The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[Stephen168]

It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire…

Specific historical unbiased source for this statement as of 325 AD?

Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian.
Constantius II was an Arian.
Valens was an Arian.
Juian was a pagan.

 

[mtolympus]

Thank you, Rebecca!

I thought that it was meant as a very derogatory term from the way I saw other Mormons use it in the past, on a different forum. It seems to rank right up there with the term ‘plig’ (I think that’s it) that they also use, that refers to members of the FLDS, in a far from flattering way. I’m sure they must have some real doozies to describe Catholics and other Christians, too.

As always, I really appreciate getting honest information from you and other former LDS that are willing to share the truth about what they were taught to believe. It has certainly helped me to understand and get a better perspective on it, without all of the ‘whitewashing’ that most current LDS tend to use to cover up the real truth. It was always so frustrating for me to try to get honest answers from my LDS friends on other forums. They usually gave the typical responses that I’ve seen posted here, by other LDS. It never really helped me to understand them at all. But, your (name removed by moderator)ut has helped me immensely.

“Jack Mormon” was a term often used to describe an LDS member who would smoke or drink alcoholic beverages and didn’t attend church. Often it was used to describe ones self such as, “I am a Jack Mormon.” I have not heard this term used for about 40 years and I don’t know of any other meaning for this. Like the rest of the world we have tried to be more sensitive in terms we use. Today, generally speaking, those who were once called Jack Mormons are referred to as “less active members.” Now, am I white washing this? Are only former LDS capable of telling the truth? That comment is very offensive.

 

[ParkerD]

Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian.
Constantius II was an Arian.
Valens was an Arian.
Juian was a pagan.

Stephen, for the record:

Eusebius, yes, was at the Council of Nicea and did not agree with its decision but was out-voted.

Constantius II was eight years old in 325 AD.
Valens was born in 328 AD.
Julian who later became the Roman emperor was born in 331 AD.

 

[Stephen168]

Eusebius, yes, was at the Council of Nicea and did not agree with its decision but was out-voted.

Yes, he was an Arian, the Bishop of the Empire’s capital. He baptized Constantine the Great on his death bed. While technically not an Arian until just before his death; Constantine the Great was an Arian.

Constantius II was eight years old in 325 AD.
Valens was born in 328 AD.
Julian who later became the Roman emperor was born in 331 AD.

Thanks for the very brief biography but that does change the fact of who held political sway in the Empire. You can also add Eudoxius of Antioch, Macedonius I, and Demophilus to the list. The Arians held political sway over the Empire during the Council, until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. If Nicea was the result of politics, the out come would have went with the Arians, not the Orthodox Christians.

 

[Hastrman]

“Jack Mormon” was a term often used to describe an LDS member who would smoke or drink alcoholic beverages and didn’t attend church. Often it was used to describe ones self such as, “I am a Jack Mormon.” I have not heard this term used for about 40 years and I don’t know of any other meaning for this. Like the rest of the world we have tried to be more sensitive in terms we use. Today, generally speaking, those who were once called Jack Mormons are referred to as “less active members.” Now, am I white washing this? Are only former LDS capable of telling the truth? That comment is very offensive.

I’ve heard people called Jack Mormons, but mainly by older people (there are a lot of LDS where I live).

You’re right, implying that only former Mormons are capable of telling the truth is offensive, although clericalism does seem to be a bit of a problem for the LDS—it’s probably a problem for every religion that has a priesthood, though, Lord knows Catholics are far from immune to it.

 

[mtolympus]

Yes, he was an Arian, the Bishop of the Empire’s capital. He baptized Constantine the Great on his death bed. While technically not an Arian until just before his death; Constantine the Great was an Arian.

Thanks for the very brief biography but that does change the fact of who held political sway in the Empire. You can also add Eudoxius of Antioch, Macedonius I, and Demophilus to the list. The Arians held political sway over the Empire during the Council, until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. If Nicea was the result of politics, the out come would have went with the Arians, not the Orthodox Christians.

Thanks to you and Parker for the very interesting history discussion. Eusebius of Nicomedia was the Bishop who presented the Arian case before the council in 325 AD since Arian was not a Bishop. What do you think the world would be like today if the vote had gone the other way?

 

[mtolympus]

I’ve heard people called Jack Mormons, but mainly by older people (there are a lot of LDS where I live).

You’re right, implying that only former Mormons are capable of telling the truth is offensive, although clericalism does seem to be a bit of a problem for the LDS—it’s probably a problem for every religion that has a priesthood, though, Lord knows Catholics are far from immune to it.

Very true. A former LDS member and a current LDS member will have a very different perspective for several reasons. They can both give an honest assessment of their experience and tell a very different story. An active member is able to give a more acurate picture of the current thinking of other currently active members.

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks to you and Parker for the very interesting history discussion. Eusebius of Nicomedia was the Bishop who presented the Arian case before the council in 325 AD since Arian was not a Bishop. What do you think the world would be like today if the vote had gone the other way?

What ifs don’t interest me. What did happen is more interesting.

A small point: the heretic’s name was Arius (250AD-336) and his heresy was Arianism.

The main point is the myth held by Mormons, and other religions invented during the Restoration Movement, that Christian teaching was changed by Constantine the Great. The myth is contrary to history and reason.
In case you missed it:

This article contains so many errors, it is hard to know where to begin. I will go down the line in order and hit the most important points. The first sign that should tip off any reader to the biases that characterize the whole of the article pops up in only a second paragraph, where Dr. Anderson writes:

*Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny.
*

I understand that the iron political hand of Nicaea imposing a new orthodoxy from on high is a very common idea, certainly the most frequently repeated account of it that people hear, and so it carries a kind of credibility in our culture at large that it does not deserve. For that reason, I don’t doubt the honesty of individual Mormons and others who buy into it. But when it comes from an actual professor of history, who has a PhD, reads the ancient languages, and knows how historical research is done, this is a morally reprehensible error. He is just repeating an opportune myth that his Mormon readership will easily accept, without holding him responsible for the truth of it. Yet every Catholic reading this thread, who is familiar with the standard repertoire if nineteenth-century anti-Catholic Protestant claims, from which this novel interpretation of Nicaea arises, knows that it is bogus. No one familiar with the history can take it seriously, and it is a sin for an informed individual to teach it.

The Council of Nicaea had no secular power, and was not supported by secular authorities. While the Council was indeed called at the behest of Constantine, a catechumen, it never received significant Imperial endorsement, and indeed, the defenders of the Council were persecuted by the Roman government for half a century. It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire Their subordinationist theology, which denied the equality of persons in Trinitarian orthodoxy, taught a firmly monarchical concept of the Father that fit very well into Imperial ideology, and hence brought with it all kinds of political advantages.

The elder Fathers at the Council were not secular persecutors but Christian survivors of secular persecution, which had only ceased a decade earlier. Many bore the stripes of their resistance to political tyranny on their bodies, attending the Council with missing limbs and eyes. The younger Council Fathers lived to suffer further persecution on account of their defense of Nicaea’s teachings. Again, it was the secular Roman government that did this, with occasional intermission, for about fifty years.

 

[Telstar]

“Jack Mormon” was a term often used to describe an LDS member who would smoke or drink alcoholic beverages and didn’t attend church. Often it was used to describe ones self such as, “I am a Jack Mormon.” I have not heard this term used for about 40 years and I don’t know of any other meaning for this. Like the rest of the world we have tried to be more sensitive in terms we use. Today, generally speaking, those who were once called Jack Mormons are referred to as “less active members.” Now, am I white washing this? Are only former LDS capable of telling the truth? That comment is very offensive.

I think I understand that term, now, but thanks for your extra (name removed by moderator)ut.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t say that Mormons were incapable of ever telling the truth. The context here is regarding LDS belief, which is a totally different circumstance. I’m sure they’re probably truthful when speaking amongst themselves about what they’re taught to believe, or what they actually believe (they seem to pick & choose). I’ve always found them to be very honest about most other subjects, unrelated to religion. However, my experience on several forums has showed me that they’re not always inclined to speak as truthfully about their actual beliefs and practices, especially amongst ‘outsiders’, as they are within the LDS community. In those instances, they do tend to downplay (aka ‘whitewash’) certain of the more unusual beliefs, or deny that the church teaches, or ever taught, anything of the kind. They even do it when former prophets and LDS teaching manuals are directly quoted, as many threads on this forum indicate. They just say something like, ‘you misunderstood that quote’, ‘that doesn’t mean what you say it means’, or the ever popular, ‘we really don’t believe that, anymore’. What else can you call all of those things, when it’s not the whole truth? There’s really no middle ground when it comes to the truth. It either is, or it isn’t, the truth. Half-truths are really just half-lies, aren’t they?

I consider some of those responses to be examples of the LDS practice of ‘lying for the lord’ (aka being ‘evasive’ about some of what LDS really believe), which has also been discussed on this forum. If that’s offensive to you, then I do apologize. But, my knowing about that particular practice (that seems to be specifically used while teaching LDS ‘converts’, or in defending their church, as it is here) tends to make it very difficult for me to always believe what LDS people say about their own faith. It’s a case of “once burned, twice shy” with me. I can’t really know for sure who to trust to tell me the actual truth. I had never heard of such a thing, before running into it on another forum. The only way that I found out the truth, back then, was because one of my LDS friends confirmed it to me (at least in part) in a PM. But, they wouldn’t do it openly on the forum for fear of backlash from other LDS that were there at the time. That person was mostly just hoping that the whole subject would be dropped, because it was causing a lot of angst between some very good friends on that forum. Lies, even ‘small’ ones, usually have that kind of an effect on people, because they always break down trust, even between good friends. Once that trust is broken down, things usually go downhill, fairly quickly.

Most Catholics tend to share all of their beliefs, very openly, without worrying whether or not non-Catholics would consider those beliefs to be ‘odd’, so that was a totally new concept for me. We don’t usually worry about it, because what we believe is based on what Jesus and the Apostles taught us from the very beginning. If some people find our beliefs ‘odd’, or strange compared to their own beliefs, so be it. Everything we believe is also available to the general public at any time, in various forms, most notably in the Catholic Catechism (available online at the Vatican website). It’s all there in a nutshell. We really don’t keep any secrets about anything we believe. In my experience, that’s not always the case with LDS. So, if we have any questions about what LDS really believe, we have little choice but to ask members, or former members, of the LDS church. I usually tend to shy away from looking on anti-LDS or exMormon websites for answers, because I know there would likely be at least some animosity behind anything I’d find there. But, the official LDS website is less than helpful about certain subjects, unless you have full access by being a member.

Honestly, I don’t think trying to deceive people about what I actually believe, or keeping more ‘difficult subjects of belief’ hidden from them, is a good way for me to try and convert them to my way of thinking, in the long run. If they’re unaware of certain things that they’re expected to believe, before they decide to ‘take the plunge’, then they will most likely have second thoughts about the whole belief system after they finally learn the truth. Their ‘conversion’ would just be a sham, based on ‘half-truths’. I know if it were me, I would probably feel very betrayed that I was kept in the dark about any of it, by those who knew better. I’d probably just want to leave, immediately.

Personally, I think it’s highly unethical for any church to practice that kind of deception, either with the general public at large, or, even more so with its ‘new members in training’. Maybe that’s just because of the way my own Church has always taught new people that want to become members, which is by full disclosure of everything, up front, before they’re allowed to be Baptized. I know the practice of holding back some beliefs from new people, in LDS, is due to JS’s incorrect interpretation of the phrase ‘milk before meat’, but that’s still no excuse for trying to hide the truth from anyone seeking honest answers. God doesn’t have to hide any of His Truth from anyone. The truth is the truth.

 

[mtolympus]

A small point: the heretic’s name was Arius (250AD-336) and his heresy was Arianism.

The main point is the myth held by Mormons, and other religions invented during the Restoration Movement, that Christian teaching was changed by Constantine the Great. The myth is contrary to history and reason.
In case you missed it:

Thanks for the post by Soren1 however he did not provide any sources for his information. I have not read Dr. Anderson’s article but Anderson’s paragraph which Soren1 quoted appears to me to be acurate. My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.

Here are some problems I see from Soren1 article:

“The Council of Nicea had no secular power, and was not supported by secular power.” This is false. Constantine called the assembly to try to bring unity of doctrine to the Christian Church. At the end of the 325 AD council, bishops who would not sign the creed were disposed as heretics. Constantine imposed a civil sentence on these bishops which banished them from their cities.

“While the Council was indeed called at the behest of Constantine, a catechumen, it never received significant Imperial endorsement.” This is false. Contantine presided over the assembly. Constantine suggested the word homoousios, which translated means “of the same substance” be included in the creed.

'Indeed, the defenders of the Council were persecuted by the Roman government for half a century." This is true. Christians had been persecuted by the Roman Government prior to 325 AD.

“It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire.” I have seen no evidence that either of these two groups had superior political sway, at least in 325 AD. All of the Bishops were considered Christians before the Council in 325 AD.

Dr. Anderson said, “Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A. D. 325 crystalized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyanny.” From the history I have read, this is true.

 

[mtolympus]

Honestly, I don’t think trying to deceive people about what I actually believe, or keeping more ‘difficult subjects of belief’ hidden from them, is a good way for me to try and convert them to my way of thinking… God doesn’t have to hide any of His Truth from anyone. The truth is the truth.

I totally agree.

 

[apfrita]

I found this on the LDS website: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=619439b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

According to this definition, the Great Apostasy resulted in the removal of the authority of the priesthood from the Earth, the loss of a living prophet to lead the body of believers, and thus the loss of the Church on Earth. Hence, the need for a restoration under the prophethood of Joseph Smith.

This article on the LDS website states that the Great Apostasy occurred around the end of the 1st century AD, when the last apostle passed away.

My question is, what does this mean for the church that the LDS scriptures teach that Jesus founded in the Americas and which lasted for a much longer time? How could the Great Apostasy have occurred if there was a prophet on the Earth and a church with the authority of the priesthood?

This Wikipedia article provides a timeline for the Book of Mormon events: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_chronology#Between_AD_36_and_321

Assuming the dates are correct, the Church in the Book of Mormon lands experienced a good deal of unity and peace until the very end of the second century and then only very gradually fell into apostasy. There was a prophet, priesthood, presumably a church, on Earth until the 400s AD.

How can the LDS understanding of the Great Apostasy and its first century date fit with the LDS belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Apostasy happened in the church for the first time when the Protestant Reformation occured in the 16th Century. Till then there was only one Church and that was the Catholic Church which has all its teachings ratified by the early Church Fathers. The other so called churches of Joseph Smith etc are not even Christian since they teach many things against the teachings of Christ, one which I know about is about marriage. There is slowly a move in the world now where lot of Protestants are coming back to the Catholic Church because they find by study of the writings of the early Church Fathers that only the Catholic Chruch has retained the faith deposit of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. By the way the promise that Jesus gave to Peter saying, ‘You are Peter and on this Rock, I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" was given only to Peter and so only the church founded on Peter as the Rock, the Catholic Church, is under the safety of Jesus’ promise. All other churches are man-made churches and will slowly disappear since the promise of Jesus is not to them. Only the Roman Catholic Church, which has un-interrupted succession from Peter right up to this day in the Popes, the present Pope being Pope Benedict XVI , has the promise of Jesus to protect it from moral/religious error. Those who scream Sola Scriptura have forgotten this one verse where Jesus promised Peter that He will build his church upon Peter. It was not build ‘churches’ but ‘Church’ in singular. The host of Christian churches we have today are from the splits which have constantly occured due to the Protestant Reformation that occured in the 16th century. The day the Protestant brethren realize this and accept it in humility and return back, then the prayer of Jesus in John Ch 17 will come true - “May they be one, just as you Father and I are one”. My daily prayer includes the prayer for the Protestant Churches to all return back to the original one Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Thanks for the post by Soren1 however he did not provide any sources for his information. I have not read Dr. Anderson’s article but Anderson’s paragraph which Soren1 quoted appears to me to be acurate. My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.

Here are some problems I see from Soren1 article:

“The Council of Nicea had no secular power, and was not supported by secular power.” This is false. Constantine called the assembly to try to bring unity of doctrine to the Christian Church. At the end of the 325 AD council, bishops who would not sign the creed were disposed as heretics. Constantine imposed a civil sentence on these bishops which banished them from their cities.

“While the Council was indeed called at the behest of Constantine, a catechumen, it never received significant Imperial endorsement.” This is false. Contantine presided over the assembly. Constantine suggested the word homoousios, which translated means “of the same substance” be included in the creed.

'Indeed, the defenders of the Council were persecuted by the Roman government for half a century." This is true. Christians had been persecuted by the Roman Government prior to 325 AD.

“It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire.” I have seen no evidence that either of these two groups had superior political sway, at least in 325 AD. All of the Bishops were considered Christians before the Council in 325 AD.

Dr. Anderson said, “Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A. D. 325 crystalized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyanny.” From the history I have read, this is true.

You have not provided any sources either.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

check out post # 276: William Jurgens, etc.

Remember there are THOUSANDS of documents extant in various languages surviving since the earliest days of Christianity - ex. The Didache from 80 A.D. or so, quote the Early Church Fathers.

Are groups such as LDS, JW found to study or quote these sources IN CONTEXT?

Archbishop Sheen said in a tape set I have - in reference to our protestant and non-Christian brethren - essentially are unplugged whether is 1 inch from the power source (1 year), 1 foot (1 decade), 10 feet (500 years) or 1 mile (time since Christ)!!!

Unplugged is Unplugged = NO POWER or continuity since the time of Christ - If Jesus said “I will be with you always” how can he let HIS Church fall apart?

 

[mtolympus]

You have not provided any sources either.

Justo L. Gonzallez, The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church To the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: HarperCollins Publishiers, 1984) pp 158-166. I also enjoyed reading *The Belief of Chrstendom, A Commentary of the Nicene Creed *by John Burnaby 1959.

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks for the post by Soren1 however he did not provide any sources for his information. I have not read Dr. Anderson’s article but Anderson’s paragraph which Soren1 quoted appears to me to be acurate. My information comes from two books which use the ancient historian Esubius of Ceaserea as the primary source and were not written by LDS authors.
Here are some problems I see from Soren1 article:

I find it interesting that you found a history of the council and its subsequent events in a book written before the council took place. I would have to say I doubt you read the book.

Dr. Anderson said, “Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A. D. 325 crystalized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyanny.” From the history I have read, this is true.

This is the Mormon myth that is refuted by history.

“The Council of Nicea had no secular power, and was not supported by secular power.” This is false. Constantine called the assembly to try to bring unity of doctrine to the Christian Church. At the end of the 325 AD council, bishops who would not sign the creed were disposed as heretics. Constantine imposed a civil sentence on these bishops which banished them from their cities.

If you review posts 295, 297 & 298, your point has been already shown to be false. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. He was Constantine’s Bishop and had influence over him and his family. Not only was Eusebius not banished he was put in a prominent position. He baptized Constantine.

“While the Council was indeed called at the behest of Constantine, a catechumen, it never received significant Imperial endorsement.” This is false. Contantine presided over the assembly. Constantine suggested the word homoousios, which translated means “of the same substance” be included in the creed.

This is more Mormon fiction. Constantine was under the influence of the Arians so your claim makes no sense. Constantine was a politician not a theologian.

“It was the Arians, not the Nicene Catholics, who held political sway in the Roman Empire.” I have seen no evidence that either of these two groups had superior political sway, at least in 325 AD. All of the Bishops were considered Christians before the Council in 325 AD.

Bishops did not hold POLITICAL sway, Constantine and his successors did; and they were mostly Arians due to the influence of the Arian Bishops at Constantinople.
The Arians held political sway over the Empire during the Council, until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. If Nicea was the result of politics, the out come would have went with the Arians, not the Orthodox Christians.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Very true. A former LDS member and a current LDS member will have a very different perspective for several reasons. They can both give an honest assessment of their experience and tell a very different story. An active member is able to give a more acurate picture of the current thinking of other currently active members.

I don’t agree. First, those of us who left are often on the receiving end of the “current thinking of other currently active members”. And second, we haven’t disappeared into a vacuum, most of us are still very much involved with Mormon family and friends, and so are up on current LDS thought through activities and conversations with them.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I don’t agree. First, those of us who left are often on the receiving end of the “current thinking of other currently active members”. And second, we haven’t disappeared into a vacuum, most of us are still very much involved with Mormon family and friends, and so are up on current LDS thought through activities and conversations with them.

Rebecca, you said that Telstar was right about the term “Jackmormon” when Telstar said that Jackmormons were folks who had doctrinal disagreements with the church. That’s flat out wrong. The term used to mean non-LDS persons who protected us from persecution, and thus became subject to persecution themselves. Jackmormon simply means a lapsed mormon. Today, the term Jackmormon is generally used to refer to mormons who drink, smoke, or don’t go to church.

Most jackmormons are self-identified. I am a jackmormon. The LDS church actually encourages its members not to use the term jackmormon, but rather to use the gentle term “less active member.” No one in my ward would call me a jackmormon, other than my poor wife, when I call her drunk and ask her to pick me up.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Let me clarify. My wife definitely wants me to keep my Catholic faith a secret. I definitely do not want to force my wife to choose (and will not). What I said is that part of me wishes she really did believe LDS dogma about her salvation (degrees of glory, exaltation, eternal marriage, etc.) and/or that Mormons still talked as frequently as they used to about how **only **faithful, tithe-paying, eternally married Mormons get to be exalted and that if she wants be be exalted herself she needs to find another husband. She might be forced, under those conditions, to make a choice (not that I would make her choose - EVER). Part of me wants her to make that choice, as I do believe that, when push comes to shove, she would choose me. I’m really, really tired of this catholic-mormon netherland I’m in.

I’m glad you don’t plan to push her.

Doctrinally, there’s no push for her, since these things can be taken care of in the next life. I have never, ever heard of someone being told by church leaders that they needed to divorce a good non-LDS spouse in order to be exalted. I reckon that somewhere, there’s probably some dim bishop that’s said something like that … but I’ve not heard of it.

 

[rainman10]

I’m glad you don’t plan to push her.

Doctrinally, there’s no push for her, since these things can be taken care of in the next life. I have never, ever heard of someone being told by church leaders that they needed to divorce a good non-LDS spouse in order to be exalted. I reckon that somewhere, there’s probably some dim bishop that’s said something like that … but I’ve not heard of it.

Maybe not, but isn’t it a fact that that woman will never enter the top level in heaven, which I think is called the celestial kingdom? Or has this recently changed, too?