Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[Uncle Dale]

Possibly some of this will overlap Barker enough to draw Juliann's nod of the head.

Not at all. The support for this is sparse...even the guy who pushed it (forget his name right now) is backing off. It never went anywhere in the scholarly world...and that is unusual because they are always looking for new stuff. There is another Australian scholar who went even further with it but that went unnoticed (except by TV). Not one Dead Sea Scrolls scholar that I am aware of tries to put the NT into Qumran.

OK, then -- I'm out on a limb all by myself -- which feels totally familiar.

From Barker's Temple Theology: An Introduction,

Jesus was presented as the high priest from the first temple; Melchizedek returned to his people.  The restoration of the first temple was the hope of the first Christians, and to set them, their writings and their presentation of Jesus anywhere else than in the temple setting distorts  what they were preaching and misrepresents the original gospel.  (p 1)

Jesus is seen as the high priest of the first temple. His atonement is the blood offering of the first atonement...and so on. Barker has even reconstructed the 1st temple ritual to be one of the story of creation.

I take it then, that Barker is rejecting the idea of Jesus' Melchizedekian role? And not

tying it in any way to the Hasmonean precedent?

Does she, then, view Jesus as a promoter of the restoration of the Davidic monarchy?

Uncle Dale

[juliann]

The modern LDS church isn't the same as the early LDS church.

You are completely missing the point. It is rare that we get a thoughtful thread going, this is my area of study and I'm not going to play gotcha with material like this.

If you're going to assume "apostacy" in the early church based on these things - how can you not assume "apostacy" in these "Latter-Days"?

OK, everybody has apostasized. That still means there was an apostasy.

[Cold Steel]

The problem is that I had already read the same sources that Nibley was citing (except for his secondary sources). When I looked at his references my thoughts went something like, "I remember that letter and don't remember reading that!?" I would look up the letter and sure enough it didn't support Nibley's citation. By the end of that first essay I had come to the conclusion (some of you will be pissed I'm saying this) that Nibley was basically making stuff up.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the source wouldn't support Nibley. Are you saying that the words or phrases he used weren't in the source or that the entire reference didn't support the apostasy?

My own experience is that Nibley's quotations only supported one element in what he was saying. Certainly old apologetics weren't built on admitting there was an apostasy; however, various apologists would inadvertantly let something slip between the lines (such as likening the church to an old, failing woman).

Actually, the apostasy was always something that was obvious to me. So was the need for revelation and authority among God's anointed. The papal robes, the adoration of Mary, celibacy, the sale of indulgences, and praying to saints all appeared, to me, as self-evident signs of apostasy.

A good Catholic friend of mine who was working to become a Paulist and I used to have some good conversations. He always was fascinated by appearances of the Virgin Mary to children at Fatima and other places. I told him repeatedly that such happenings would not be accepted by the LDS church, neither would it leave our leaders in confusion as it did the Popes and priests.

"If the Catholic church were the true church of Christ, why would God bypass His leaders and blindside them by revealing other things to people who were clearly not in the chain of authority?" It's like the story of the guy who rode in and waited for Brigham Young to arrive one morning. Young finally came in and the man hurridly announced he had seen an angel and that the angel had given him a revelation for Young. Brigham, stamping the snow from his boots, told the man to get back on his horse and return home -- and that if the angel appeared again, "you tell him I said to go to hell!"

The point is, no angel will bypass the servants of the Lord or leave them in confusion, because God's house is a house of order.

Cold Steel

[juliann]

I take it then, that Barker is rejecting the idea of Jesus' Melchizedekian role?

Not at all. Jesus is the High Priest...that is why he was embraced so quickly by so many. They recognized the role.

And not

tying it in any way to the Hasmonean precedent?

This goes back to the 1st temple kingship/high priest/enthronement theology. Kevin does better at representing Barker than I do. I'm in a time crunch right now and can't document.

[juliann]

I think it is one of the limitations of the LDS view that apparently God is only speaking if He is writing new authoritative scripture. How limiting...

Indeed. Which is why we don't believe that. God speaks to prophets (and LDS have an expansive definition of prophet which includes all of us on one level or another.) Scripture is a by-product of God's voice in LDS thought....it records it, it does not control it.

[rhinomelon]

That is why the LDS version is troublesome...it puts Protestants between a rock and hard place because they have to say there was no apostasy on one hand...while they are a living demonstration of acting on apostasy on the other.

There is a huge difference between reformation and restoration, as there is a difference between total apostasy and partial apostasy. In addition, Protestants were not "ungrounded"; they simply grounded their different interpretation on something other than church tradition. This is not to say that I believe they succeeded in every aspect of their theology, but I do believe it is an overstatement to call the Reformation movement "ungrounded."

Take care

[SteubieU]

This is an example of the development of doctrine. It is not a "new" doctrine in the sense that it came out of nowhere; instead, it is the result of an "unpacking" as it were of already accepted revelation. This is how doctrine develops. When a person's reflections are incorrect, they are told so by the Church.

And that is my point, Stuebie....there was no "church" setting them straight. That is simply undeniable...that is why Nicaea was necessary with an Emperor playing the apostle role. And even that did not stop the infighting. All I am asking is...where was the leader of "the church"? In order to maintain the idea that there was no black hole before Origen, et.al., arrived to argue over doctrine you have to be able to produce a living head. The Catholics are quite aware of this...thus, they create a lineage. This is the great flaw of Protestant theology...it springs from nowhere, it claims nothing except "reformation" of a corruption without grounding itself. The Reformation is an acting out of an "apostasy" all of its own. That is why the LDS version is troublesome...it puts Protestants between a rock and hard place because they have to say there was no apostasy on one hand...while they are a living demonstration of acting on apostasy on the other.

Well, but the Council of Nicea WAS the way that it was done. It seems to me that you are putting the early Church in an impossible situation. There is no way that lots of Church councils to answer the heresies could be called since Christianity was illegal until the Edict of Milan. There is no way that the Church of Rome could even have been privy to all of the doctrinal problems that were going on all over the place: Christianity was illegal, so getting lots of messages from, for example, Christians in Egypt to the Church in Rome would have been extremely difficult to nearly impossible at times. Even if the Church of Rome had been able, there is no reason to expect it to answer everything anyway: sometimes the popes may not have known the answer to the question; at other times they may not have recognized that a doctrinal issue was as serious as it might have been.

Aside from this, the understanding of the Church in Rome being the successor of St. Peter developed over time. That does not mean that it was not there at all in the early Church, or that it was a doctrine that came out of nowhere, just that many people didn't understand the full implications of Peter's role among the apostles or Rome's role as the successor of Peter.

It was the bishops of the local areas that were supposed to take care of things as best they could.

[juliann]

Yes, "ungrounded" is not a good word to describe it....sorry about that. It does not sound flattering. I'm in too much of a hurry and will pick this up later.

[Calm]

I think it is one of the limitations of the LDS view that apparently God is only speaking if He is writing new authoritative scripture. How limiting...

This isn't an LDS view I'm familiar with. Do you have something that has lead you to believe this?

[rhinomelon]

This isn't an LDS view I'm familiar with. Do you have something that has lead you to believe this?

Various comments by LDS members and even some of the leadership. LDS use statements like, "according the Christendom the heavens are closed". To back up this assessment, they point out that no branch of Christianity has come up with any new Scripture. To LDS, this seems to suggest that because we do not accept new Scripture, we believe God is not speaking.

Couple that with the also-common LDS disbelief that God cannot use other means to bring His truth into the world, i.e. councils and sharp conflicts between truth and error, or the use of man's God-given gift of reason to dig deep into the revelation already given. As SteubieU has already correctly pointed out, doctrine develops from the penultimate self-revelation of God found in Jesus Christ, and the message preached by those he chose to carry it.

God can use reason and councils and disagreement and even schism (like Barnabas splitting with Paul in Acts) to bring greater understanding of the truth. To say that God can't work that way (which would appear to be necessary to support the Great Apostasy) is quite limiting for Him, and also appears to set human standards up to judge instead of putting faith in God's power and promises.

Hope that helps. Take care, everyone

[Cold Steel]

To Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are two sides of the same coin, as Orthodoxy's Timothy Ware noted. However, to Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestntism are two sides of the same coin, one having come from the other.

Not all branches of any have completely denounced revelation. I've heard evangelicals tell of revelations they believe they've received and Mary, mother of Jesus, is believed to have popped up repeatedly with secret revelations.

The question becomes, though: If revelation is needed, why is God's church so radically different now than it was when Jesus established it? Many pastors, reverands and such feel "called to the ministry" by revelation. So what do they do? They go to a good theological seminary where even simple concepts like baptism become highly charged issues of debate. In short, Christianity had become in the days of Joseph Smith just what Judaism had become in the days of Christ. Both Jew and Christian had become splintered; both had strict collections of canon which could not be added to; both had endless commentaries on what that canon meant, but none included revelation through divinely inspired "sent ones" (apostles or prophets). Finally, as Nibley notes, both had once had revelation, but no longer.

So I look at me today. I couldn't belong to a church without apostles and prophets. And I thank God every day that we live in the Dispensation of Fullness of Times. John saw that the gospel would be preached to the world, then the end would come. How that would happen without another dispensation is beyond me. How two witnesses who, let's face it, are prophets, could arise in Jerusalem also would be difficult coming from a petrified religion.

Cold Steel

[BCSpace]

Couple that with the also-common LDS disbelief that God cannot use other means to bring His truth into the world, i.e. councils and sharp conflicts between truth and error, or the use of man's God-given gift of reason to dig deep into the revelation already given.

No such disbelief is extant in the LDS Church, rather, we know that God has a pattern of revealing truth for all that is laid down in scripture. For example....

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

That verse alone invalidates any church that does not have or believe in living prophets to lead them.

[BCSpace]

I think it is one of the limitations of the LDS view that apparently God is only speaking if He is writing new authoritative scripture. How limiting...

It would be, except it's not the LDS view.

[rhinomelon]

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

That verse alone invalidates any church that does not have or believe in living prophets to lead them.

Much like John 4:24 alone invalidates any church that preaches that God has a body?

If we were living in the Old Testament, you might have a point. But we're not. This is a simple prooftext that doesn't take into account the whole of biblical testimony on the subject. God has done many things without telling prophets, in both Old Testament and New Testament times. Take the example of Saul prophesying, or Nebuchadnezzar having prophetic dreams.

Also, you forget Hebrews 1, which points to Christ as the penultimate revelation, not through prophets, but through God Himself incarnate.

EDIT: Also, where in the New Testament are the apostles ever called prophets? A great deal was revealed through them, but never are they referred to as prophets. So either God can reveal things through people who are not prophets, or Jesus established an apostate church from the get-go, according to your logic.

Not all branches of any have completely denounced revelation. I've heard evangelicals tell of revelations they believe they've received and Mary, mother of Jesus, is believed to have popped up repeatedly with secret revelations.

There may be a couple different definitions for "revelation" that are clouding the issue here. Obviously the Holy Spirit still grants revelations, in terms of individuals coming to know the truth. Revelations, more often than not, are not revealing completely new concepts and doctrines out of the blue, but are revealing old doctrines that have been there from the beginning of the church.

This is a case of the Holy Spirit giving "revelations" (lower case) to people, which increase their understanding of the "Revelation" (upper case) found in Christ and transmitted through his chosen messengers, the apostles.

The question becomes, though: If revelation is needed, why is God's church so radically different now than it was when Jesus established it?

Why is revelation (in the LDS sense) needed? Because there are issues on which Christians disagree? Well, the same is the case within the LDS church as well, but that alone doesn't seem to disqualify the LDS from being the true church. Instead of constant new revelation, what about the promised work of the Holy Spirit which guides and works in churches and individuals?

The church is different from when it was established for many reasons. One big one, as Steubie has already pointed out, is that the church early on had to change to meet the demand of a changing world and expanding body of believers. The LDS church is also different from its origins for similar reasons. Again, difference does not equal apostasy.

Take care, everyone

[cinepro]

From reading this thread, it almost seems the only argument for apostacy, or lack therof, is whether or not you think God is on "your side". If God isn't with the "other" Church, then anything they do is apostacy by definition.

But if God is on your side, than you can teach anything, change anything, and do anything, and it isn't apostacy.

So I don't see how you can appeal to changes in teachings, policies, doctrines, structure, ceremonies, or traditions as evidence of an apostacy. All you can say is that you think God didn't approve of their changes (but that he does approve of your changes), and hope people believe you.

As Nisfor pointed out, when considering the road Mormonism has traveled in the past 175 years, it's hard to to look at a 2,000 year old Church and accuse them of apostacy just because some things changed.

[BCSpace]

That verse alone invalidates any church that does not have or believe in living prophets to lead them.

Much like John 4:24 alone invalidates any church that preaches that God has a body?

Not at all. There are many other things that can invalidate God's authorization of a church such as points of doctrine or the fact that there can only be one.

If we were living in the Old Testament, you might have a point. But we're not.

You are confusing the OT with the Law of Moses which was fulfilled. Is Amos 3;7 part of the law of Moses or is it an eternal principle? My money is on principle....

This is a simple prooftext that doesn't take into account the whole of biblical testimony on the subject.

There is nothing that appears to contradict or change it and the pattern is felt throughout the entire Bible as well as required for the future (Ephesians 4:11-14...till we all come in unity of the faith).

God has done many things without telling prophets, in both Old Testament and New Testament times. Take the example of Saul prophesying, or Nebuchadnezzar having prophetic dreams.

Which makes them (or those who interpret) prophets. Duh!

Also, you forget Hebrews 1, which points to Christ as the penultimate revelation, not through prophets, but through God Himself incarnate

But it does not say that Christ is the last, just the most recent.

Why is revelation (in the LDS sense) needed? Because there are issues on which Christians disagree?

God is not the author of confusion.

Instead of constant new revelation, what about the promised work of the Holy Spirit which guides and works in churches and individuals?

All well and good, except is leaves out the Biblical pattern for prophetic guidance as has already been established and it leaves open the question of whose inspiration shall lead the Church? Some lay person from the pew, or God's authorized spokesmen?

Again, difference does not equal apostasy.

Nobody is making that point. Apostasy is a falling away which obviously happened to the early Church as evidenced by it's change to doctrines contrary to the original.

[BCSpace]

From reading this thread, it almost seems the only argument for apostacy, or lack therof, is whether or not you think God is on "your side". If God isn't with the "other" Church, then anything they do is apostacy by definition.

So it might appear on the surface. But since apostacy is a falling away, one only has to show if one's doctrines match those of the originals. Only the LDS Church can prove such a claim and has consistantly done so.

Any church that can't is in apostasy.

[rhinomelon]

God has done many things without telling prophets, in both Old Testament and New Testament times. Take the example of Saul prophesying, or Nebuchadnezzar having prophetic dreams.

Which makes them (or those who interpret) prophets. Duh!

Okay, so a person does not have to be titled a prophet in order to receive revelation. That's good. Athanasius, Augustine, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr are prophets, as they spoke truth. They weren't titled prophets, but they still brought God's truth in.

Your definitions are a little squirrelly, as they seem to let everyone in, or no one at all.

You are confusing the OT with the Law of Moses which was fulfilled. Is Amos 3;7 part of the law of Moses or is it an eternal principle? My money is on principle....

False dichotomy. It is not either/or in this case. In context, Amos 3 is referring to disasters and judgment, not additional revelation or scripture.

All well and good, except is leaves out the Biblical pattern for prophetic guidance as has already been established and it leaves open the question of whose inspiration shall lead the Church? Some lay person from the pew, or God's authorized spokesmen?

Where are the New Testament prophets?

Anyway, more later. Take care, everyone

[BCSpace]

You are confusing the OT with the Law of Moses which was fulfilled. Is Amos 3;7 part of the law of Moses or is it an eternal principle? My money is on principle....

False dichotomy.

Not at all.

In context, Amos 3 is referring to disasters and judgment, not additional revelation or scripture.

It's more than that. The context is about the Lord taking care of everything His people need. Still doesn't change the fact that the Lord will do nothing unless....

All well and good, except is leaves out the Biblical pattern for prophetic guidance as has already been established and it leaves open the question of whose inspiration shall lead the Church? Some lay person from the pew, or God's authorized spokesmen?

Where are the New Testament prophets?

Once you understand what prophecy is (Revelation 19:10) then you see them all over the NT. Peter being the 'chief' prophet.

What about Ephesians 4:11-14 wherein we see that living prophets are required til the end of time (til we all come in unity of the faith)?

[Uncle Dale]

But since apostacy is a falling away, one only has to show if one's doctrines match those of the originals. Only the LDS Church can prove such a claim and has consistantly done so.

If I understand LDS dogma correctly, we are in the final dispensation of the Gospel,

and the LDS Church, by definition, cannot fall into apostasy -- nor can any of its

living prophets lead it astray.

Correct?

The RLDS Church, by contrast, went into apostasy even before its formation, in that its

founding members did not follow Brigham Young, the living prophet of the only church

that has never (and will never) become apostate (in that its leader cannot lead it into

doctrinal error, and because in the final dispensation, priestly authority will not again be

taken from the earth)

Correct again?

Uncle "now try telling the Saints down at Short Creek that particular doctrine" Dale

[rhinomelon]

Once you understand what prophecy is (Revelation 19:10) then you see them all over the NT. Peter being the 'chief' prophet.

What about Ephesians 4:11-14 wherein we see that living prophets are required til the end of time (til we all come in unity of the faith)?

A very open definition again. As Revelation 19:10 states that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, nothing is to stop Athanasius, Augustine, and others being prophets as well. Or, for that matter, Billy Graham, Pope Benedict XVI, and other great men of the Christian faith. Apparently we are not as lost as you think we are...

[rhinomelon]

So it might appear on the surface. But since apostacy is a falling away, one only has to show if one's doctrines match those of the originals. Only the LDS Church can prove such a claim and has consistantly done so.

Any church that can't is in apostasy.

Unique tenets of the LDS faith are nowhere to be found in the early church (such as the humanity of God the Father, etc.). Tenets that are quite basic that LDS can adopt without reservation can be found, but these are so generic that mainstream Christianity is hardly excluded. Even those statements that seem to support LDS theology are either (a) so few and far between that one could hardly label such statements as "consistent" support for LDS doctrines, or ( are statements pulled out of a larger theological context that obviously does not support LDS belief.

If someone was looking at the earliest ECF for a system of doctrine, one like that of the LDS church would never be found. One has to start with modern revelation and shoehorn it back into the text to make any claim for ancient LDS origins.

Take care, everyone

[Pem]

Rhinomelon stated:

The church is different from when it was established for many reasons. One big one, as Steubie has already pointed out, is that the church early on had to change to meet the demand of a changing world and expanding body of believers. The LDS church is also different from its origins for similar reasons. Again, difference does not equal apostasy.

I would like to add something to Rhino's comment here. Not only did the church have to meet the demand of an expanding body of believers, but up until 1450 it had to do so without the followers having written texts. In 1450, Gutenberg invented the first printing press for the masses. As a result, many individuals could afford to possess a bible and need not rely on someone else for its recitation. This surely changed how the gospel was preached, and was probobly an influence on the reformation. Couldn't this be one of God's ways to keep the church from going into total apostasy?

[Smith]

It should continue to bug you because without continuing prophetic revelation "the church" has no leg to stand on! There are way to many changes introduced by men without Gods approval for anything else to be the case.

See, this is something that I don't understand. I understand why it could be seen as a plus if continuing revelation was part of the Church, but I don't understand the assertion that the Church cannot stand without it.

Simply because man is unable to maintain something perfectly without Divine help. Witness the continual backsliding of Israel over many years and the sending of prophets to get them back onto the right track. Apparently the same happened with Christianity, why else the councils and then the reformation?

What I smile about are the Protestors all doing their bit of panel beating to the church in order to reform it but seeing all the different "reforms" that are around it is quite clear they have created their own bit of artwork but have not remade God's original.

If the Catholics are right, the rest of us are all off track and there is need need of a reformation or restoration. If they are wrong and there is need of restoration then it is up to God to provide and not man to guess. It is clear to me that all the guessing of the reformers has resulted in so many different buckled shapes that I am amazed people go along with it. There must needs have been, (or yet be if you dont think there has been), a restoration of Gods pure saving truths.

[Nisfor]

From reading this thread, it almost seems the only argument for apostacy, or lack therof, is whether or not you think God is on "your side". If God isn't with the "other" Church, then anything they do is apostacy by definition.

So it might appear on the surface. But since apostacy is a falling away, one only has to show if one's doctrines match those of the originals. Only the LDS Church can prove such a claim and has consistantly done so.

Any church that can't is in apostasy.

If I may make use of another poster's favorite expression - "BatSqueeze".

It only "proves" that it "matches the originals" "consistantly" by "interpreting" "originals" "consitantly" to match what it teaches now.