Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JeffreyLloyd

The Great Apostasy?

Recommended Posts

Does the LDS Church give a date on what the Great Apostasy was?

Peace,

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post

date on what the Great Apostasy was?

Date what? Or when the Great Apostasy happens?

You want an exact day and month or what?

How about when their was no more scriptures being written/reveled. If you can figure out when that was that is probably around when the Apostasy started? Not unless there is another explanation why no more scriptures being written?

Share this post


Link to post

[How about when their was no more scriptures being written/reveled. If you can figure out when that was that is probably around when the Apostasy started?]

July 1978. Oh wait, we're talking about mainstream Christianity...

:P

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with giving an exact date to the beginning of the Great Apostasy, is we are looking at events from a historical viewpoint. We see the car crash and know there was a crash, but may not know exactly what was the cause.

We do know that evidences of apostasy were already appearing in New Testament times. Paul warned of those that were teaching the 2nd Coming had already come to pass. The apostle John could only find 7 churches in Asia to write his Revelation to, and of those several were chastised by the Lord.

When we look at how things were done in the Bible and compare it with later changes in the Christian Church, we see major changes in not only policy, but doctrine.

Barry Bickmore has an awesome book that discusses many of the ancient Christian beliefs that were lost over time. You can read his book here: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/restoring/

There's a good chapter on apostasy, also.

Now, when we say there was a Great Apostasy, we must realize that not all the truth was lost. People still had the Bible and gained much light and truth from it over the centuries since Jesus. But even today, we see new churches spring up every day, as people disagree on doctrines and policies. For example, while some see the Bible as requiring commandments, others do not. Some condemn homosexuality and immorality, while others do not see it as a sin. These are signs that for many people, the apostasy continues.

rameumptom

Share this post


Link to post

Oh wait, we're talking about mainstream Christianity...

Actually were talking about anybody that feels the Leaders speak for and in behave of God.

D&C 68:4

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

The key would be is the Apostasy probably happen around when this connection (revelation) with Heaven stopped.

Share this post


Link to post

date on what the Great Apostasy was?

Date what? Or when the Great Apostasy happens?

You want an exact day and month or what?

How about when their was no more scriptures being written/reveled. If you can figure out when that was that is probably around when the Apostasy started? Not unless there is another explanation why no more scriptures being written?

Or maybe a better question would be, when was the Great Apostasy complete?

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think the Church has an "official" date, but the Church mostly promotes the beginning as starting with the deaths of the Apostles.

Scholars tend to place the "completness" of it as about the 6th Century.

Such as mentioned here: http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/7proofs.htm

Thank you very much for that link!

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, my quote button isn't working. I think it's just this computer. I'll use brackets <_<

[[quote

D&C 68:4

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

The key would be is the Apostasy probably happen around when this connection (revelation) with Heaven stopped. ]]

So the LDS leadership hasn't been moved by the Holy Ghost since July 1978?

Okay, I'll stop being a twit now :P Jeffrey, I've heard several views about when the Great Apostasy started. Some say the Apostasy began when Christ was crucified, others when the last apostle died. The general consensus that I've heard as to when the Great Apostasy was final is the mid to late 4th century, around the time of the Council of Nicea. According to many LDS apologists, so much Greek philosophy and alien concepts were jimmied into true Christian doctrine at that point that what was left afterward bore little or no resemblance to the pure Christian doctrine laid out by Christ and the apostles.

Just what I've heard along the grapevine...Take care, everyone :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Or maybe a better question would be, when was the Great Apostasy complete?

To my knowledge there is no official stance on the timing or cause of the apostasy. There are certainly some very prevalent positions on some of the symptoms of the apostasy, but I am not sure I would call these official.

What I think is generally accepted is that the Apostasy is an apostasy of the fullness of the authority. Catholics typically speak of the apostasy as a complete departure from belief in Christ, but LDS do not mean this. We mean an absence of authority.

Some would point to heresy as a cause of the absence of authority, but I think this is becoming less prevalent. I point to heresy as a symptom of the absence of authority.

My personal opinion is that the authority possessed by Peter was not passed to the Bishop of Rome. The local authority of the Bishops was a valid authority, but it was not such that universal theological questions could be answered. The Bishop was sufficient for addressing the needs of his local flock, but he could not (nor could he gather in a council to do so) define the Trinity for the entire church.

After Pope St. Stephen prevailed over St. Cyprian and two African councils, the acceptance of heretical (and non-authoritative) baptism resulted in a slow erosion of the local authority that was valid. A some future time, everyone was either baptized by someone without valid authority or ordained by someone without valid authority. Martin Luther observed that if a valid authority was required for baptism then this practice would have resulted in an absence of authority. He concluded that the authority was not necessary. I think he was wrong.

BTW, Cardinal Newman does an excellent job pointing to development and suggesting that the papacy developed. His apologetic is a strong Catholic response to what I think happened.

Charity, TOm

Share this post


Link to post
BTW, Cardinal Newman does an excellent job pointing to development and suggesting that the papacy developed. His apologetic is a strong Catholic response to what I think happened.

Charity, TOm

Thanks, I will look for that!

Share this post


Link to post
[How about when their was no more scriptures being written/reveled. If you can figure out when that was that is probably around when the Apostasy started?]

July 1978. Oh wait, we're talking about mainstream Christianity...

:P

The LDS Church is still under this condemnation since 1832. (D&C 84:54-61)

Pres. Benson always taught about this condemnation. President Benson reread those statements and declared, "This condemnation has not been lifted, nor will it be until we repent." He also repeated his declaration of a year earlier that "in our day the Lord has inspired His servant to reemphasize the Book of Mormon to get the Church out from under condemnation."

This condemnationn was forseen: 3 Nephi 26:8-11

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.

Not until we use what we have will we get more! I think this is part of the condemnation, we don

Share this post


Link to post

I love this topic because LDS faithful must hold as tightly to this as they possibly can. If there was no "Great Apostasy" as defined by the LDS Church....then there was no need for a restoration. This according to James Talmage.

The significance and importance of the great apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims.

There are countless theories about the "Great Apostasy", not one of them concrete, and I struggle to find two LDS members that can agree on any specifics of the "Great Apostasy".

What LDS members need to realize is that if this "Great Apostasy" did not occur exactly as defined by the LDS Church...that is complete and total apostasy...it is not the divine institution its name proclaims.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
I love this topic because LDS faithful must hold as tightly to this as they possibly can. If there was no "Great Apostasy" as defined by the LDS Church....then there was no need for a restoration

This is correct. But it is no different than the Catholic's need to hold tightly to the succesion of bishops from Peter. I would still like to see any strong evidence of the primacy of the bishop of Rome prior to AD 600 and Gregory the great. I don't believe it can be done, which washes away the foundation of the Catholic Church.

There are countless theories about the "Great Apostasy", not one of them concrete, and I struggle to find two LDS members that can agree on any specifics of the "Great Apostasy".

What specifics are you looking for? Theories abound on the minute details, but the LDS are clearly unified on the general nature of the apostasy and its implications. Exact events and dates are not neccessary.

What LDS members need to realize is that if this "Great Apostasy" did not occur exactly as defined by the LDS Church...that is complete and total apostasy...it is not the divine institution its name proclaims.

I am interested to know what you think "complete and total" means. If you define it differently than the LDS, then your requirements do not hold.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

LDS faithful must hold as tightly to this as they possibly can.

We have always had this stance. The debate has been going on longer then this message board ever existed.

The idea is simple.

In a pamphlet entitled The Strength of the Mormon Position, the late Elder Orson F. Whitney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, related the following incident under the heading "A Catholic Utterance":

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."

(Legrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1950], 3.)

But as this points out really this just comes down to two churches. Either priesthood authority was lost, or it wasn

Share this post


Link to post
I love this topic because LDS faithful must hold as tightly to this as they possibly can.  If there was no "Great Apostasy" as defined by the LDS Church....then there was no need for a restoration

This is correct. But it is no different than the Catholic's need to hold tightly to the succesion of bishops from Peter.

Amen.

I would still like to see any strong evidence of the primacy of the bishop of Rome prior to AD 600 and Gregory the great.  I don't believe it can be done, which washes away the foundation of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church holds records of the line of Bishops of Rome going back to Peter. I think you are looking for something to substantiate that record. What would you accept as proof positive? Many Catholic Bishops (not all I would concede) can trace their priesthood authority back to one of the Twelve Apostles.

Theories abound on the minute details, but the LDS are clearly unified on the general nature of the apostasy and its implications.  Exact events and dates are not neccessary.

I think the exact events and dates (or at least general) are crucial to this topic. Otherwise it comes down to...well if that theory doesn't pan out then what about this one??? No...well what about this one? And on and on we go.

I am interested to know what you think "complete and total" means.  If you define it differently than the LDS, then your requirements do not hold.

The gospel and priesthood were withdrawn from the earth. The priesthood was no longer available to church members to direct and set in order the earthly kingdom of God. So as far as mortal man was concerned, there was a complete falling away.

The gospel and priesthood were withdrawn from the earth. The priesthood was no longer available to church members to direct and set in order the earthly kingdom of God. So as far as mortal man was concerned, there was a complete falling away.

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post

Current LDS scholars are placing the time of the

Share this post


Link to post
The Catholic Church holds records of the line of Bishops of Rome going back to Peter. I think you are looking for something to substantiate that record. What would you accept as proof positive? Many Catholic Bishops (not all I would concede) can trace their priesthood authority back to one of the Twelve Apostles.

I understand they have this record, I have seen it many times, but that is not what I am referring to. There were ordained bishops all over the Roman Empire in the first century. They were ordained by apostles and other prominant men (probably the seventy). Peter ordained other bishops, as did John long after Peter's death. What I am looking for is solid evidence that the bishop of Rome was to succeed Peter as the leader of the church and the one with authority over all the other bishops. I don't think this can be done before the late sixth or early seventh century. Prior to this time, the many bishops were independant with no central authority. The first three Popes, according to the Catholic church, Linus, Cletus and Clement were all serving while Peter was still living, so how is it they were the supreme authority and not just another bishop?

The gospel and priesthood were withdrawn from the earth. The priesthood was no longer available to church members to direct and set in order the earthly kingdom of God. So as far as mortal man was concerned, there was a complete falling away.

This is close, but I would not say that the gospel was withdrawn. I would agree that the fullness of the gospel was lost, but this was a result of the loss of authority. The ability for the individual to search the scriptures and have faith in Christ never vanished. Although it was pretty much impossible for the average Joe to search the scriptures when for quite some time they weren't allowed to have or read them.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
Current LDS scholars are placing the time of the “Great Apostasy” as having occurred in the 1st century. Aspects concerning this view have been recently discussed on the FAIR mb in the thread “The Great Apostasy - How, Why, and When?” (page 4 of “LDS Dialogue & Discussion”) – see:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=6746&st=0

[Note the link I provided in the first post of the thread to a recent BYU lecture given by Professor Noel B. Reynolds.]

Grace and peace,

David

I would agree that the apostasy began in the first century. I will need to read Brother Reynold's talk to see his exact view, but personally, I think the apostasy was not complete until possibly as late as the seventh century. The keys of the priesthood were gone long before this, but I think remnants of the true church hung on for some time.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think the Church has an "official" date, but the Church mostly promotes the beginning as starting with the deaths of the Apostles.

Scholars tend to place the "completness" of it as about the 6th Century.

Such as mentioned here: http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/7proofs.htm

I'd say that is practically correct. It was also around 600 AD that Valentinian Gnosticism that had endured for almost 600 years preserving the Early Doctrines of Christianity was driven underground and wiped out. The other forums of Gnosticism that were more apostate had been wiped out a century or two earlier. The Mainstream Christian Church had also attained much power and had twisted various doctrines and added and deleted and modified various earlier doctrines by then.

I believe in a gradual apostasy.

Share this post


Link to post

[[The LDS Church is still under this condemnation since 1832. (D&C 84:54-61)

Pres. Benson always taught about this condemnation. President Benson reread those statements and declared, "This condemnation has not been lifted, nor will it be until we repent." He also repeated his declaration of a year earlier that "in our day the Lord has inspired His servant to reemphasize the Book of Mormon to get the Church out from under condemnation."]]

I've never heard anything about a condemnation before. I must admit this intrigues me. I suppose it may be obvious, but what is the difference between condemnation and apostasy? Did the early church ever receive warnings of condemnation like the above?

Also, does this mean that the leadership of the LDS church is currently unable to receive scriptural revelation that is binding upon the whole church?

How does this condemnation come about? You said that the church is under condemnation, as evidenced by the fact that there has been no more new Scripture. Is the lack of new scriptural revelation the preceding cause of this condemnation, or is it a following symptom of it?

Sorry, I get to asking questions. Any insight you might have would be much appreciated! Thanks. Take care everyone :P

Share this post


Link to post
[[The LDS Church is still under this condemnation since 1832. (D&C 84:54-61)

Pres. Benson always taught about this condemnation. President Benson reread those statements and declared, "This condemnation has not been lifted, nor will it be until we repent." He also repeated his declaration of a year earlier that "in our day the Lord has inspired His servant to reemphasize the Book of Mormon to get the Church out from under condemnation."]]

I've never heard anything about a condemnation before. I must admit this intrigues me. I suppose it may be obvious, but what is the difference between condemnation and apostasy? Did the early church ever receive warnings of condemnation like the above?

Also, does this mean that the leadership of the LDS church is currently unable to receive scriptural revelation that is binding upon the whole church?

How does this condemnation come about? You said that the church is under condemnation, as evidenced by the fact that there has been no more new Scripture. Is the lack of new scriptural revelation the preceding cause of this condemnation, or is it a following symptom of it?

Sorry, I get to asking questions. Any insight you might have would be much appreciated! Thanks. Take care everyone :P

D&C 84:54-61

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received

Share this post


Link to post

Did Jesus also ordain 12 Nephite Apostles? If so, did those 12 Apostles also fail in passing their Apostolic offices?

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
I've never heard anything about a condemnation before. I must admit this intrigues me. I suppose it may be obvious, but what is the difference between condemnation and apostasy?

The serious consequences of this condemnation need not be permanent. The use of this term elsewhere in modern revelation suggests that it refers to a punishment or a penalty, not to a permanent banishment (see, for example, D&C 82:3).

Did the early church ever receive warnings of condemnation like the above?

3 Nephi 26:8-11 was apparently a warning.

Also, does this mean that the leadership of the LDS church is currently unable to receive scriptural revelation that is binding upon the whole church?

They are Revelators not Seers as Joseph was. All Seers are Prophets but not all Prophets were Seers. As Revelators they do receive revelation for guiding the Church and do receive revelation that is binding upon the whole church.

How does this condemnation come about?

For not believing and using what we got so far, we are not getting more until we do.

You said that the church is under condemnation, as evidenced by the fact that there has been no more new Scripture. Is the lack of new scriptural revelation the preceding cause of this condemnation, or is it a following symptom of it?

Yes to get it lifted we are told to do these things;

We must remember and make use of the Book of Mormon. (D&C 84: 57)

We need ot be doing good words. (D&C 84:36; D&C 90: 36)

Be patient and wait for the Lords trial to stop (3 Nephi 26:8-11)

Share this post


Link to post
Did Jesus also ordain 12 Nephite Apostles? If so, did those 12 Apostles also fail in passing their Apostolic offices?

Peace be with you.

Fail? They Prophacied it. Three things will be taken away, says Paul, and three remain. Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. 13: 8 ) Three great gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the gnosis (the knowledge), will all be removed from the church, and in their place be left only the gifts of faith, hope, and love, "these three."

He then explains that at the time those gifts are only partial anyway, "We only know [possess gnosis] in part, and only prophesy in part" (proportioned to their generation or dispensation.), but he looks forward to the time "when the fulness shall come," and things partial be done away with. "For the present moment," he states significantly, "we see in a mirror [as] in an enigma... For the time being there remain faith, hope, and love - these three.'' (1 Corinthians 13:9-13).

Pauls says it wil start when he dies "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Acts 20: 29

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...