The Great Apostasy

[Chris_Jodrey]

No offense intended, dennis, but I was directing my post to Robert, not you. Tmaque, some of your statements betray your ignorance of Mormon theology. Maybe I’ll get to that later.

Anyway, I see something interesting happening here. People are demanding evidence for the LDS position. I say, go look it up on the net; it’s all over the place and there’s no use in “reinventing the wheel.” They say, “Oh, we already are familiar with that stuff. Where’s your evidence?” I say, “You know where it is. If you have a problem with it then bring your arguments here.” Then I try to get on with the conversation when new people start saying the same things. Can anyone see why this is getting a little frustrating for me? It reminds me of a witch trial for some reason; no one’s really interested in seeing if so-and-so really is a witch, they just want to see someone burn.

Anyway, since some of you are too lazy or inept to do what I recommended, I will give a short list of reasons (devoid of detail) that present why a Mormon would believe in a global apostasy.

1. It is the basis for all latter-day revelation and the Church itself.
2. An apostasy clearly happened in the BoM world.
3. The Bible foretells it in several places.
4. There was a degeneration of humanity and lack of progress during those years, generally known as the ‘Dark Age’.
5. The Reformation is seen as a first-step towards creating an environment in which the Church could be restored, including translations of the Bible.
6. The ‘discovery’ of America and founding of the United States as a second-step. This whole process was seen as a movement away from apostasy and a preparation for the restoration.
7. The many attrocities of the those years.
8. The splintering of groups and confusion/contention in the Christian world.
9. The corruption of scripture.
10. The many false doctrines taught (95-Thesis).
11. The veracity of the Church itself (other doctrines and practices).
12. The changes in doctrine over time (a current thread here).
13. The very fact that in order to promote the faith great theories and explanations and philosophies had to be invented - things that apparently didn’t exist in Biblical times.

These are probably the most influential reasons that LDS believe in the apostasy. Some are according to a skewed view, and some are not. For example, I find that the corruption of scripture is a convincing argument for the apostasy, as well as some bad things that have happened; however, Biblical interpretation is subject by the reader.

An important thing to realize about LDS thought about the apostasy is that often it is not judged by its history alone, but by other things, such as belief in the Church itself. Really, that’s no different for Catholics: if you think the RCC is true then there couldn’t have been an apostasy. This kind of thinking is common in any religion, not just among LDS, as some would want us to believe.

Anyway, if you like we can work through the list. Pick something you find most disturbing, or unsettling, or false, and we’ll examine it. Or, we could continue our examination of Linus, if anything else needs to be said about him.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I’m sorry, dennis, I meant to say to Tmaque that he is ignorant of Mormon theology, not you… I’ll reserve that for later.

 

[ben_dy]

Chris Jodrey:

Anyway, I see something interesting happening here. People are demanding evidence for the LDS position. I say, go look it up on the net; it’s all over the place and there’s no use in “reinventing the wheel.”…

I’m retiring from the computer to do some reading and will take up this list on Monday, perhaps, but I think two things are interesting to note; the first is that you say that the LDS position on the “Great Apostasy” is all over the Internet - it isn’t. I looked when I first heard of it and found nothing but general statements. The second is that you and amgid either have a completely different idea of when the GA began OR your views are the same and you are simply trying to provide subsequent ‘proofs’ of this ‘occurrence’.

 

[Tmaque]

Chris Jodrey:

No offense intended, dennis, but I was directing my post to Robert, not you. Tmaque, some of your statements betray your ignorance of Mormon theology. Maybe I’ll get to that later.

Anyway, I see something interesting happening here. People are demanding evidence for the LDS position. I say, go look it up on the net; it’s all over the place and there’s no use in “reinventing the wheel.” They say, “Oh, we already are familiar with that stuff. Where’s your evidence?” I say, “You know where it is. If you have a problem with it then bring your arguments here.” Then I try to get on with the conversation when new people start saying the same things. Can anyone see why this is getting a little frustrating for me? It reminds me of a witch trial for some reason; no one’s really interested in seeing if so-and-so really is a witch, they just want to see someone burn.

Anyway, since some of you are too lazy or inept to do what I recommended, I will give a short list of reasons (devoid of detail) that present why a Mormon would believe in a global apostasy.

1. It is the basis for all latter-day revelation and the Church itself.
2. An apostasy clearly happened in the BoM world.
3. The Bible foretells it in several places.
4. There was a degeneration of humanity and lack of progress during those years, generally known as the ‘Dark Age’.
5. The Reformation is seen as a first-step towards creating an environment in which the Church could be restored, including translations of the Bible.
6. The ‘discovery’ of America and founding of the United States as a second-step. This whole process was seen as a movement away from apostasy and a preparation for the restoration.
7. The many attrocities of the those years.
8. The splintering of groups and confusion/contention in the Christian world.
9. The corruption of scripture.
10. The many false doctrines taught (95-Thesis).
11. The veracity of the Church itself (other doctrines and practices).
12. The changes in doctrine over time (a current thread here).
13. The very fact that in order to promote the faith great theories and explanations and philosophies had to be invented - things that apparently didn’t exist in Biblical times.

These are probably the most influential reasons that LDS believe in the apostasy. Some are according to a skewed view, and some are not. For example, I find that the corruption of scripture is a convincing argument for the apostasy, as well as some bad things that have happened; however, Biblical interpretation is subject by the reader.

An important thing to realize about LDS thought about the apostasy is that often it is not judged by its history alone, but by other things, such as belief in the Church itself. Really, that’s no different for Catholics: if you think the RCC is true then there couldn’t have been an apostasy. This kind of thinking is common in any religion, not just among LDS, as some would want us to believe.

Anyway, if you like we can work through the list. Pick something you find most disturbing, or unsettling, or false, and we’ll examine it. Or, we could continue our examination of Linus, if anything else needs to be said about him.

I spent the first 25 years of my life as an active LDS. I served a mission and had many “callings”. I understand LDS theology thoroughly. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood some part of my post.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

I guess, Tmaque, that our thinking on the role of priesthood in the apostasy differs to a certain degree.

I guess I should have said that it’s all over Mormon apologetic sites/etc. Sorry for the confusion. Basically, if you want to get a good idea of the thinking that the LDS have towards the apostasy you should just go to FAIR and look up the topic “Apostasy” there. Or, if you have any LDS books, like “Jesus the Christ” or “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” you can get some details there. Maybe later on I’ll put up some specific links.

I’m not really sure what amgid is talking about; I’m not really following that conversation. Let it be clear, though, that I would not put a year-date to the beginning of the apostasy - it’s a very gradual thing. It’s kind of like when someone asks me how long it took me to learn Spanish. I can’t really put a time to it. In a way, I still don’t know Spanish (or English) perfectly. As far as doctrine, it’s a similar case, I believe. Now, when priesthood authority in the Church was officially no longer valid may be something to be pin-pointed, and if you define the great apostasy only as being the general loss of priesthood on the earth (which is definitely possible) then you might get at least a span of a few decades (supposing that people didn’t actually get their priesthood literally taken away, but that what was being passed on was no longer the priesthood itself [also very possible]) to work with. But, as the historical record doesn’t cover such a thing, this would be no more than an educated guess. Mine would be sometime in the late 2nd or early 3rd century. But then again, there is the issue of priesthood keys. So it can get complicated. But for now, to the list.

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

No offense intended, dennis, but I was directing my post to Robert, not you. Tmaque, some of your statements betray your ignorance of Mormon theology. Maybe I’ll get to that later.

Anyway, I see something interesting happening here. People are demanding evidence for the LDS position. I say, go look it up on the net; it’s all over the place and there’s no use in “reinventing the wheel.” They say, “Oh, we already are familiar with that stuff. Where’s your evidence?” I say, “You know where it is. If you have a problem with it then bring your arguments here.” Then I try to get on with the conversation when new people start saying the same things. Can anyone see why this is getting a little frustrating for me? It reminds me of a witch trial for some reason; no one’s really interested in seeing if so-and-so really is a witch, they just want to see someone burn.

Anyway, since some of you are too lazy or inept to do what I recommended, I will give a short list of reasons (devoid of detail) that present why a Mormon would believe in a global apostasy.

1. It is the basis for all latter-day revelation and the Church itself.
2. An apostasy clearly happened in the BoM world.
3. The Bible foretells it in several places.
4. There was a degeneration of humanity and lack of progress during those years, generally known as the ‘Dark Age’.
5. The Reformation is seen as a first-step towards creating an environment in which the Church could be restored, including translations of the Bible.
6. The ‘discovery’ of America and founding of the United States as a second-step. This whole process was seen as a movement away from apostasy and a preparation for the restoration.
7. The many attrocities of the those years.
8. The splintering of groups and confusion/contention in the Christian world.
9. The corruption of scripture.
10. The many false doctrines taught (95-Thesis).
11. The veracity of the Church itself (other doctrines and practices).
12. The changes in doctrine over time (a current thread here).
13. The very fact that in order to promote the faith great theories and explanations and philosophies had to be invented - things that apparently didn’t exist in Biblical times.

These are probably the most influential reasons that LDS believe in the apostasy. Some are according to a skewed view, and some are not. For example, I find that the corruption of scripture is a convincing argument for the apostasy, as well as some bad things that have happened; however, Biblical interpretation is subject by the reader.

An important thing to realize about LDS thought about the apostasy is that often it is not judged by its history alone, but by other things, such as belief in the Church itself. Really, that’s no different for Catholics: if you think the RCC is true then there couldn’t have been an apostasy. This kind of thinking is common in any religion, not just among LDS, as some would want us to believe.

Anyway, if you like we can work through the list. Pick something you find most disturbing, or unsettling, or false, and we’ll examine it. Or, we could continue our examination of Linus, if anything else needs to be said about him.

Thank you for posting this. I have thought about my response but do not have the time to post it right now. I will probably get to it on Tuesday of this week.

Peace

 

[Chris-WA]

Good post. Finally something concrete to work with.
Chris Jodrey:

Anyway, since some of you are too lazy or inept to do what I recommended, I will give a short list of reasons (devoid of detail) that present why a Mormon would believe in a global apostasy.

1. It is the basis for all latter-day revelation and the Church itself.

This is fundamentally a circular argument. “I believe in the Great Apostacy because the church says so” and “I believe in the church because there was a Great Apostacy.”

1. An apostasy clearly happened in the BoM world.

Yes, but what does that have to do with the world in which you claim the Great Apostacy occurred?

1. The Bible foretells it in several places.

This is a common mistake not only by LDS, but by many Protestants as well. The bible does not foretell a universal apostacy that results in the removal of priesthood authority. The bible does say that there is and will be apostacy, including a big one in the end times, but it never says the priesthood will be lost, nor does it say the church ceases to exist on the earth.

1. There was a degeneration of humanity and lack of progress during those years, generally known as the ‘Dark Age’.

This one irks me because it shows a great ignorance of what the middle ages really were. The collapse of the Roman Empire left a political power vacuum in the West that was gradually replaced with the feudal system, but that has nothing to do with any kind of religious apostacy. On the contrary, the church survived and thrived though kingdoms and empires rose and fell. The “dark ages” saw the establishment of some of the greatest Western culture–incredible art, architecture, universities, hospitals, etc, which were largely due to the presence of the Catholic Church.

1. The Reformation is seen as a first-step towards creating an environment in which the Church could be restored, including translations of the Bible.

I witnessed this first hand at the Bountiful Temple in Utah during its opening tours. There was a mural depicting the Reformation as leading to the establishment of the Mormon Church. Can’t really argue with that too much. The Reformation has resulted in 26,000 other Christian sects as well.

1. The ‘discovery’ of America and founding of the United States as a second-step. This whole process was seen as a movement away from apostasy and a preparation for the restoration.

I would certainly agree that God has a definite hand in the creation of the United States, but seeing it as a step towards the establishment of a new church seems like more of a romantic idea than anything that can be rationally discussed.

1. The many attrocities of the those years.

Not sure which years you’re talking about, but attrocities have existed throughout all of human history, more so in this most recent century than in all the previous put together, so I don’t see the connection with an Apostacy back in the year 300ish.

1. The splintering of groups and confusion/contention in the Christian world.

A result of the Reformation, in which Luther and Calvin through out the baby with the bath water. But even this occurred in the earliest days of the LDS church (beginning with Emma Smith herself), and continues to the present day.

1. The corruption of scripture.

This is the most aggregious statement, because all evidence points otherwise. The evidence uncovered regarding scripture indicates that the bible has been almost perfectly preserved from the beginning, mostly due to the Catholic Church by the way. In fact, a Mormon should be asking themselves why they use a Protestant bible that’s missing books from the Old Testament used by the earliest Christians. It was Martin Luther who removed them, and what divine authority does a Mormon credit to him?

1. The many false doctrines taught (95-Thesis).

What false doctrines? I can show from early Christian writings outside of scripture that the doctrines haven’t ever changed. LDS cannot show that they have changed.

1. The veracity of the Church itself (other doctrines and practices).

Not sure what you mean here.

1. The changes in doctrine over time (a current thread here).

Same as # 10.

1. The very fact that in order to promote the faith great theories and explanations and philosophies had to be invented - things that apparently didn’t exist in Biblical times.

Jesus did not hand Peter and the Apostles a comprehensive manual of fully-developed doctrine. He gave the church the authority to bind and loose, which also means he gave the church the ability to define doctrine as questions needed to be answered. It’s not a matter of making a phone call to God and asking Him to be more specific. The church has that authority because it is guided by the Holy Spirit and thereby protected from error.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

This is the most aggregious statement, because all evidence points otherwise. The evidence uncovered regarding scripture indicates that the bible has been almost perfectly preserved from the beginning, mostly due to the Catholic Church by the way. In fact, a Mormon should be asking themselves why they use a Protestant bible that’s missing books from the Old Testament used by the earliest Christians. It was Martin Luther who removed them, and what divine authority does a Mormon credit to him?

Good! Let’s focus on this ONE (since I did mention that it’s one of the most convincing arguments to me)!

To you, what is “the beginning”?

Ever read D&C 91?

Ever hear of the missing books of the Bible?

Are you aware of any contradictions in the same?

Do you think the Bible offers everything needed for us in our day (you may have already answered this)?

When do you think that I think this corruption took place?

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris Jodrey:

Good! Let’s focus on this ONE (since I did mention that it’s one of the most convincing arguments to me)!

To you, what is “the beginning”?

What I mean by this is that when the earliest fragments of scripture have been discovered in archeological digs, it’s remarkable how those scriptures have been preserved in almost perfect translation in today’s bible. This flies in the face of LDS claims that scripture has been corrupted, especially as described in the BoM.

Ever read D&C 91?

Yes. It’s a short revelation telling Joseph Smith that he need not re-translate the Apocrypha because it contains untruth mixed with truth. My point regarding the scriptures and the apostacy is that if the LDS really believe that their church is the restoration of the ancient Christian church, then they should be using the scriptures the earliest Christians did, which included those books. It’s only 1600 years later that Martin Luther removed them, and by the way, he also tried to remove the Book of Revelation and other parts of the New Testament.

Ever hear of the missing books of the Bible?

If what you are referring to is the allegations in the BoM that certain parts of scripture were taken away or lost by men in the early church, then yes. If what you’re referring to are the books rejected by the church councils as uninspired, you will have to take that up with your church leadership to have it canonized. If it’s something else, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

Are you aware of any contradictions in the same?

The bible does not contradict itself when read in proper context.

Do you think the Bible offers everything needed for us in our day (you may have already answered this)?

Absolutely not. The Church is the “pillar of truth” and pre-existed the bible. It is the Church that offers everything we need. The Church gave us the bible and preserved it. Without the Catholic Church, there would be no bible as we know it today. Only the Church can properly interpret scripture.

When do you think that I think this corruption took place?

During the apostacy, as explained in the BoM.

 

[Chris-WA]

Chris Jodrey:

As far as doctrine changing or not, I haven’t read the ECFs as of yet, so have no insights to share. If we want to get into this, though, a separate thread should probably be started.

Chris, let me just say that nobody can seriously explore the notion of the Great Apostacy without reading the ECF’s. The history is there for the reading. If you want to find out what the earliest Christians believed and practiced, they are an indispensible resource. It’s no secret. It’s all readily available. Look into them and you will be much better prepared to discuss this issue.