Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Apostasy

[NotreDameMormon]

What evidence does the Mormon Church have that there was an actual “apostacy?” How can Mormons claim an “apostasy” given Matt. 16:18?

Thanks for your questions! The direct answers are:

1. 
   *]The Restoration, the testimony of Christ, and the items in the following discussion, and
   *]I am sure this will be sufficiently discussed later in the thread.
   
   “Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.’ ” A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, Deseret Book Co., 1958, pp. 3–4.
   
   “New Testament epistles clearly indicate that serious and widespread apostasy—not just sporadic dissent—began soon. James decried “wars and fightings among” the Church (James 4:1). Paul lamented “divisions” in the Church and how “grievous wolves” would not spare “the flock” (1 Cor. 11:18; Acts 20:29–31). He knew an apostasy was coming and wrote to the Thessalonians that Jesus’ second coming would not occur “except there come a falling away first,” further advising that “iniquity doth already work” (2 Thes. 2:3, 7).
   
   Near the end, Paul acknowledged how very extensive the falling away was: “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15).
   
   Paul was even wrongly accused of teaching “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Rom. 3:8)…
   
   Widespread fornication and idolatry brought apostolic alarm (see 1 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:3; Jude 1:7). John and Paul both bemoaned the rise of false Apostles (see 2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2). The Church was clearly under siege. Some not only fell away but then openly opposed. In one circumstance, Paul stood alone and lamented that “all men forsook me” (2 Tim. 4:16). He also decried those who “subvert[ed] whole houses” (Titus 1:11).
   
   Some local leaders rebelled, as when one, who loved his preeminence, refused to receive the brethren (see 3 Jn. 1:9–10)…
   
   The concerns expressed by Peter, John, Paul, and James over the falling away were not paranoia but prophetic warnings about “Apostasia.”
   
   Another force was at work too: the cultural Hellenizing of Christianity. Wrote Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, “The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual” (part 3, Caesar and Christ, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944, p. 595). The errant grooves earlier used in defining deity were already there and were so easy to slide into (see Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pp. 75–81, 152–58).
   
   Another scholar concluded: “It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity” (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, reprinted 1970, p. 49)…
   
   Reason, the Greek philosophical tradition, dominated, then supplanted, reliance on revelation, an outcome probably hastened by well-intentioned Christians wishing to bring their beliefs into the mainstream of contemporary culture.
   
   Historian Will Durant also wrote: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life” (Caesar and Christ, p. 595).
   
   Unfortunately, too many Church members, in Paul’s phrase, wearied and fainted “in [their] minds” (Heb. 12:3).
   
   By the middle of the second century, things had changed dramatically. Another scholar wrote of how the theological furniture had been significantly rearranged in ways which reflected a hellenized Christianity (see Stephen Robinson, Ensign, Jan. 1988, p. 39).” Neal A. Maxwell, “From the Beginning,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 18

 

[cestusdei]

I’ve asked this of other mormons. If such an apostasy occured when exactly did it happen, how exactly did it happen, who were it’s leaders, what were the circumstances, where did it start? I have never gotten a coherent answer. So you must give a date and other circumstances to prove it happened. Of course I am trying to nail you down. But if you are correct there will be some evidence from history.

I will say even now that there is no evidence of a general apostasy in the early Church. Certainly some people apostasized. Perhaps even some local churches. But not everyone. Likewise there is no evidence at all for any kind of an early mormon church. No writings or archeological evidence. Perhaps you could show us a 2nd or 3rd century copy of the BOM?

 

[Belcanto]

…
Another force was at work too: the cultural Hellenizing of Christianity. Wrote Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, “The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual” (part 3, Caesar and Christ, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944, p. 595). The errant grooves earlier used in defining deity were already there and were so easy to slide into (see Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, pp. 75–81, 152–58).

Another scholar concluded: “It was impossible for Greeks, … with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity” (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, reprinted 1970, p. 49)…

Reason, the Greek philosophical tradition, dominated, then supplanted, reliance on revelation, an outcome probably hastened by well-intentioned Christians wishing to bring their beliefs into the mainstream of contemporary culture.

Historian Will Durant also wrote: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life” (Caesar and Christ, p. 595).

Unfortunately, too many Church members, in Paul’s phrase, wearied and fainted “in [their] minds” (Heb. 12:3).

By the middle of the second century, things had changed dramatically. Another scholar wrote of how the theological furniture had been significantly rearranged in ways which reflected a hellenized Christianity (see Stephen Robinson, Ensign, Jan. 1988, p. 39).” Neal A. Maxwell, “From the Beginning,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 18

Ironically, many Mormon apologists quote from church fathers as late as Athanasius to prove that the early church taught that “men can become gods.” Yet they lived long after this alleged apostasy took place. A further irony is that the doctrine of theosis (which Mormon apologists mistakenly view as equivelant to their doctrine of exaltation to godhood) taught by many early church fathers was influenced by Neo-Platanic philosophy; i.e., Greek philosophy. Either the doctrines of pure Christianity which Joseph Smith supposedly restored fell away very early on (late 1st or early 2nd century), or there was no apostasy. You can’t have it both ways.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

 

[PaulDupre]

Apostacy from the Church has always occurred, from the 1st-century gnostics to the 16th-century “reformers”. But there has never been, and there is no evidence for, an apostacy of the Church.

The Mormons think that their puny, human, former-sinner god could not sustain a Church, either in the old world or in the new.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, on the other hand, promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, His Bride. He promised to be with us “forever, even to the end of the age”.

We’re not buying your lies, NDM.

Paul

 

[christianley]

Apostacy from the Church has always occurred, from the 1st-century gnostics to the 16th-century “reformers”. But there has never been, and there is no evidence for, an apostacy of the Church.

The Mormons think that their puny, human, former-sinner god could not sustain a Church, either in the old world or in the new.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, on the other hand, promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, His Bride. He promised to be with us “forever, even to the end of the age”.

We’re not buying your lies, NDM.

Paul

I wouldn’t call them lies. I would call them assertions without any evidence. He says it is true, so we’re supposed to believe it true. But as with almost everything Mormons claim, there is no evidence to back up what they claim except for their “testimony.”

As to claims that Greek thought was bad for Christianity, the reality is that Greek thought is absolutely essential as a way to interpret Christianity. It is Greek thought which is evident throughout the Gospel of John. The Pope discussed this in his speech at Regensburg recently.

 

[christianley]

By the way, I’d suggest reading this speech by Pope Benedict before getting too critical of the “hellenization” of the gospel:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

Especially note this paragraph in Benedict XVI’s speech:

“At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.”

 

[kellie]

So basically, after following all of NDM’s threads, Christianity started falling away while St Paul was still alive ?

This is what Mormons call the Apostacy of the Church ?

Then God decided to rebuild the Church, and revealed Himself to Joseph Smith, who then started the Mormons ?

It just is not logical at all.

If the Church was apostatising while St Paul was still on Earth, why would his successors keep his teachings, and write them down, and hence become Scripture ?

Why would the Early Church Fathers study the writings we now find in the Bible, write their comments, acknowledge they are the Word of God, and the Church then formally acknowledge all these writings as Holy Scripture and compile the books of the Bible, if these same people were supposedly part of some great apostacy ?

There just is no logic to it all. The Church that was founded while Jesus still walked Earth, has a definite clear successive path to today’s Catholic Church. Passed down from Jesus to Peter to Paul to the ECF to the lineage of the Papal office, for 2000 years.

It is just so illogical that the Catholic Church is the apostacy that is mentioned in the Bible.

And I still cannot understand why anyone would believe Joseph Smith.

 

[majick275]

one also has to wonder why the “restoration” had to wait so long, what were the 3 nephites and John the beloved doing that was so ineffective that it had no aparent mitigating effect on said apostasy, and why would Jesus come at the “wrong” time and have to be bailed out by Joseph Smith?

Quoting LDS pubs may show what the mormon position IS but I doubt that was ever in question. None of the proof texting, cherry picked scriptures referenced say what NDM claims. AN apostasy serious enough to write about is not anywhere near THE apostasy that writing about is useless because it can’t be stopped. I find it interesting that the same “apostate” church that supposedly led man away from the “true” gospel" preserved these specific writings, canonized them and made sure to teach from them. Makes one wonder about the definition of apostasy. You would have us believe that you have restored teachings and practices that there is no evidence of having existed prior to Joseph Smith by using teachings that do not appear to have changed since the apostles originally taught them.

I can’t help but wonder “where’s the beef?”

 

[kellie]

I find it interesting that the same “apostate” church that supposedly led man away from the “true” gospel" preserved these specific writings, canonized them and made sure to teach from them. Makes one wonder about the definition of apostasy.

Yes, that’s I wanted it worded

 

[zerinus]

If the Church was apostatising while St Paul was still on Earth, why would his successors keep his teachings, and write them down, and hence become Scripture?

Why would the Early Church Fathers study the writings we now find in the Bible, write their comments, acknowledge they are the Word of God, and the Church then formally acknowledge all these writings as Holy Scripture and compile the books of the Bible, if these same people were supposedly part of some great apostacy?

There just is no logic to it all. . . .

LDS doctrine teaches that the New Testament has in fact been severely tampered with, and many “plain and precious parts” were removed form it. The apostates were a lot more subtle than that. The subsequent generations of Christians that emerged, including the Early Christian Fathers, were often good Christians who were themselves victims of that Apostasy, not the perpetrators of it. See 3 Nephi 13:20-29.

zerinus

 

[jediliz]

Wow, so the Church “died” before the great Saint Augustine? Before Saint Francis? Before my favorite Saint (and confirmation name) Claire? Before Saint(s) Elizabeth of Hungary and Elizabeth Ann Seton (a convert to the faith in the early 1800s BEFORE the mormon “church” was founded). Before Saint Joan of Arc? She was burned at the stake! Before…I could go on and on naming great saints, many whom died for the Catholic Church.

This apostasy thing is bull. The CATHOLIC Church is 2000 years old. There was no restoration, just another guy unsatisified with the denominations of his time. Luther did it, Calvin did it. Others did it. Why do you think there are like 20,000 Denominations?

The Gates of HELL will NOT Prevail. That is what JESUS said when he gave Peter the leadership role.

 

[ssejllenrad]

Wow, so the Church “died” before the great Saint Augustine? Before Saint Francis? Before my favorite Saint (and confirmation name) Claire? Before Saint(s) Elizabeth of Hungary and Elizabeth Ann Seton (a convert to the faith in the early 1800s BEFORE the mormon “church” was founded). Before Saint Joan of Arc? She was burned at the stake! Before…I could go on and on naming great saints, many whom died for the Catholic Church.

This apostasy thing is bull. The CATHOLIC Church is 2000 years old. There was no restoration, just another guy unsatisified with the denominations of his time. Luther did it, Calvin did it. Others did it. Why do you think there are like 20,000 Denominations?

The Gates of HELL will NOT Prevail. That is what JESUS said when he gave Peter the leadership role.

 

[Scottgun]

Notice that virtually ALL alternatives to the Catholic Church eventually reduce to conspiracy theory. Baptist trail of blood, Great Apostasy, neo-gnosticism, attempts to connect with the Waldensians (sp) or even (gasp!) the Albegensians.

After I put down the bong in college, I lost my interest in conspiracy theories.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

The Gates of HELL will NOT Prevail. That is what JESUS said when he gave Peter the leadership role.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

“And I also say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:16–18).

This rock of revelation is the source of knowledge concerning the things of God. It is the witness of the Holy Spirit that testifies of eternal truth, and the gates of hell will not prevail against any man or woman who seeks it, who accepts it, who cultivates it, and who lives by it.” Gordon B. Hinckley, “It’s True, Isn’t It?” Ensign, July 1993, 2

"And how could it be otherwise? There is no other foundation upon which the Lord could build his Church and kingdom. The things of God are known only by the power of his Spirit. God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown. No man can know that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.

Revelation: Pure, perfect, personal revelation—this is the rock!

Revelation that Jesus is the Christ: the plain, wondrous word that comes from God in heaven to man on earth, the word that affirms the divine Sonship of our Lord—this is the rock!

The divine sonship of our Lord: the sure, heaven-sent word that God is his Father and that he has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel—this is the rock!

The testimony of our Lord: the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy—this is the rock! Bruce R. McConkie, “Upon This Rock,” Ensign, May 1981, 75

 

[NotreDameMormon]

one also has to wonder why the “restoration” had to wait so long, what were the 3 nephites and John the beloved doing that was so ineffective that it had no aparent mitigating effect on said apostasy, and why would Jesus come at the “wrong” time and have to be bailed out by Joseph Smith?..

I can’t help but wonder “where’s the beef?”

"We do know that in the early years following the resurrection of Jesus the Apostles added additional members to their number as vacancies required. Eventually, however, the succession ended. By A.D. 95 only John remained, as far as we know. When John left his public ministry, apostleship ceased. Had it been God’s will, others certainly could have been chosen. But clearly it was not. The apostasy did not happen because the Apostles were gone; the Apostles were taken because the apostasy had occurred…

As we have seen, the Lord knew, and his Apostles knew, that the Saints would turn away from the true faith that had been taught to them. We have seen also that it happened—slowly at first, but with increasing speed in each succeeding decade. And, as we have seen, with the rejection of true religion came the rejection of true authority as well. Concerning this, Elder Mark E. Petersen stated, “But this all had been predicted. The Lord foresaw this apostasy. As he would not perform further miracles before the unbelievers at Capernaum, neither would he leave his anointed Twelve in an apostate group. So John was taken from among men.” Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 8

"The deaths of the Apostles meant the loss of what Paul had called “the foundation” (Eph. 2:20) of the Church. This loss allowed false brethren to drive the true Church “into the wilderness” (Rev. 12:6) until the promised restoration. Modern scholars have labeled the post-apostolic era an “obscure period.” Indeed it was, for the doctrinal integrity of the Church began to be compromised with self-appointed rulers stepping in to fill the void left by the Apostles’ passing. Formerly, bishops and other Church officers had been appointed and supervised by the Apostles, as indicated in the book of Acts and Paul’s letters (see, for example, Acts 6; 1 Tim. 2, 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). But immediately after the Apostolic Age, things changed radically. Evidence indicates that by the end of the first century, the great apostasy was an accomplished fact. Paul’s prophecies had been fulfilled.

This is demonstrated in a work whose author is unknown, written perhaps at the end of the first century and entitled Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It directs: “Appoint for yourselves, therefore, bishops and deacons … for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers.” In other words, self-appointed bishops were to be regarded as filling the same roles as prophets had earlier. Of this post-New Testament record, the religious historian Williston Walker has written: “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles shows that self-seeking and fraudulent claimants to divine guidance were soon preying on the churches.”…

“All historical Christian churches agree that revelation for the direction of the church ceased with the last of the apostles,” one author has written. History shows, in fact, that after the first century, church leaders, in order to decide important issues, could not (and did not) appeal to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom. There were still honorable people on the earth who received personal inspiration for their individual lives. But the church was run largely by men who gathered in councils and held debates, letting their decisions rest on the collected wisdom of mortal beings.” Andrew C. Skinner, “Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith,” Ensign, Dec. 1995, 25

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Especially note this paragraph in Benedict XVI’s speech:

I agree with the Pope’s statement.

The LDS Church clearly teaches the importance of reason as a gift God has given man. The LDS leaders often speak about the importance of constant study and meditation and the role of reason as a tool of learning by the Spirit.

The point Elder Maxwell makes is that the abandoning of revelation by the Spirit for a religion of reason alone was abandoning the Gospel of Christ. Also, abandoning clear doctrine to mainstream the Gospel into Greek thinking was apostasy.

 

[christianley]

"We do know that in the early years following the resurrection of Jesus the Apostles added additional members to their number as vacancies required. Eventually, however, the succession ended. By A.D. 95 only John remained, as far as we know. When John left his public ministry, apostleship ceased. Had it been God’s will, others certainly could have been chosen. But clearly it was not. The apostasy did not happen because the Apostles were gone; the Apostles were taken because the apostasy had occurred…

As we have seen, the Lord knew, and his Apostles knew, that the Saints would turn away from the true faith that had been taught to them. We have seen also that it happened—slowly at first, but with increasing speed in each succeeding decade. And, as we have seen, with the rejection of true religion came the rejection of true authority as well. Concerning this, Elder Mark E. Petersen stated, “But this all had been predicted. The Lord foresaw this apostasy. As he would not perform further miracles before the unbelievers at Capernaum, neither would he leave his anointed Twelve in an apostate group. So John was taken from among men.” Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 8

"The deaths of the Apostles meant the loss of what Paul had called “the foundation” (Eph. 2:20) of the Church. This loss allowed false brethren to drive the true Church “into the wilderness” (Rev. 12:6) until the promised restoration. Modern scholars have labeled the post-apostolic era an “obscure period.” Indeed it was, for the doctrinal integrity of the Church began to be compromised with self-appointed rulers stepping in to fill the void left by the Apostles’ passing. Formerly, bishops and other Church officers had been appointed and supervised by the Apostles, as indicated in the book of Acts and Paul’s letters (see, for example, Acts 6; 1 Tim. 2, 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). But immediately after the Apostolic Age, things changed radically. Evidence indicates that by the end of the first century, the great apostasy was an accomplished fact. Paul’s prophecies had been fulfilled.

This is demonstrated in a work whose author is unknown, written perhaps at the end of the first century and entitled Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It directs: “Appoint for yourselves, therefore, bishops and deacons … for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers.” In other words, self-appointed bishops were to be regarded as filling the same roles as prophets had earlier. Of this post-New Testament record, the religious historian Williston Walker has written: “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles shows that self-seeking and fraudulent claimants to divine guidance were soon preying on the churches.”…

“All historical Christian churches agree that revelation for the direction of the church ceased with the last of the apostles,” one author has written. History shows, in fact, that after the first century, church leaders, in order to decide important issues, could not (and did not) appeal to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom. There were still honorable people on the earth who received personal inspiration for their individual lives. But the church was run largely by men who gathered in councils and held debates, letting their decisions rest on the collected wisdom of mortal beings.” Andrew C. Skinner, “Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith,” Ensign, Dec. 1995, 25

If I believed all of this really happened, I would simply cease to be a Christian. It shows that Jesus had no power to continue his church. I find nothing in the revelation of Joseph Smith which gives me evidence that I should follow his teaching.

I think an honest reading of the history of the earlier church would cause people to pause and doubt your whole theory of the apostasy. Some, such as Newman, who have done this have realized the church was always Catholic. I count myself among that group. To decide the successors to the apostles quit following the teaching of the apostles is ludicrous. I suggest you read the book “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett. Here’s a link to the Amazon web site:

amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Early-Church-Words/dp/0898708478

 

[NotreDameMormon]

To decide the successors to the apostles quit following the teaching of the apostles is ludicrous.

Ludicrous? Paul’s writings are replete with statements the churches and chosen leaders were abandoning the doctrines of the Gospel while the Apostles yet lived! Why would their deaths change this? Wouldn’t it likely hasten apostasy already occurring?

 

[christianley]

Ludicrous? Paul’s writings are replete with statements the churches and chosen leaders were abandoning the doctrines of the Gospel while the Apostles yet lived! Why would their deaths change this? Wouldn’t it likely hasten apostasy already occurring?

Where does Paul specifically say all the chosen leaders were abandoning the doctrines of the Gospel? In fact he is encouraging those who were believers to continue to live the teachings of Jesus – what makes you think every one of them quit doing so?

 

[JoyFull]

Who is your authority within the Mormon faith? Is Joseph Smith the “buck stops here” guy? Or does the current Prophet (forgive me if this title is incorrect) supercede Smith’s authority/teachings?

Just trying to understand a little…