Apostasy And Loss Of Saving Ordinances

[JarMan]

I am struggling to understand how the priesthood (and along with it, the saving ordinances) was virtually lost from the earth after the death of the twelve apostles. Christ and the apostles ordained others to the priesthood, as I understand it. So why does the loss of the apostles equal the loss of the priesthood? Did the surviving priesthood holders lose their authority to administer the ordinances when the apostles died? Or did all priesthood holders die? Or is there some other explanation?

I am an active and faithful church member and I am not looking to be critical of the church, necessarily. But this is a doctrine that is difficult for me to reconcile with how I understand the priesthood to operate.

[Storm Rider]

Men were properly and rightly ordained to function as priesthood holders. You mentioned the problem with the apostasy by focusing on the Apostles. The Apostles held the keys of the priesthood and only through the keys of the priesthood can we as priesthood holders function. We cannot properly ordain others to the priesthood; we cannot even bless the Sacrament without approval of our local bishop. What occurred in the Apostasy was the Twelve were killed or died the Quorum ceased to exist and with it the keys were lost. This does not mean all priesthood holders died, but that they no longer could function as priesthood holders regardless of their actions. This can be a difficult principle to understand and I often will think of the Godhead. Without the Godhead nothing would work; there would be no light, no truth, no creation. Without the keys on earth there is no sealing power, nothing we would do would be recognized in heaven. The priesthood is not a power that can be assumed by desire, but it must be received from those who are authorized to function.

[cdowis]

The issue is the keys of the priesthood.

I have the priesthood, and have the authority to baptize. But without someone who holds the keys of the priesthood to direct me to baptize an individual, I cannot exercise that priesthood. Without the keys, the priesthood cannot be passed onto others.

Hope that helps.

[Alan]

Men were properly and rightly ordained to function as priesthood holders. You mentioned the problem with the apostasy by focusing on the Apostles. The Apostles held the keys of the priesthood and only through the keys of the priesthood can we as priesthood holders function. We cannot properly ordain others to the priesthood; we cannot even bless the Sacrament without approval of our local bishop. What occurred in the Apostasy was the Twelve were killed or died the Quorum ceased to exist and with it the keys were lost. This does not mean all priesthood holders died, but that they no longer could function as priesthood holders regardless of their actions.

While this is a common view in the church, I believe it to be a little simplistic.

The loss of the apostolic quorum was a body blow and ultimately fatal, but not straight away. Nibley points out that the apostles left instructions for the perpetuation of the office of Bishop, without the necessity of apostles being present or even existing. It seems to me that the Twelve and the Seventy were eliminated fairly early on. All melchizedek priesthood holders would have been able to function in their respective roles until their death, but would not have been able to continue their lines because apostolic authority was needed for that. The Aaronic order could continue though as Bishops (an office of the Aaronic priesthood) could perpetuate and could therefore ordain the lower offices. And that is what we see - a church of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

The real problem was that the Aaronic priesthood cannot officiate in the saving ordinances, apart from baptism and the sacrament; and, crucially, cannot confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. The absence of the Holy Ghost was the real reason for the apostacy.

In my view the apostacy was not complete until 570AD, but I acknowledge the church was in terminal decline once the apostles had gone.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Alan

[Johnnie Cake]

I am struggling to understand how the priesthood (and along with it, the saving ordinances) was virtually lost from the earth after the death of the twelve apostles. Christ and the apostles ordained others to the priesthood, as I understand it. So why does the loss of the apostles equal the loss of the priesthood? Did the surviving priesthood holders lose their authority to administer the ordinances when the apostles died? Or did all priesthood holders die? Or is there some other explanation?

I am an active and faithful church member and I am not looking to be critical of the church, necessarily. But this is a doctrine that is difficult for me to reconcile with how I understand the priesthood to operate.

It really comes down to who is defining “Priesthood Authority”. Certainly the Catholic Church doesn't believe that priesthood authority died with the death of the Christ's apostles. They can trace their authority directly back to Christ himself through an unbroken chain of priesthood holders.

Members of the myriad of Protestant faiths claim Priesthood Authority directly from God. That individuals are called directly from God…thus no need for the middle man.

Mormon’s, along with other restoration churches, i.e. Adventists, The witnesses etc., claim that there was a great apostasy with a loss of priesthood authority…not surprising then is the fact that this also supports their belief that as a result of this loss God needed to restore His authority to the earth.

Interestingly enough each of these religions find plenty of support to their respective claims to priesthood authority in the Bible.

[Questing Beast]

Perhaps all you all are regurgitating inculcated dogmatic "history"? Is that unthinkable? Billions if they knew of this topic would think that the obvious answer is religion being guilty of history revisionism, or even creation of its own history. If that is the case, then the history of the primitive Christian church is different than the slant Mormonism places on an asserted "apostasy".

I once entertained the official historical view of the "great apostasy", and I taught it with full conviction as a missionary and in Sunday school and priesthood classes. For decades of my life I taught it.

The evidence does not suit such a historical view, only in my humble opinion, of course.

What I think happened is that Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinary man, so much so that he gathered crowds of listeners and not a few followers, for a very few years or even months, and was then executed for threatening the status quo of Jewish religion with "heresy". That Jesus Christ is not even noticed in a single other-biblical source whatsoever is indicative of how small at the time of his death the religious movement really was. Jesus was just one "malefactor" among countless executed every year, nobody but his followers noticed his death and asserted resurrection. His asserted resurrection was the key factor to the new religious denomination's assured growth. Out of a general belief in the resurrection grew the conviction that what they had participated in as followers was real. Call it group hypnosis, or wishful thinking, or the real deal, whatever: the resurrection was what fueled the new faith. It bore convincing power to enough minds such that the religion spread. The so-called apostles were mortals and lived various lengths of time and died or were killed. Mostly they just died as normal men do. Take the religion all over the Mediterranean/Roman world and what do you have? A fragmented religion. The first few centuries were typified by sporadic contact or non contact between the various "churches" that the apostles had individually created and overseen in the early years.

The reason why no other apostles took the places of the apostles that Jesus ordained is because there was no intention of them being replaced. There was no foreseen need for apostles at all. That is a Mormon slant on the history, reading back into it what is taught and believed today. The primitive or ancient Christian faith was a scattered assortment of "churches" with only the most tenuous of contact between them. As the religion grew the Roman empire slowly became cognizant of the reality of the growing religion, usually without persecution except in those relatively rare cases where the religion went up against the State. The later persecution complex resulting in the early "martyrs" who became among the first Saints, was wholly created within Christianity itself, as were the gospel accounts and many of the "epistles", etc. Only by the time of Constantine did the whole of the written texts get examined holistically, and the chosen "books" included in the canon of the Church. Peter, who had died in Rome, at least traditionally, was seen as the original first pope of Rome, and that succession was investigated and upheld by interpolation where necessary. Other, less eminent fragments of Christianity, other sects, created their own "apostolic succession" as perceived to be necessary, and this process of self-validation went on for many centuries....

Edited May 20, 2013 by Questing Beast

[bluebell]

The reason why no other apostles took the places of the apostles that Jesus ordained is because there was no intention of them being replaced. There was no foreseen need for apostles at all.

Except, there were apostles who took the place of apostles that Jesus ordained, at least according to the bible. That would seem to contradict the idea that 'there was no intention of them being replaced.'

[Questing Beast]

Except, there were apostles who took the place of apostles that Jesus ordained, at least according to the bible. That would seem to contradict the idea that 'there was no intention of them being replaced.'

So two or maybe three "replaced" the first apostles who died or killed themselves. That does not set up a trend. Paul presented himself as "the least of the apostles", but there is no evidence that he was ever ordained as an apostle by the Jewish, extant apostles of Jesus' ministry. The apostles scattered to their various ministries and it seems as though they rarely if ever got together as a quorum again. That is the evidence for the point of view that there was no concerted intention of being replaced by other apostles....

[bluebell]

So two or maybe three "replaced" the first apostles who died or killed themselves. That does not set up a trend.

It doesn't set up a trend, but it does, as i stated, contradict your argument about that there was never an intention that the office of apostle was suppose to continue after the initial 12.

Paul presented himself as "the least of the apostles", but there is no evidence that he was ever ordained as an apostle by the Jewish, extant apostles of Jesus' ministry. The apostles scattered to their various ministries and it seems as though they rarely if ever got together as a quorum again. That is the evidence for the point of view that there was no concerted intention of being replaced by other apostles....

Given that we know the apostles did ordain other apostles, it's very weak evidence.

We have documentation that there was a concerted intention at one time to replace other apostles, regardless of how often the 12 met all together.

[JarMan]

Let's just take the ordinance of baptism, first. John the Baptist and Alma performed baptisms before a Quorum of 12 existed. So it appears that this ordinance does not require the Apostles to exist. So how is it that the authority to baptise was lost with the apostles? I can understand that the method of baptism could have evolved over the centuries. But I don't understand how the authority to baptise could have been lost.

[TAO]

From what I understand, the baptisms of Alma were more of a hope for things to come, of sorts. I don't know if they constituted baptisms in the same way they did after Christ atoned for our sins. They could have, or they could have not.

In any case, I just sort of trust God that the apostasy occurred. Technically that's what I do for everything religious actually =). Why view partially muddled history when you can get it from the source.

[JarMan]

From what I understand, the baptisms of Alma were more of a hope for things to come, of sorts. I don't know if they constituted baptisms in the same way they did after Christ atoned for our sins. They could have, or they could have not.

What about the baptisms performed by John the Baptist? Do you think they were "legitimate" baptisms? And from whom did John the Baptist and Alma (the elder) receive their priesthood authority?

[CV75]

Let's just take the ordinance of baptism, first. John the Baptist and Alma performed baptisms before a Quorum of 12 existed. So it appears that this ordinance does not require the Apostles to exist. So how is it that the authority to baptise was lost with the apostles? I can understand that the method of baptism could have evolved over the centuries. But I don't understand how the authority to baptise could have been lost.

John received it from an angel of God (D&C 84: 26-28) and Alma from God (Mosiah 18:18). In either case, it was conferred in accordance with the protocols of the “lesser priesthood [which] continued.” The Bible and Book of Mormon show how this lesser priesthood continued under different admnistrative protocols (the Bible both with and without the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the Book of Mormon with the Melchizedek Priesthood).

This priesthood was eventually taken from the earth, as mentioned in D&C 13. Some may point to the cessation of the daily temple sacrifices with the destruction of the temple as evidence, but I suppose that once the Melchizedek Priesthood oversaw its operation (with the ministry of Christ and then under the original Twelve; and also through the Lehite generations in the western hemisphere), its authority would have been lost along with the Melchizedek Priesthood, even while the lineage with associated rights continued.

[Questing Beast]

Directly from God calling them "to the ministry". Otherwise in the case of Alma the only way he could have got "authority from God" was either from an apostate priest or a heavenly messenger, a la later Joseph Smith, but without any details supplied in the BoM narrative....

[JarMan]

John received it from an angel of God (D&C 84: 26-28)

Are you sure this ordination is referring to the priesthood and not to his calling to prepare people for the coming of the Lord?

and Alma from God (Mosiah 18:18).

This doesn't actually tell us from whom Alma received the priesthood. Only that he had it.

In either case, it was conferred in accordance with the protocols of the “lesser priesthood [which] continued.”

This is essentially what I think the answer must be. In other words, John the Baptist and Alma received the Aaronic Priesthood in the same way that others had since the time of Aaron. And we learn from Nephi (2 Nephi 31) that baptism existed for hundreds of years before Christ.

But all of this only deepens my confusion. Because we clearly see the ordinance of baptism being performed in both hemispheres before the time of Christ and his Apostles. So how does it reason that the death of Christ and the Apostles equals the loss of baptism?

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps all you all are regurgitating inculcated dogmatic "history"? Is that unthinkable? Billions if they knew of this topic would think that the obvious answer is religion being guilty of history revisionism, or even creation of its own history. If that is the case, then the history of the primitive Christian church is different than the slant Mormonism places on an asserted "apostasy".

I once entertained the official historical view of the "great apostasy", and I taught it with full conviction as a missionary and in Sunday school and priesthood classes. For decades of my life I taught it.

The evidence does not suit such a historical view, only in my humble opinion, of course.

What I think happened is that Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinary man, so much so that he gathered crowds of listeners and not a few followers, for a very few years or even months, and was then executed for threatening the status quo of Jewish religion with "heresy". That Jesus Christ is not even noticed in a single other-biblical source whatsoever is indicative of how small at the time of his death the religious movement really was. Jesus was just one "malefactor" among countless executed every year, nobody but his followers noticed his death and asserted resurrection. His asserted resurrection was the key factor to the new religious denomination's assured growth. Out of a general belief in the resurrection grew the conviction that what they had participated in as followers was real. Call it group hypnosis, or wishful thinking, or the real deal, whatever: the resurrection was what fueled the new faith. It bore convincing power to enough minds such that the religion spread. The so-called apostles were mortals and lived various lengths of time and died or were killed. Mostly they just died as normal men do. Take the religion all over the Mediterranean/Roman world and what do you have? A fragmented religion. The first few centuries were typified by sporadic contact or non contact between the various "churches" that the apostles had individually created and overseen in the early years.

The reason why no other apostles took the places of the apostles that Jesus ordained is because there was no intention of them being replaced. There was no foreseen need for apostles at all. That is a Mormon slant on the history, reading back into it what is taught and believed today. The primitive or ancient Christian faith was a scattered assortment of "churches" with only the most tenuous of contact between them. As the religion grew the Roman empire slowly became cognizant of the reality of the growing religion, usually without persecution except in those relatively rare cases where the religion went up against the State. The later persecution complex resulting in the early "martyrs" who became among the first Saints, was wholly created within Christianity itself, as were the gospel accounts and many of the "epistles", etc. Only by the time of Constantine did the whole of the written texts get examined holistically, and the chosen "books" included in the canon of the Church. Peter, who had died in Rome, at least traditionally, was seen as the original first pope of Rome, and that succession was investigated and upheld by interpolation where necessary. Other, less eminent fragments of Christianity, other sects, created their own "apostolic succession" as perceived to be necessary, and this process of self-validation went on for many centuries....

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph 4:11-13)

If He gave some apostles until we all come in a unity of faith, and more Apostles were ordained, as clearly mentioned in the Bible. How could there have been no intention to call more Apostles absent an Apostasy?

[CV75]

Are you sure this ordination is referring to the priesthood and not to his calling to prepare people for the coming of the Lord?

No—but it makes sense to me that his calling required priesthood authority, and the scripture does say that the “lesser priesthood continued… which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John (D&C 88:26-27).”

The scripture also doesn’t say that the priesthood continued after (only until) John, so maybe there was no “apostasy” per se at this point but just a revocation of its authority independent of the Melchizedek Priesthood once Christ’s ministry began, so when the Melchizedek Priesthood was lost, there was no continuation of the subordinate Aaronic either, since it had already been discontinued in its independently-functioning form.

This doesn't actually tell us from whom Alma received the priesthood. Only that he had it.

Where it says he received it from God, I think it is safe to conclude that we can receive things from God through His servants, who are sometimes angels or called angels.

This is essentially what I think the answer must be. In other words, John the Baptist and Alma received the Aaronic Priesthood in the same way that others had since the time of Aaron. And we learn from Nephi (2 Nephi 31) that baptism existed for hundreds of years before Christ.

But all of this only deepens my confusion. Because we clearly see the ordinance of baptism being performed in both hemispheres before the time of Christ and his Apostles. So how does it reason that the death of Christ and the Apostles equals the loss of baptism?

It seems to me that, as far as baptism is concerned, John was the last one to possess the authority to baptize by virtue of the Aaronic Priesthood in a status independent from the Melchizedek ("until John"); and the Apostles were the last ones to possess the authority to baptize by virtue of the baptismal keys that they would delegate to Aaronic Priesthood holders and/or Melchizedek Priesthood holders acting under their authority (as mentioned in previous posts by others).

Edited May 20, 2013 by CV75

[JarMan]

No—but it makes sense to me that his calling required priesthood authority, and the scripture does say that the “lesser priesthood continued… which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John (D&C 88:26-27).”

It sounds to me like this scripture is saying that the Aaronic Priesthood was with the house of Aaron until John the Baptist. (John the Baptist wasn't a Levite, was he?)

Where it says he received it from God, I think it is safe to conclude that we can receive things from God through His servants, who are sometimes angels or called angels.

I would think that if Alma was visited by an angel to receive the priesthood that the event would be recorded in the Book of Mormon. It seems more likely that Alma received the priesthood from the same Nephite lineage as the other Book of Mormon prophets. Even if he received it from apostates (which I don't think is a given). Also, could an un-resurrected spirit even confer the priesthood? It seems doubtful.

It seems to me that, as far as baptism is concerned, John was the last one to possess the authority to baptize by virtue of the Aaronic Priesthood in a status independent from the Melchizedek ("until John"); and the Apostles were the last ones to possess the authority to baptize by virtue of the baptismal keys that they would delegate to Aaronic Priesthood holders and/or Melchizedek Priesthood holders acting under their authority (as mentioned in previous posts by others).

Do you have any references to support the idea that baptism requires "keys" in the same sense that the sealing ordinance apparently requires keys?

Edit: D&C 107 says that the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood are held by the bishopric. I wonder if this refers specifically to the Presiding Bishopric or if each bishopric independently holds the keys.

Edited May 21, 2013 by JarMan

[Avatar4321]

Baptizing is worthless without the ability to give the Holy Ghost.

[TAO]

What about the baptisms performed by John the Baptist? Do you think they were "legitimate" baptisms? And from whom did John the Baptist and Alma (the elder) receive their priesthood authority?

Uh, CV75 pretty much said what I was trying to get it. In essence, things were a bit different with Alma and John the Baptist (not that they weren't authentic, just different). In any case, God, for the reasons he has, chose to remove the priesthood from the Earth for a time, planning to restore it at a later date. And so he has done. I'll trust that his reasons for it were good enough =).

[TAO]

I would think that if Alma was visited by an angel to receive the priesthood that the event would be recorded in the Book of Mormon. It seems more likely that Alma received the priesthood from the same Nephite lineage as the other Book of Mormon prophets. Even if he received it from apostates (which I don't think is a given). Also, could an un-resurrected spirit even confer the priesthood? It seems doubtful.

Well it depends on the nature of the vision, but I suppose it could have. I'm sure there's quite a few of incidents that are rather private, and so they don't get mentioned... well... at least very clearly. So while it's definitely plausible that he received it through lineage, I wouldn't write off an angelic visitation either, if you know what I mean =).

Do you have any references to support the idea that baptism requires "keys" in the same sense that the sealing ordinance apparently requires keys?

Well, here's an example for the sealing power... I like it a lot because it actually tells what the sealing power is... it's pretty cool: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/10.7?lang=eng#6

As for baptism, outside of the D&C (where there is a ton), there's always this one: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.25?lang=eng#24

In any case, this article kinda outlines things pretty well, though I'm not sure if you will find what you want in it: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism?lang=eng

Edit: D&C 107 says that the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood are held by the bishopric. I wonder if this refers specifically to the Presiding Bishopric or if each bishopric independently holds the keys.

Well, the reference doesn't make it super clear... I guess we'll have to ask someone a bit more knowledgeable on the subject.

[Alvino]

I don't understand why for the last days, when everything is supposedly going to be as terrible as things will ever get, God will preserve His Church, yet when things weren't as bad - i.e. Great Apostasy - he lets it fade away.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Alvino

[Storm Rider]

It really comes down to who is defining “Priesthood Authority”. Certainly the Catholic Church doesn't believe that priesthood authority died with the death of the Christ's apostles. They can trace their authority directly back to Christ himself through an unbroken chain of priesthood holders.

Members of the myriad of Protestant faiths claim Priesthood Authority directly from God. That individuals are called directly from God…thus no need for the middle man.

Mormon’s, along with other restoration churches, i.e. Adventists, The witnesses etc., claim that there was a great apostasy with a loss of priesthood authority…not surprising then is the fact that this also supports their belief that as a result of this loss God needed to restore His authority to the earth.

Interestingly enough each of these religions find plenty of support to their respective claims to priesthood authority in the Bible.

I think to be fair, tracing a direct line back to Christ, though a common phrase, is not well proved. The periods of competing popes is one thing, but the early period is also a problematic. Regardless, I acknowledge the Catholic position of no apostasy to have occurred.

[Ahab]

I am struggling to understand how the priesthood (and along with it, the saving ordinances) was virtually lost from the earth after the death of the twelve apostles. Christ and the apostles ordained others to the priesthood, as I understand it. So why does the loss of the apostles equal the loss of the priesthood?

The Church can function only as a whole with all of the parts working together. There needs to be a head as well as a neck and some shoulders along with all of the other parts of the body. If a hand gets cut off it can be replaced, in the Church, but until it is replaced the Church can't function correctly. All parts of the body are needed, and none should be saying we can get by without some of the parts.

Did the surviving priesthood holders lose their authority to administer the ordinances when the apostles died?

No, because they still had the authority to ordain other apostles, with involves ordinances. The problem was that they didn't do that and instead went on as if they didn't need any more apostles or that the office of bishop was the highest offiice they needed to perpetuate.

Or did all priesthood holders die?

No, not really. They just failed to function and administer properly.

Or is there some other explanation?

If you'll notice the state of the world now you'll see that every other church has their own explanation for how the true Church should function and they all believe they are functioning correctly, according to their own explanations for how things should be. To see that they're not you need to see how the Church should function and then compare that to how they function. Each of them has part of the truth and part of the true organization, but only a part and not whole. The thought that's most interesting to me is that If those who had the higher priesthood in the true Church had appointed others to fill the vacancies left by those who died, the Church would not have fallen into apostasy. All they had to do was appoint more people to be apostles and then the Church would have continued to have apostles, and then as long as everyone did things as they were directed to do them, everything would still be okay. That's not what happened, though. They changed things and did things contrary to the way they had been taught to do them, so that the Church was no longer as the Church should have been and instead was a different organization with many parts lacking while they thought everything was okay.

I am an active and faithful church member and I am not looking to be critical of the church, necessarily. But this is a doctrine that is difficult for me to reconcile with how I understand the priesthood to operate.

I think the key is in making sure your understanding of how the priesthood should operate is actually how the priesthood should operate. If you go off track and think you're still on track, how would you get back on track? You have to have some way to know how the Church should operate, and be right about that, otherwise you would be wrong without even knowing it.

[CV75]

It sounds to me like this scripture is saying that the Aaronic Priesthood was with the house of Aaron until John the Baptist. (John the Baptist wasn't a Levite, was he?)

I understand both John's parents were of the lineage of Aaron--Zechariah was a priest of the course of Abia.

Still, the scripture could mean that the power and authority known as the “Aaronic Priesthood” was taken out of that line and transferred to John, who was the last to hold it until he restored it to Joseph Smith, keeping the name “Aaronic Priesthood.”

I would think that if Alma was visited by an angel to receive the priesthood that the event would be recorded in the Book of Mormon. It seems more likely that Alma received the priesthood from the same Nephite lineage as the other Book of Mormon prophets. Even if he received it from apostates (which I don't think is a given). Also, could an un-resurrected spirit even confer the priesthood? It seems doubtful.

I agree. An angel can also be a translated being, but I personally think in Alma’s case he received it from a mere mortal during his appointment in Noah’s court. As I indicated, since we can receive things from God through His servant (however worthy or not), Alma could have received the Aaronic Priesthood (or whatever one wants to call it) the same way.

Edit: D&C 107 says that the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood are held by the bishopric. I wonder if this refers specifically to the Presiding Bishopric or if each bishopric independently holds the keys.

Today, the keys are ultimately controlled by the President of the Church, no matter whoever else might possess them by delegation or design.

In John's day, the AP stood alone until Christ and the Apostles (so when they were gone the keys for the AP went with them). In Alma's day, which preceded John, the authority to baptize was governed by the priesthood order of that time and place, which was replaced when Jesus visited, and then was lost through the Lehite apostasy (beginning around the fourth generation after Christ's visit, and then for certain by 421 A.D.).