Protestantism in that they observed that Protestants had a major flaw–they lacked authority and they ignored a God-ordained priesthood. There are a bunch of other things that restorationists focus on, but this seems the key point, and the key Protest-ation against Protestantism that has lead them back around to a need for a priesthood authority–just one trying to answer that problem without resort to the Catholic Church.

What else do you see as the essential draw of restorationism?

What else do you find are responses to restorationists that at least get them to think, if not meet some success in getting through to them the problems with their approach?

I have a real interest in this, since my wife and her family are restorationists (of a conservative breakaway church from the RLDS–I presume one of thos “Missouri Mormon” groups you’re talking about). I’d love to talk with you more about your experiences and what you think is the best way to engage people in a discussion that could lead to a more full realization of Christ and his Church.

(I realize you aren’t Catholic…but it sounds like you’re Anglican, presumably of a brand that is pretty “small c” catholic in nature, given your comments?)

 

[SteveVH]

Yeah, that’s a good point. I think I have it in my notes somewhere…more often use it with certain Protestants, that “altars” imply sacrifice, that priests’ main function is sacrifice and secondarily, mediation.

Also interesting is that for a group so concerned about “proper translation,” restorationists tend to have enormous blinders about the Hebrew and Greek languages–even as they try to appeal to them.

For instance, they make up words (“telestial”), redefine words (“translation” itself), and then ignore some rather obvious things (“presbyter” = “priest” = “elder,” they are not separate offices).

Donatist, I have been reflecting on the appeal of restorationism and its core purposes recently. Dr. Peter Kreeft has pointed out that what most successfully draws Protestants into the Church is when they realize that by joining the Church they can be a “better” Protestant–in the sense that the things which mattered to them most as Protestants are more fully realized in the Church. This builds on the widely-observed notion that most if not all heresies and schisms focus on some aspect of the Catholic faith to the exclusion of something else, which leads to a distortion…or they are responding to a corruption or failure in practice in some area by the Church that may well need reform…

In any case, it seems to me that restorationists were a response to Protestantism in that they observed that Protestants had a major flaw–they lacked authority and they ignored a God-ordained priesthood. There are a bunch of other things that restorationists focus on, but this seems the key point, and the key Protest-ation against Protestantism that has lead them back around to a need for a priesthood authority–just one trying to answer that problem without resort to the Catholic Church.

What else do you see as the essential draw of restorationism?

What else do you find are responses to restorationists that at least get them to think, if not meet some success in getting through to them the problems with their approach?

I have a real interest in this, since my wife and her family are restorationists (of a conservative breakaway church from the RLDS–I presume one of thos “Missouri Mormon” groups you’re talking about). I’d love to talk with you more about your experiences and what you think is the best way to engage people in a discussion that could lead to a more full realization of Christ and his Church.

(I realize you aren’t Catholic…but it sounds like you’re Anglican, presumably of a brand that is pretty “small c” catholic in nature, given your comments?)

I’m a little confused. You quoted my post but it seems that you are responding to Donatist rather to me. Not sure how or if I should respond. I do happen to agree with your position, however.

 

[Arandur]

I’m a little confused. You quoted my post but it seems that you are responding to Donatist rather to me. Not sure how or if I should respond. I do happen to agree with your position, however.

Sorry, the first part was a response to you. When I mention Donatist, that part onward I was addressing him

 

[KathleenGee]

www.calledtocommunion.com has an article in its archives that I have greatly enjoyed and benefitted.

It was written in 2009, and is entitled ‘Ecclesial Deists’. It refers to Mormon and Restorationist Baptist convictions that the true church fell away and come up with some dates, but find that in their own research, they are not finding anything to historically support their claims.