The Great Apostasy

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD:

Hello Chris J;

Thanks for starting an interesting thread.

You stated in an earlier post…

Herein lies the problem with the LDS theology. It is not a matter of “belief” (faith) to accept or deny that the “great apostasy” occurred. There is either historical evidence of a complete change in christian doctrine shortly after the death of the last Apostle, or there is not. The issue is not properly a matter of faith or belief, just as the jewish holocaust is not a matter of belief or faith. The holocaust, like the great apostasy, either happened or it did not, and a study of history proves or disproves its occurrence. The LDS “faith” position on the apostasy is akin to those who deny the holocaust actually occurred. They support their position by simply discounting the tangible evidence of history under the claim of falsity. Like those who would set aside the truth of the holocaust, and cast the burden back upon those who rely upon the tangible evidence of history, it is the burden of the LDS church to come up with some historical proof for the position - simply denying the evidence of history and claiming “knowledge” or “belief” of the truth is not sufficient. “Faith” that the “great apostasy” happened in the face of tangible evidence that it did not happen is not faith, it is revisionism.

[PLEASE NOTE: I’m not in any way equating the *morality of holocaust revisionists with the morality of the LDS Church, just the logic of the two positions. The holocaust issue was just the only “revisionism” analogy I could think of when preparing this post. To my LDS friends, please understand that regardless of our serious doctrinal differences I hold the LDS church in very high regard for its admirable stand on many moral issues of the day, and in no way do I question the sincerity and commitment of your beliefs.]

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Now, back to the apostasy.

Ben, I’m going to take a closer look at these lists of Popes. However, I do have a question or two in the meantime. It appears that Linus was after Peter, but wasn’t he a bishop? Would it not have been more logical for one of the other apostles to have taken over after Peter? (I remember hearing once that it was actually James, but I don’t know how that was derived.) My other question, if you know the answer, is how Peter passed on the command to Linus. Was it an Acts 1 deal when Peter was no longer present? Or did he ordain Linus in Rome? If so, how? Do any details exist on this particular succession?

I think that as a separate item, the very term ‘pope’ should be treated. According to my understanding, this word was not used by the early Christians until sometime after the death of the apostles. I’m sure there’s a good apologetic response to that, I just don’t know what it is. So enlighten me.

or are rather referring to Constantine the Great, Emperor, Flavius Valerius Constantinus.

Yes, that’s the one. Really, we acknowledge an unbroken line of Popes back to a certain time period. That would not affect our belief in the apostasy at all; the big question is how that earliest uncontested pope got his line from Peter. To my understanding, that would be the emperor Constantine. Or can we go even earlier than that, to the point where it would still be unarguable? Probably the most important piece of the puzzle is Peter’s immediate successor(s). If there was one straight line then it could be considered the same organization, but if there was a shift or a break then that would prove it wasn’t.

Really, I think it will be difficult to prove this to a Mormon. Even if there was no ‘shifting’ around, proof would still be required to show that Peter (or the other apostles) put his hands on Linus’ head and ordained him to be the pope. It has to do with the priesthood leadership. If one guy dies the next one can’t just nominate himself, or get elected by his peers. So I’m not sure what kind of witnesses exist for these papal successions. You also must acknowledge that history is not 100% reliable. History is related from the perspective of the one who witnessed it. It depends if you trust those witnesses or not. For example, do you believe all the miracles, fulfilled prophecies, etc in early LDS Church history? I bet you don’t. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that it’s represented just as it happened, but there is variation and exaggeration in just about all historical accounts. So the quality and quantity of the witnesses presented also plays a major role. So, is discussion of the succession of popes important in this case? Sure. But I find it difficult to believe that anything will be proved by it.

By all means, if I’m unaware of some important fact here just let me know.

as the burden of proof always lies with the accusers, I don’t see that the LDS church has any form of proof at all. To quote warnings and admonitions by Paul to his various congregations proves nothing

“No proof at all” is a bit of an understatement, don’t you think? Of course it doesn’t convince you, but that isn’t to say that we believe that our doctrine is floating in thin air. I might say that YOU have no proof at all to say there was no apostasy, but you would surely disagree with me. Some of those scriptures, while they may have other interpretations, are very interesting, and I personally feel that some of those interpretations are pretty strained. True that these Pauline prophecies are found in the context of admonishing the saints, but what isn’t? The whole Bible is there to do that same thing. I can’t think of one place in scripture where doctrine is simply expounded without any attempt to call to repentance, instruct on daily life, or edify spiritually in some way. Paul made some pretty clear and unconditional comments on the future. Also, not only are there prophecies on the apostasy, but there are evidences in the NT that it was starting to happen.

Why don’t we try this. Go here and here and see which interpretations of scripture you’re specifically against. The list of scriptures is all over the place, so I have no desire to repeat it here. There is the biblical evidence.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Robert in SD:

Hello Chris J;

Thanks for starting an interesting thread.

You stated in an earlier post…

Herein lies the problem with the LDS theology. It is not a matter of “belief” (faith) to accept or deny that the “great apostasy” occurred. There is either historical evidence of a complete change in christian doctrine shortly after the death of the last Apostle, or there is not. The issue is not properly a matter of faith or belief, just as the jewish holocaust is not a matter of belief or faith. The holocaust, like the great apostasy, either happened or it did not, and a study of history proves or disproves its occurrence. The LDS “faith” position on the apostasy is akin to those who deny the holocaust actually occurred. They support their position by simply discounting the tangible evidence of history under the claim of falsity. Like those who would set aside the truth of the holocaust, and cast the burden back upon those who rely upon the tangible evidence of history, it is the burden of the LDS church to come up with some historical proof for the position - simply denying the evidence of history and claiming “knowledge” or “belief” of the truth is not sufficient. “Faith” that the “great apostasy” happened in the face of tangible evidence that it did not happen is not faith, it is revisionism.

The real problem, Robert, is that this has been argued to death many, many times. Really, what you have to say is probably not going to convince me, and what I have to say is probably not going to convince you. So I suggest we do what has never been done, and that is to try to understand the logic in each of our heads that justifies or rules out the great apostasy.

I understand your comparison, but there is another reason of why these are not historically equal; that is because the holocaust happened relatively recently, while the events in question, namely the beginning of the supposed apostasy happened a long, long time ago. The Nazi regime is hardly questioned by anyone with half a brain, while what we are discussing has been the topic of debate since the advent of the restored Church (and subsequent restorationalist churches). There is a reason for that, you know.

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris Jodrey:

My other question, if you know the answer, is how Peter passed on the command to Linus. Was it an Acts 1 deal when Peter was no longer present? Or did he ordain Linus in Rome? If so, how? Do any details exist on this particular succession?

Really, I think it will be difficult to prove this to a Mormon. Even if there was no ‘shifting’ around, proof would still be required to show that Peter (or the other apostles) put his hands on Linus’ head and ordained him to be the pope. It has to do with the priesthood leadership. If one guy dies the next one can’t just nominate himself, or get elected by his peers.

Are you saying that the previous leader of the church would have to ordain the next leader in order to preserve continuity? That doesn’t even happen in your church, does it? The new leader isn’t decided until the previous one has died.

It’s not the person that matters–it’s the office he holds. When it is vacated, it has to be filled. The previous person does not say who will take over when he’s gone. The remaining leaders are the ones who decide that.

Peter was clearly the head of the Apostles and the church. That we can all agree on. When he died, he left a vacant office. Since he was the bishop of Rome, and head of the overall church, whoever became the bishop of Rome would fill that vacant office. We know the Apostles filled vacancies because one of the first things they did was to fill the vacancy left by Judas. They filled his office (bishopric) with Matthias. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that Peter’s office was filled upon his death as well. Church history tells us that this office was filled by St. Linus. Here is a link with more information:

newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

No matter what you gleam from this, it is evident that the church intended to continue on and filled vacancies with successors.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

Now, back to the apostasy…
Why don’t we try this. Go here and here and see which interpretations of scripture you’re specifically against. The list of scriptures is all over the place, so I have no desire to repeat it here. There is the biblical evidence.

Dear Chris J;

I am already somewhat familiar with both FAIR and Bickmore, but I skimmed the links that you provided anyway. Thankyou for the information.

Regarding the biblical evidence, I think it’s fair to say that the LDS position fails to draw a distinction between the fact of various apostasies that have occurred throughout the history of the church on the one hand, and one total “Great Apostasy” that left no true Church for 1700 years, on the other hand. The first situation is what is spoken of in the Bible, while the second enjoys no biblical support. yes, the bible predicts false prophets and numbers of persons being led astray, but nowhere in the bible does it suggest that the Church, much less everyone in the Church, will be led into a total apostasy.

To the contrary, the NT exhorts christians to remain faithful to the Church - the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tm 3:15). And thus, the Church has stood as a pillar and bulwark of truth against a total apostasy in the face of many heresies occurring constantly through the centuries - arianism, montanism, gnosticism, mohammadism, protestantism, modernism, humanism, etc. etc. etc. This is the only understanding that is consistent with Christ’s promise that His Church (founded on Peter “the Rock”) will never fail. (Mt. 16:18-19) Mormonism flies in direct opposition to these two scriptures.

And as I noted in my earlier post, in addition to the lack of bibilcal support for the great apostasy, from a historical perspective it is also simply unsupported.

Chris, if you want to read a fairly concise book that shows the Church was Catholic in its doctrine and teaching consistently from the beginning, you can order Kenneth Whitehead’s book “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” It’s not written to attack (or even to address) the claims of the LDS Church, but to establish the historical proof that the Church was Catholic from its inception, and that the modern day Catholic Church is the Church that most closely resembles the early christian church from as far back as the time of the original Apostles. The book is scholarly and well documented.

Another great source of early church fathers that shows the historic consistency of Catholic belief linked to the time of the Apostles is a one-volume book entitled “The Teachings of the Early Church Fathers” by John Willis. Again, this book traces the history of Catholic doctrine back to the very beginnings of the Church. As such it disproves the concept of a total apostasy from a historical perspective. Even if you disagree with the doctrines espoused by the ECFs, you must still concede that their teachings are consistent from the beginning up to the modern day.

Thus, both of these books present historical evidence that disproves the LDS great apostasy claim. It just simply has not happened as a matter of history, whether or not you believe there is an interpretation of the bible that supports warnings of a *total * falling away.

Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

The real problem, Robert, is that this has been argued to death many, many times. Really, what you have to say is probably not going to convince me, and what I have to say is probably not going to convince you. So I suggest we do what has never been done, and that is to try to understand the logic in each of our heads that justifies or rules out the great apostasy.

Dear Chris;

You’re missing the point. I don’t contend that it’s a matter of logic or reasoning. It’s a matter of historical fact. Either the great apostasy happened or it did not - and all of the evidence suggests that it has not happened. Where is some evidence that it happened? For example - Where is there evidence of a pre-apostasy LDS temple? Where’s are the pre-apostasy writings supporting the wearing of LDS garments?" Where are the pre-apostasy writings on plural marriage? What about pre-apostasy writings about Christ’s appearance in the New World? What about pre-apostasy writings describing the Laminites and the Nephites? Do you see where I’m going? Where’s the historical evidence that the early christian church held the distinct doctrines of the LDS church. To my understanding - and please enlighten me if I’m incorrect - the first evidence of these doctrines appears in the 1800s.
Chris Jodrey:

I understand your comparison, but there is another reason of why these are not historically equal; that is because the holocaust happened relatively recently, while the events in question, namely the beginning of the supposed apostasy happened a long, long time ago. The Nazi regime is hardly questioned by anyone with half a brain, while what we are discussing has been the topic of debate since the advent of the restored Church (and subsequent restorationalist churches). There is a reason for that, you know.

This is not a valid argument because there is much evidence of the time period - both christian and non-christian - from which one can draw a picture of the early church. So, as they say down south, “That dawg won’t hunt.”

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

For example, what kinds of swords are we looking for? The Aztecs used some pretty nasty swords, as the Spaniards all called them. They actually feared them greatly. Since wood decomposes though, it’s no wonder that swords of that nature do not go back to BoM times.

Please, the macahuitl certainly doesn’t compare to the cimeter (scimitar?) or swords described in the BoM. It certainly isn’t something you would decapitate people with. Even if it were we should be finding vast quantities of worked obsidian blades around cumorah yet we do not. That the people who supopsedly had an old world metal sword (sword of Laban) would refer to the macahuitl as a sword is ridiculous as well. FAIR and FARMS have no academic credibility because of these types of unsupportable gestalt leaps. Mormon apologetics on BoM archeology certainly does not establish credibility for a great apostasy or any other Mormon doctrine. Just look at what Mormon authorities have said about the study of history and archeology. Show me where Gordon Hinckley thinks this so called research will bear fruit.
Chris Jodrey:

Also, know that archaeology in the America is limited in a few very notable ways.

Yet we are learning at a great pace just what the new world cultures were and where they came from. All of which contradicts BoM.
Chris Jodrey:

That’s why the Lehi project in the old world is more concrete than anything around here.

How can you say that? comparing a trek across the wilderness by a traveling group living in tents to current mideast tells you nothing. Yep there is sand, there is water, once again a group without academic credibility claims that their beleifs are validated only because their own observations show that a thing is possible.
Chris Jodrey:

Another thing - there is no way to historically coroborate the BoM history since in Mesoamerica because no written history dating to that time and general place exists, unlike the situation in the old world. (In fact, the first somewhat reliable oral records go back to about 600AD in Mesoamerica with only estimates and more obscure archaeology before that, but with nothing really known about the culture.)

Where do you get this? your own LDS apologists even disagree with this. physical evidence of written language in alleged BoM times is all over the americas. Most cultural anthropologists would disagree with your claim about not knowing the culture.
Chris Jodrey:

If you want to believe that Mormons are just plain wrong then you can take this lack of evidence to mean that we’re wrong, but from my POV this is quite understandable, and I believe it will develop further in the future, for the positive. Anyway, I have failed to see anything concrete in history or anthropology negating the BoM account. … Again, if you want to talk about this more, start a new thread.

By all means start a thread on this if you want but you have no facts to supoprt your case. The relevance of this to the OP is the pattern of making unsupportable claims and expecting them to be the “unarguable” start point. We do not have any verifiable evidence of a global apostasy. We have nothing other than JS claims that it occured at all. We do have a considerable body of evidence to show the closeness in doctrine between the original christian church and the RCC of today.

The LDS church on the other hand cannot show that it is even close to the “primitive” church in belief OR practice, in fact it can’t even show that it is the same doctrine and practices as the church that JS presided over.

So, no apostasy + vast evidence contradicting BoM + absolute debacle regarding PoGP = JS false prophet (not even needing to go into his documented wickedness) ergo the apostates are the LDS.

Repent and be baptized, God loves you.

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

Ben, you seem to be a smart guy, but judging by your post it seems that you haven’t read much on Mormon apologetics on this issue. I have studied these ‘problems’ that you suggest but come to far different conclusions. There are many considerations to think on here. For example, what kinds of swords are we looking for? The Aztecs used some pretty nasty swords, as the Spaniards all called them. They actually feared them greatly. Since wood decomposes though, it’s no wonder that swords of that nature do not go back to BoM times. You should also know that Biblical archaeological research has not always been so developed. Also, know that archaeology in the America is limited in a few very notable ways. That’s why the Lehi project in the old world is more concrete than anything around here. Another thing - there is no way to historically coroborate the BoM history since in Mesoamerica because no written history dating to that time and general place exists, unlike the situation in the old world. (In fact, the first somewhat reliable oral records go back to about 600AD in Mesoamerica with only estimates and more obscure archaeology before that, but with nothing really known about the culture.) If you want to believe that Mormons are just plain wrong then you can take this lack of evidence to mean that we’re wrong, but from my POV this is quite understandable, and I believe it will develop further in the future, for the positive. Anyway, I have failed to see anything concrete in history or anthropology negating the BoM account. Maybe you’re familiar with the Smithsonian standard statement reform on the Book of Mormon. To me, that proves that there are many common misconceptions even among the elite on new world anthropology that are slowly being addressed. Again, if you want to talk about this more, start a new thread.

Chris,

What I know of Mormon apologetics on the whole of the geography, archeology, etc., of the Nephites and Lamanites comes primarily from FARMS and, to a lesser extent, FAIR, and, while I admit to not be completely up-to-date nor even approaching a full knowledge of these attempts at explanation, what I have read I find painfully weak. There has also been, since at least the 1940’s, both implied and direct condemnation from the GA’s towards scholarship in the fields of BoM archeology and yet believers in the BoM who have an interest in proving the historicity of the BoM have been grasping at straws to come up with some proof of semitic influence among the inhabitants of this continent (or even further south): the results have not been, as the GA seemed to have full well grasped before the fact, faith promoting. In the 40-50 years since scholarly archeologist interest has been, off and on, active there has been no breakthrough - when the BoM speaks of swords it speaks of swords that rust, swords of steel and to stretch what is plain into the wooden ‘swords’ of the Aztecs is the type of incredible leaps away from reason that leads non-Mormon scholars of American continental archeology to dismiss (but, I’ve found, without ridicule - mainly with silence) and, too often, leads believing Mormons into a state of disbelief.

The only reason that I brought up the dubious historicity of the BoM is to suggest that it cannot be used as a historical ‘proof text’ of a “Great Apostasy” even as ‘prophecy’. While this may be limiting, as I admit that it does only offer resort to ecclesiastical history (which, contrary to what someone posted, has not - by any means - been locked away in the Vatican until the 1960’s) and secular histories which may not delve as deeply into matters of religion as we would like. Again, I’ll repeat - I wish to discuss the idea of the Mormon doctrine of a “Great Apostasy” but I feel that to ask non-Mormons to make a ‘leap of faith’ into accepting the BoM as an historically accurate work is just as unacceptable as reading into the Apocalypse of John a ‘literalness’ when metaphor and allegory is clearly the intent of the author.

As an aside the only connection I know of the BoM and the Smithsonian is a vague recollection that some Mormon scholar(s) once made a suggestion that the Smithsonian used the BoM to verify archeological finds (or something along those lines) and that someone at the Smithsonian publicly disputed this claim.

Now - let’s get back to the doctrine of the “Great Apostasy”: I did not mean, in my rejection of allowing the usage of the BoM as a ‘proof text’, to stray from the subject, only to construct a caution.

 

[catholic-rcia]

As a Catholic I can go back thousands of years and be inspired by those who lived before me. The difference is we have their writings, their life stories documented. We know that they were indeed very much alive.

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Saints_index.html

The Gospel of Christ has been spread to every corner of the earth, we can read their stories, we can find strength for Christ in these.

As he was being barbecued alive he said to his captors, “Turn me; this side is done.” Another was asked by the ruler of Rome to bring him all the churches gold and silver within one day or he would be beheaded. On the twenty-fourth hour he brought the patrons of the church, along with the mentally ill, the sick and disabled. He said very politely and from the heart, “These are the treasures of our church.” He was immediately beheaded.

Father Isaac Jogues, on a mission to North America to convert the native Mohawks, Huron and Iroquois, was captured and forced to run the gauntlet, his beard pulled out, his fingers sawed off with oyster shells, his flesh cut from him and eaten by the villagers. At night he was tied spread-eagle to the ground and the children were encouraged to throw live coals on his bare flesh. When he was freed and sent back to France he pleaded with his superiors to return, to complete what he through Christ had started. After he was Martyred 1,400 North American Indians came to Christ as a direct result of his teaching while in captivity. My wife’s family were among them.

These are real stories, if one was to read one each morning one would begin to question the so called Great Apostasy. There is simply way to much good fruit. The real question may be, why this great Apostasy?, what does it serve?, what is its desire? What is the motive behind it?

Do you as Mormons study these Saints? Because in the end they are the reason and the why anyone can even whisper the name of Christ today. They have carried the Light well among so much darkness. Through proclaiming Christ’s death for each and every one of us, through the Mass given by Christ, is the reason we are found. In the end it is a choice. It is in the meek, the poor of Spirit who find this table. It is through being forgiven that we remain.

God Bless

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

Now, back to the apostasy.

Ben, I’m going to take a closer look at these lists of Popes. However, I do have a question or two in the meantime. It appears that Linus was after Peter, but wasn’t he a bishop? Would it not have been more logical for one of the other apostles to have taken over after Peter? (I remember hearing once that it was actually James, but I don’t know how that was derived.) My other question, if you know the answer, is how Peter passed on the command to Linus. Was it an Acts 1 deal when Peter was no longer present? Or did he ordain Linus in Rome? If so, how? Do any details exist on this particular succession?

With luck, an expert on the history of the Popes will pop in on this discussion, but for an overview of Linus’ succession from St. Peter, I’ll simply point you to a short treatment here - newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm. The logic of the successor of Peter being Linus is that Linus was in Rome with Peter and Paul and, as noted by Irenaeus:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

As to what the actual ‘ordination’ process at that time may have been, I have no idea. As far as I know there is no record of the actual process but I think that it may be assumed that it likely followed that of subsequent ordinations: that is, the laying upon of hands. It’s also interesting to speculate where the Holy See might have been established had Peter not gone to Rome and been martyred there… but although it’s fun to speculate, you can’t rewrite history and the fact that Peter did go to Rome and establish that See as preeminent amongst other is further proof, I believe, that however one might question Divine Will, God’s plans seem to work!
Chris Jodrey:

I think that as a separate item, the very term ‘pope’ should be treated. According to my understanding, this word was not used by the early Christians until sometime after the death of the apostles. I’m sure there’s a good apologetic response to that, I just don’t know what it is. So enlighten me.

When was the term “papa” first used to exclusively describe the Bishop of Rome? I believe in the late 4th century with Pope Siricius, if I’m remembering correctly (this is a ‘don’t quote me on this’ Karl Rove type plea and could likely be verified - or not - at the New Advent website as well). I believe that the term, from the Greek “papas” and later Latin “papa” - “pope” is the English translation - is still in use for all priests in the Oriental churches. I realize that many non-Catholics are vehemently opposed to the noun “Pope” to describe the Bishop of Rome but it is consistent with the Greek tradition of calling priests “father” and the unbroken line of Petrine successors does not - or would not - suffer were the term to be abandoned.

Just sort of an sidebar that may be of interest to some: of all the Papal signatures which I’ve collected during my lifetime - I was born during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI, but it’s Pius XII that I think of as ‘my first Pope’ as I was less than two years of age when Pius XI died - have carried the name of the Pope pp x (x being the sequential order of name), for instance “Pius pp XII” and it’s my understand that the “pp” is simply shorthand for the Latin “Papa”. Alas, I have no signature of Pope John Paul (the first) - I’ll have to see if I can ferret out a signature to see if he signed “Ioannes Paulus pp” or “Ioannes Paulus pp I”.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…
Chris Jodrey:

Yes, that’s the one. Really, we acknowledge an unbroken line of Popes back to a certain time period. That would not affect our belief in the apostasy at all; the big question is how that earliest uncontested pope got his line from Peter. To my understanding, that would be the emperor Constantine. Or can we go even earlier than that, to the point where it would still be unarguable? Probably the most important piece of the puzzle is Peter’s immediate successor(s). If there was one straight line then it could be considered the same organization, but if there was a shift or a break then that would prove it wasn’t.

Well, remember that Constantine the Great was not a Pope. He’s a fascinating figure, like him or not, but the succession of the Petrine line was was not halted by Constantine - it was the lifting of persecution that allowed for the election of Pope St. Miltiades, I believe (this was just after a time of some pretty exciting Church history - heresy and apostasy, internal disagreement about whether or not apostates should be allowed to come back into the fold, a long period in which the Roman See was vacant, etc.).

I’m not really clear about what you’re asking as to “how that earliest uncontested pope got his line from Peter” nor how that relates to Constantine? There have been, in the history of the Church, periods where the See of Rome gas been vacant and where division has occurred during which time it was confusing as to who was, in fact, the legitimate Pope. No one, though, to my knowledge, gas suggested that any legitimate Pope lacked a (for want of a better term) ‘Apostolic Pedigree’.
Chris Jodrey:

Really, I think it will be difficult to prove this to a Mormon. Even if there was no ‘shifting’ around, proof would still be required to show that Peter (or the other apostles) put his hands on Linus’ head and ordained him to be the pope. It has to do with the priesthood leadership. If one guy dies the next one can’t just nominate himself, or get elected by his peers. So I’m not sure what kind of witnesses exist for these papal successions. You also must acknowledge that history is not 100% reliable. History is related from the perspective of the one who witnessed it. It depends if you trust those witnesses or not. For example, do you believe all the miracles, fulfilled prophecies, etc in early LDS Church history? I bet you don’t. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that it’s represented just as it happened, but there is variation and exaggeration in just about all historical accounts. So the quality and quantity of the witnesses presented also plays a major role. So, is discussion of the succession of popes important in this case? Sure. But I find it difficult to believe that anything will be proved by it.

By all means, if I’m unaware of some important fact here just let me know.

No - no way I know to prove that Peter laid hands upon Linus. No eyewitness accounts that I know of, no official records, no video. I do acknowledge the limits of history, which is why I weigh what I read with care - even if it’s yesterday’s news (which is even sometimes difficult to verify). And you’re correct in your assumption that I am not an LDS believer. I realize that in JS-H John the Baptist does lay hands upon Smith and Cowdery in giving them the Aaronic Priesthood and that, for an LDS member, no eyewitness accounts of Peter laying hands upon Linus would be problematic. If that is the point at which the “Great Apostasy” is thought to have begun, then I can address that point. What has puzzled me about the Smith/Cowdery account is how even the lesser priesthood could have been conferred previous to baptism. If I understand the sequence of things in the LDS church, they are similar to those of the Catholic - baptism is a necessary step before any other sacraments are conferred yet in this case the lesser priesthood is bestowed before baptism? I realize that this question has nothing to do with any “Great Apostasy” (which I think I’ll just begin using GA for shorthand - although that might be confused with “General Authorities” I suppose).

However, to get back to the GA - is it the LDS position that it began because there is no eyewitness account of the laying on of hands from Peter to Linus?

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

“No proof at all” is a bit of an understatement, don’t you think? Of course it doesn’t convince you, but that isn’t to say that we believe that our doctrine is floating in thin air. I might say that YOU have no proof at all to say there was no apostasy, but you would surely disagree with me. Some of those scriptures, while they may have other interpretations, are very interesting, and I personally feel that some of those interpretations are pretty strained. True that these Pauline prophecies are found in the context of admonishing the saints, but what isn’t? The whole Bible is there to do that same thing. I can’t think of one place in scripture where doctrine is simply expounded without any attempt to call to repentance, instruct on daily life, or edify spiritually in some way. Paul made some pretty clear and unconditional comments on the future. Also, not only are there prophecies on the apostasy, but there are evidences in the NT that it was starting to happen.

Again, I will simply say what I have said before - the burden of proof lies with the accuser/claiment. To put me - or others - in a situation of proving, for instance, that there are no purple cows when we are admitting that it is our belief that there are no purple cows. I do not believe in a GA, so to ask me to come up with proof that there was no GA I can only say that no proofs exist - that I cannot provide evidence for something that never happened defies reason. The first proofs must come from those who believe in purple cows. You can’t through logic out the door in controversies.
Chris Jodrey:

Why don’t we try this. Go here and here and see which interpretations of scripture you’re specifically against. The list of scriptures is all over the place, so I have no desire to repeat it here. There is the biblical evidence.

Yes, I am familiar with the FAIR document yet I’m afraid it and its citations fall under what J.D. Crossan (who, I must add, I disagree with almost totally in his conclusions but I find his methodology and terminology to be useful) would call prophecy historicized but, in this case, with no evident history recorded (or history remembered) to back claims of prophecy fulfilled. In fact I think that history precisely disproves what would be the LDS interpretation of these prophecies. Did men apostatize? Certainly! Did the Church? No. It was the Church that held heresy in check, guided by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. Whole communities were certainly in apostasy - some came back into the fold, others simply died out: none ever gained a stranglehold on Christ’s Church, just as He promised.

Now - when was this “Great Apostasy” alleged to have begun? And please pardon all errors in grammar and spelling - I have been ill and am on opioid painkillers so my mind is even more pixelated than usual - and I fear that it will remain so for at least another two weeks or so.

 

[Writer]

I have time limitations now, but wanted to make the briefest point (should it be worth anything). If we accept God as omniscient and outside of time, there seems another potential problem with the GA. We have already discussed that it seems to betray a false nature of God–e.g. inconsistent and seleting the wrong time. Yet, some further thought indicates that it could also reveal more problems. For example, if God knowingly selected the wrong time, then He would have known the unending problems it would have caused and the potential loss of salvation by those who (falsely) believed themselves to be Christians. It seems that this would be an action bordering on sin on the part of God, which, of course, we know cannot be.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I’m feeling a bit ganged up on here, simply because of the number of Catholic posters on this thread and the size and detailed content of their posts. I will not be replying to everything, so don’t take it badly if one of your comments goes unanswered. I will try to go through a few things though.

I have time limitations now, but wanted to make the briefest point (should it be worth anything). If we accept God as omniscient and outside of time, there seems another potential problem with the GA. We have already discussed that it seems to betray a false nature of God–e.g. inconsistent and seleting the wrong time. Yet, some further thought indicates that it could also reveal more problems. For example, if God knowingly selected the wrong time, then He would have known the unending problems it would have caused and the potential loss of salvation by those who (falsely) believed themselves to be Christians. It seems that this would be an action bordering on sin on the part of God, which, of course, we know cannot be.

Writer, I have already addressed these issues. I’m sure that if you look further up the thread you will find my answers. If you disagree then you can get specific.

Are you saying that the previous leader of the church would have to ordain the next leader in order to preserve continuity? That doesn’t even happen in your church, does it? The new leader isn’t decided until the previous one has died.

You are quite right here, Chris. I don’t think I thought it through very well before writing it. Sometimes when there is much floating around my head that I have to keep organized I tend to slip up on very basic things like this.

Yes, so I will reform my question. How was Linus ordained to his office of pope?

Please, the macahuitl certainly doesn’t compare to the cimeter (scimitar?) or swords described in the BoM. It certainly isn’t something you would decapitate people with. Even if it were we should be finding vast quantities of worked obsidian blades around cumorah yet we do not. That the people who supopsedly had an old world metal sword (sword of Laban) would refer to the macahuitl as a sword is ridiculous as well. FAIR and FARMS have no academic credibility because of these types of unsupportable gestalt leaps.

Oh, I suggest you read the Spanish accounts. They certainly had good steel swords, yet also referred to the macahuitl or macana as swords (never as clubs or anything else), sometimes specifying between one-handed and two-handed versions. And yes, they were extremely capable of slicing through flesh, much more than the european steel swords the Spaniards brought. Usually the european medieval swords were not capable of easily dismembering people. Bernal Diaz wrote that a war-horse’s neck was slashed through in one stroke, leaving it attatched only by a piece of skin by a two-handed Mexican sword. This would probably explain why in the BoM Ammon was so able to cut off the arms of the attacking Lamanites and why the Spaniards were all afraid of it. Remember that the blade was made of many pieces that were worked into the wood. If you took them out of the stick, then spread them around, then waited a few hundred years, it may be difficult to tell what they were used for, or if they had even been shaped at all, as obsidian can be found in all kinds of jagged shapes. Notwithstanding, swords like this have been found, and I have never heard of any arguments that deny that these swords were used earlier than the oldest ones found. The macana ‘blade’ usually had five sharpened razor-like obsidian stones on each side, close together, to make a very sharp cutting edge. You see, I have read the Mormon apologetics on this but also have studied it in other context, and I know what I’m talking about. I suggest you check out Prescott’s book, “History of the Conquest of Mexico, with a Preliminary View of Ancient Mexican Civilization, and the Life of the Conqueror, Hernando Cortes” if you want to further discuss precolumbian Mesoamerican warfare, or at least look around the Net a little. You should also see what the BoM actually does say about what kinds of weapons the Jaredites/Lehites had. Honestly, in arguments such as these it is the anti-Mormons who have the incredibly weak, uninformed, and unintelligent position, and it shows horribly.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Thank you, Ben, for your honest and thorough response.

You mentioned that Linus was placed in Rome with Peter and Paul. As Chris-WA corrected me, it is not necessary for the current leader to ordain the next, so it doesn’t really matter in that sense whether they were all together or not.

You should understand that to LDS the way in which one becomes the president of the Church, head apostle, prophet, etc, is very specific. In fact, the ordinations to any office, or any ordinance for that matter, has a set way it is to be done. There is an order in this, and if this order is not argued against and then was not followed way back when, then that witness would immediately put into question. Now, I am aware of Church history, and I know that in certain circumstances there is no pre-established order to follow, and there are exceptions, such as Joseph Smith being baptized twice. That would never be done today in that manner, yet that’s the way it happened then. So, the way I see it, although the topic of proper priesthood setting apart and ordination plays a very important role, it is not set in stone. I think there are general guidelines that have to be followed, though. For example, if all the apostles end up dead or missing some guy can’t just come forward and declare himself the next in line; if he really was called by God to do so that would basically be a restoration in itself, and the people would have to choose all over again whether that new organization was true or not. Basically, I would imagine that the basic formula found in Acts 1 would apply. What is the Catholic view on this? Is there a correct formula to follow in such events, and would a deviation from that be bad?

it is consistent with the Greek tradition of calling priests “father” and the unbroken line of Petrine successors does not - or would not - suffer were the term to be abandoned.

When and how was this convention used? Do you mean among the Jews or among the early Christians? As far as the Bible goes, there is debate as to whether priests were to exist at all in the way they had before. Or are you referring to what Paul calls priests when he explains to them their duties? I think there may be a Greek nuance there between the two terms.

Anyway, I know that Paul thought of himself as a spiritual father of those he converted. That may fit somewhere here.

I’m not really clear about what you’re asking as to “how that earliest uncontested pope got his line from Peter” nor how that relates to Constantine? There have been, in the history of the Church, periods where the See of Rome gas been vacant and where division has occurred during which time it was confusing as to who was, in fact, the legitimate Pope. No one, though, to my knowledge, gas suggested that any legitimate Pope lacked a (for want of a better term) ‘Apostolic Pedigree’.

Odd, I always thought he was a pope… Oh well. What I mean to say, so that we can narrow down the discussion, is that there is a long line of popes in the Catholic Church, vacancies or no, that are uncontested historically by believers in the great apostasy. Basically, it’s like saying that the RCC can have its popes, but somewhere in the beginning the line became corrupted. So the question is, where was that most likely to happen, if it happened at all? In other words, who is the weakest link? Obviously you would be tempted to say that the chain’s all historically strong, but for the purposes of this dialogue, if there was a break, where was it most likely to have been? My suspicion is that this revolves around Linus, but I could be wrong; it could have been someone after him. I hope I make myself a little clearer with this…

No - no way I know to prove that Peter laid hands upon Linus. No eyewitness accounts that I know of, no official records, no video. I do acknowledge the limits of history, which is why I weigh what I read with care - even if it’s yesterday’s news (which is even sometimes difficult to verify). And you’re correct in your assumption that I am not an LDS believer. I realize that in JS-H John the Baptist does lay hands upon Smith and Cowdery in giving them the Aaronic Priesthood and that, for an LDS member, no eyewitness accounts of Peter laying hands upon Linus would be problematic.

I’m not sure that it’s a witness that some Mormons might demand, but at least a statement that it was done in that way. Again, this is related to what I mentioned above about the order in priesthood ordinances.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

When it all comes down to it, it’s one guy’s word against another’s. Either Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were lying, or Linus, Irenaeus, and/or their coherts were. It’s not too fun to accept, but that’s the way it is. We obviously know whose sides we’re on, and there isn’t any objective way to prove the who’s right. You could question the integrity of each, but that gets very nasty and I don’t like doing it. Besides, even that often boils down to some dude’s opinion about some other.

Another important point to mention about history is that it is written by the victors. In a war, the vanquished often are muffled and the victorious glorify themselves. Suppose that the other churches of the time were quelled and the church we now know as the Catholic Church won. If it was a false church then there is no reason to see this any differently than a war whose conqueror rewrote the books, so to speak. That’s not to say that that really did happen (and it certainly can’t be proven, obviously), but it is one good reason why anyone non-Catholic would be suspicious of those histories and question their integrity.

Again, I will simply say what I have said before - the burden of proof lies with the accuser/claiment. To put me - or others - in a situation of proving, for instance, that there are no purple cows when we are admitting that it is our belief that there are no purple cows. I do not believe in a GA, so to ask me to come up with proof that there was no GA I can only say that no proofs exist - that I cannot provide evidence for something that never happened defies reason. The first proofs must come from those who believe in purple cows. You can’t through logic out the door in controversies.

Hmm… So what if there is a significant group of people that believe in purple cows? What if they happily believe that purple cows exist while going about their own business and then another bigger group of people go up to them and say that there really are no purple cows? Who really is the accuser? I’m not sure why you see the LDS doctrine of the great apostasy as an accusation because this can be seen just the other way around. It works both ways; Catholics that say there was no apostasy are essentially calling Mormonism false. This is a debate in which hopefully each side has arguments to present. In some cases one side may only need to refute what the opposition claims because they have no other evidence, which is fine, but I have now been told many times that the no-apostasy can be proven with all kinds of evidence. Actually, we are already examining one of those evidences, which is the line of popes. If that can be proven then your case is won. If not, we move onto the next argument.

In fact I think that history precisely disproves what would be the LDS interpretation of these prophecies. Did men apostatize? Certainly! Did the Church? No. It was the Church that held heresy in check, guided by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. Whole communities were certainly in apostasy - some came back into the fold, others simply died out: none ever gained a stranglehold on Christ’s Church, just as He promised.

Now, we have already seen some intricacies in these histories that deserve careful consideration. I provided some other possible interpretations of the ‘gates of hell’ scripture, if that’s what you were referring to. Do you want to bring up another that you think shows that Jesus promised that no total apostasy would take place? Or would you rather talk about the alternate interpretations I presented and rule them out as possibilities? As far as the LDS list, you know full well what it is. We need to talk about some of them specifically, not generally.

So, let me get us started on that. There is a scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which refers to apostasy. Paul essentially says that the second coming of Christ will not come until the falling away or apostasy occurs, and the false Christ be revealed, etc. What do you believe about this passage as regards the GA?

 

[majick275]

Chris Jodrey:

Oh, I suggest you read the Spanish accounts. They certainly had good steel swords, yet also referred to the macahuitl or macana as swords (never as clubs or anything else), sometimes specifying between one-handed and two-handed versions. And yes, they were extremely capable of slicing through flesh, much more than the european steel swords the Spaniards brought. Usually the european medieval swords were not capable of easily dismembering people. Bernal Diaz wrote that a war-horse’s neck was slashed through in one stroke, leaving it attatched only by a piece of skin by a two-handed Mexican sword. This would probably explain why in the BoM Ammon was so able to cut off the arms of the attacking Lamanites and why the Spaniards were all afraid of it. Remember that the blade was made of many pieces that were worked into the wood. If you took them out of the stick, then spread them around, then waited a few hundred years, it may be difficult to tell what they were used for, or if they had even been shaped at all, as obsidian can be found in all kinds of jagged shapes. Notwithstanding, swords like this have been found, and I have never heard of any arguments that deny that these swords were used earlier than the oldest ones found. The macana ‘blade’ usually had five sharpened razor-like obsidian stones on each side, close together, to make a very sharp cutting edge. You see, I have read the Mormon apologetics on this but also have studied it in other context, and I know what I’m talking about. I suggest you check out Prescott’s book, “History of the Conquest of Mexico, with a Preliminary View of Ancient Mexican Civilization, and the Life of the Conqueror, Hernando Cortes” if you want to further discuss precolumbian Mesoamerican warfare, or at least look around the Net a little. You should also see what the BoM actually does say about what kinds of weapons the Jaredites/Lehites had. Honestly, in arguments such as these it is the anti-Mormons who have the incredibly weak, uninformed, and unintelligent position, and it shows horribly.

Dude, i minored in anthropology and living in south texas spent quite a bit of time actually going to mexico and studying these things. I have read the BoM many times and all of the apologetics on this. If you actually compare what the BoM says with what has been found and where it becomes ridiculous. No non-LDS scholar has ever drawn the stretched conclusions that FARMS does. The BoM specifically mentions STEEL(scriptures.lds.org/ether/7/9#9)), it has oldworld metal swords to refer to. How much obsidian is lying around cumorah? funny how we don’t see anything like the macana or any other leap of faith there.That we find these weapons in traditional archeology shows that we do know what to look for. BTW where are those war chariots and the horses that pulled them? The macahuitl was indeed a feared weapon as it mangled people but it is not what you would need to lop off heads. if they fell in great battles as described in the BoM (scriptures.lds.org/ether/15/2#2) then no one would have pulled out the blades and scattered them. They would be obvious.

Look at this scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/14#14 does that sound like macanas?

Here scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/24/19#19 macahuitl isn’t much for thrusting.

still using sword of Laban :scriptures.lds.org/w_of_m/1/13#13

please explain how obsidian and wood can rust :scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/8/11#11

This described variety would seem to preclude the macana theory:scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/8/11#11

kind of hard to “draw” a macahuitl:scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/8/11#11 and scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/8/11#11

There is also the problem of the shields, head plates and breastplates saving the soldiers from their enemies swords. Show me non-metallic armor that can defend against a macana.

The BoM proves itself wrong if you look at scientifically. Why do you think the first presidency is so discouraging of historians and BoM archeology?

 

[majick275]

Please read the whole second chapter of 2 Thes. It starts by clearly pointing to a specific individual. (the “antichrist”) it goes on to show us that in spite of “some” falling away (rebellion in NIV) the church because of it’s true believers (verses 13-17)

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris Jodrey:

Another important point to mention about history is that it is written by the victors. In a war, the vanquished often are muffled and the victorious glorify themselves. Suppose that the other churches of the time were quelled and the church we now know as the Catholic Church won. If it was a false church then there is no reason to see this any differently than a war whose conqueror rewrote the books, so to speak. That’s not to say that that really did happen (and it certainly can’t be proven, obviously), but it is one good reason why anyone non-Catholic would be suspicious of those histories and question their integrity.

I disagree here because the victors aren’t the only ones who write, and unless the Catholic church systematically tracked down and destroyed any historical writing that contradicted its own, then its reasonable to accept that such writing would have been found by now. If there was a GA, then there should be some writing on it as it occurred. Having the priesthood removed would be a big deal, and somebody would have noted it and wrote something about it. Is it possible that God removed the priesthood without telling anybody? How is it that there are no documents in existence describing/referring to a GA and the loss of authority? Even the losers write their historical perspectives. You would claim that the Nephites managed to compile the BoM in their last weakened days despite complete annihilation by their enemies, whom, by the way, strangely never wrote anything we can find. That’s extremely odd in itself.

I’m not sure why you see the LDS doctrine of the great apostasy as an accusation because this can be seen just the other way around. It works both ways; Catholics that say there was no apostasy are essentially calling Mormonism false. This is a debate in which hopefully each side has arguments to present. In some cases one side may only need to refute what the opposition claims because they have no other evidence, which is fine, but I have now been told many times that the no-apostasy can be proven with all kinds of evidence.

I also disagree with this for the following reasons: we all agree that Christ established a church. We also agree that the Catholic Church, apostate or not, can trace its heritage back to the Apostles and therefore to Christ himself. Therefore, when the LDS come along 1700 years later and claim apostacy, it’s on their shoulders to say how and when. They must show where the established church fell apart. It would be the same as me going to the White House and claiming I was president because I thought the line was broken after George Washington.

So, let me get us started on that. There is a scripture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which refers to apostasy. Paul essentially says that the second coming of Christ will not come until the falling away or apostasy occurs, and the false Christ be revealed, etc. What do you believe about this passage as regards the GA?

It is my understanding that the Catholic church teaches that a big apostacy will occur, but as scripture indicates, not until the end times. It’s possible that we could be in the beginnings of it now, although there is no way to say for sure. The point is that scripture indicates that the big apostacy happens right before the end of the world, and not in the “meridian of time.”

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris Jodrey:

Yes, so I will reform my question. How was Linus ordained to his office of pope?

Scripture and church history confirm that the passing of the office of bishop occurs via the laying on of hands. We have historical documents saying that Linus was a bishop, and not only that, but the bishop of Rome. What more you would need regarding his ordination I don’t know.