Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[Sput]

as revelation could change the foundational beliefs of the faith over night

If it is in rightousneous this should be embraced. Its one of the things I love about the church. I find comfort in so many things due to knowing that the heavens are no longer closed to Heavenly Fathers children.

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

The foundation of the Church has always been and will always be the testamony of Jesus the Christ.

[rhinomelon]

If it is in rightousneous this should be embraced. Its one of the things I love about the church. I find comfort in so many things due to knowing that the heavens are no longer closed to Heavenly Fathers children.

Who said the heavens were closed? Has not the Holy Spirit been active among those who follow Christ for two thousand years, as was promised? I certainly believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he has been.

My difficulty is not with the "closed heavens" (whatever that means), but the lack of an unchanging foundation in the LDS church. One that is built on rock, not shifting sand, to put it rather poetically.

rhinomelon:

The foundation of the Church has always been and will always be the testamony of Jesus the Christ.

[Pahoran]

The entire LDS theology rests on this premise: immediately after the apostles died, the priesthood was lost and there was no longer a godly authority on earth.

Here's a thought, Steubie: how's about we tell you what our theology rests upon, and you can listen. That way, you get to learn something, and you don't leave the impression that you're about as humble as Atilla the Hun.

It is true that the need for a restoration rests upon the premise that there was a general apostasy. The need for a restoration, however, is not "the entire LDS theology." Nor is it necessary for the apostasy to have occurred "immediately after the apostles died."

Since the so called great apostasy is so critical to Mormon theology I figured that if such a thing had actually happened Mormon apologetics would point it out. I read Nibley's essays, among other works, like Talmage's "Great Apostasy." 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 agree that someone is. But it wasn't Professor Nibley.

We've heard this accusation before. Each time it has been detailed enough to be scrutinised, it has been shown to be bogus. Now if you have the courage to engage the living and not just slander the dead, I suggest that you substantiate that accusation.

But if not, then you can always just go back into lurk mode, and we will all know why.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortimer]

Is there any evidence that this apostasy took place?

How about the Didache's theology which rationalizes baptism by pouring water over the head if enough water is not available for immersion? Circa 50-120 A.D. Chapter 7. Also refers to prophets asking for money.

The Didache otherwise contains good stuff -- prohibition against abortion, child molestation.

[rhinomelon]

How about the Didache's theology which rationalizes baptism by pouring water over the head if enough water is not available for immersion? Circa 50-120 A.D. Chapter 7. Also refers to prophets asking for money.

How is this evidence of the Great Apostasy?

It is true that the need for a restoration rests upon the premise that there was a general apostasy. The need for a restoration, however, is not "the entire LDS theology." Nor is it necessary for the apostasy to have occurred "immediately after the apostles died."

The need for restoration is, however, the foundation for the entire LDS theology. If there was no apostasy, then there was no Restoration, and all the doctrines and practices inherent in that Restoration are suspect, although not automatically false.

Going into the realm of personal opinion here, I believe that LDS must argue that the apostasy took place immediately after the apostles' deaths, because the writings we have from the disciples of the apostles already promote doctrines that are not LDS in nature. Various aspects of mainstream Christianity (that are not found in LDS theology) can trace their development so far back that either the apostasy was in full swing immediately after the apostles, or there was no apostasy, just an unbroken chain of interpretation, exegesis, and doctrinal development.

Just my thoughts. Take care, everyone

[SteubieU]

Here's a thought, Steubie: how's about we tell you what our theology rests upon, and you can listen. That way, you get to learn something, and you don't leave the impression that you're about as humble as Atilla the Hun.

"Alright young sir, I meant no offence.

[BCSpace]

Going into the realm of personal opinion here, I believe that LDS must argue that the apostasy took place immediately after the apostles' deaths, because the writings we have from the disciples of the apostles already promote doctrines that are not LDS in nature. Various aspects of mainstream Christianity (that are not found in LDS theology) can trace their development so far back that either the apostasy was in full swing immediately after the apostles,

Not unreasonable as there is plenty of evidence for such a thing. For example....

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Acts 20:29

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2 Tim 1:15

Asia was most of the Church at the time btw.

or there was no apostasy, just an unbroken chain of interpretation, exegesis, and doctrinal development.

Impossible as future doctrines did not build on earlier ones but contradicted them totally.

[rhinomelon]

Not unreasonable as there is plenty of evidence for such a thing. For example....

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Acts 20:29

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2 Tim 1:15

Asia was most of the Church at the time btw.

Once again the usual prooftexts come up, with the LDS ultra-pessimistic interpretation attached. You ignore the many references to a healthy, growing Christianity scattered throughout the New Testament. There were savage wolves that came in, no doubt about it, and they were not intending to spare the flock. But nowhere does it say that the flock was completely destroyed.

Also, in context, "all those in Asia" does not refer to apostasy, but abandoning Paul himself at his trial. Paul has strong language for those who abandon the faith, and it is conspicuously absent here.

or there was no apostasy, just an unbroken chain of interpretation, exegesis, and doctrinal development.

Impossible as future doctrines did not build on earlier ones but contradicted them totally.

First, those central aspects of the faith early on were not contradicted by their later development. There were peripheral issues that came and went, but never stuck.

Second, total contradiction shouldn't bother you as an LDS person, as the LDS church has held completely contradictory stances itself over time.

Take care, everyone

[SteubieU]

Asia was most of the Church at the time btw.

A footnote in my BIble says that "Asia" is an ancient province in Turkey.

[BCSpace]

Once again the usual prooftexts come up, with the LDS ultra-pessimistic interpretation attached. You ignore the many references to a healthy, growing Christianity scattered throughout the New Testament. There were savage wolves that came in, no doubt about it, and they were not intending to spare the flock. But nowhere does it say that the flock was completely destroyed.

There is nothing pessimistic about it. The only question for you is Paul making a prophecy here and was it therefore false? You've essentially invalidated much of the NT because it comes from a false prophet.

[BCSpace]

Asia was most of the Church at the time btw. 

A footnote in my BIble says that "Asia" is an ancient province in Turkey.

A footnote in my scholarship shows that this is where most of the Christian converts lived at the time. John G. Davies, The Early Christian Church, 86

[Nisfor]

Once again the usual prooftexts come up, with the LDS ultra-pessimistic interpretation attached. You ignore the many references to a healthy, growing Christianity scattered throughout the New Testament. There were savage wolves that came in, no doubt about it, and they were not intending to spare the flock. But nowhere does it say that the flock was completely destroyed.

There is nothing pessimistic about it. The only question for you is Paul making a prophecy here and was it therefore false? You've essentially invalidated much of the NT because it comes from a false prophet.

I've picked up a few tricks hanging around all the apologistical folks here at FAIR, and I think I can address this.

He wasn't a false prophet because -

either, "The prophecy was conditional."

or, "He didn't prepend it with "Thus saith the Lord," so it's not a prophecy."

or, "It was just his opinion."

[BCSpace]

There is nothing pessimistic about it. The only question for you is Paul making a prophecy here and was it therefore false? You've essentially invalidated much of the NT because it comes from a false prophet. 

I've picked up a few tricks hanging around all the apologistical folks here at FAIR, and I think I can address this.

He wasn't a false prophet because -

either, "The prophecy was conditional."

or, "He didn't prepend it with "Thus saith the Lord," so it's not a prophecy."

or, "It was just his opinion."

Not unreasonable either. But the question now is, are you LDS? If not, it seems rather unlikely that you actually hold to any of those points.

Also, are you a nonLDS Christian and do you believe in sola scriptura? That pov alone forces you to accept Paul's statement as the word of God lest you deny sola scriptura.

[rhinomelon]

There is nothing pessimistic about it. The only question for you is Paul making a prophecy here and was it therefore false? You've essentially invalidated much of the NT because it comes from a false prophet.

Not at all. As LDS are fond of pointing out, some prophecies are conditional in nature. This is how some of Joseph Smith's more eccentric proclamations are resolved.

Also, you can make no case that the scope of the statement was "a church-wide total apostasy". As I said earlier, Paul does not say that the flock will be destroyed. He speaks to the ruthless character of the enemy the elders are called to fight. It can be seen as a warning, which better fits the context of the passage, as well as the audience Paul was speaking to. Look at the verses before and after Acts 20:29, and you might see my point:

Starting at verse 28: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!"

It is a warning, not a doomsday prophecy of certain destruction. If it were that, don't you think they would be disturbed by it? But Luke writes on: "What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again."

Either they were the worst bishops ever, with all their priorities askew (which would contradict Paul's words to them) because they weren't worried about the coming apostasy, or they were good men of God who took Paul's words as he intended them, as a warning and a solemn charge to carry out their duty.

Sorry, the LDS pessimism doesn't fit this passage at all.

Take care, everyone

[Nisfor]

There is nothing pessimistic about it. The only question for you is Paul making a prophecy here and was it therefore false? You've essentially invalidated much of the NT because it comes from a false prophet. 

I've picked up a few tricks hanging around all the apologistical folks here at FAIR, and I think I can address this.

He wasn't a false prophet because -

either, "The prophecy was conditional."

or, "He didn't prepend it with "Thus saith the Lord," so it's not a prophecy."

or, "It was just his opinion."

Not unreasonable either. But the question now is, are you LDS?

No. Well kinda. I'm "in the [church] but not of the [church]".

If not, it seems rather unlikely that you actually hold to any of those points.

Why, are these arguments only applicable to LDS prophets or prophecy?

Also, are you a nonLDS Christian and do you believe in sola scriptura?  That pov alone forces you to accept Paul's statement as the word of God lest you deny sola scriptura.

No... and no.

[SteubieU]

Just wondering... don't LDS CHurch leaders ever write to specific churches or even to the whole church and warn about fighting against doctrinal error and unfaithfulness?

[BCSpace]

Not at all. As LDS are fond of pointing out, some prophecies are conditional in nature.

See my previous post. And see also Jeremiah 18:1-10. And notice also the changing and contradictory doctrines of the later church (which you have yet to address or address fully). Paul was correct.

This is how some of Joseph Smith's more eccentric proclamations are resolved.

Appending your opinion of 'eccentric' does not change the fact that no one has yet to come up with a single false prophecy of JS.

Also, you can make no case that the scope of the statement was "a church-wide total apostasy".

Already have. You were unable to come up with an adequate response for Revelation 13:7, or the Pastor of Hermas, or the great weight of corrupt and missing doctrine in the later Church etc. I am not using Acts or Timothy as 'universal' verses. Apostasy Universal is the only thing that fits.

[BCSpace]

Also, are you a nonLDS Christian and do you believe in sola scriptura?  That pov alone forces you to accept Paul's statement as the word of God lest you deny sola scriptura.

No... and no.

Then you have no basis for making these arguments in the first place.

[BCSpace]

Just wondering... don't LDS CHurch leaders ever write to specific churches or even to the whole church and warn about fighting against doctrinal error and unfaithfulness?

Warn against fighting against doctrinal error and unfaithfulness? Depends on what you mean by 'fighting'. I'd say so far, no, they don't.

[rhinomelon]

See my previous post. And see also Jeremiah 18:1-10. And notice also the changing and contradictory doctrines of the later church (which you have yet to address or address fully). Paul was correct.

I doubt that anyone could ever address this issues to your satisfaction. The demonstrable fact that doctrine develops has been addressed multiple times by SteubieU and others. I have no doubt that there are some contradictions (as there are in LDS theology and history), but in the basic issues, there is incredible unity.

Unity that does not include LDS positions on certain issues, by the way, such as the nature of God.

Appending your opinion of 'eccentric' does not change the fact that no one has yet to come up with a single false prophecy of JS.

You're right. They've come up with seven false prophecies.

Already have. You were unable to come up with an adequate response for Revelation 13:7

I didn't have to. Other LDS shot it down. Killing and making war against the saints does not equal apostasy. Also, nowhere does it state that all the saints are killed. It just says that the beast has the power to kill them. Again, you are drawing overly expansive conclusions on flimsy evidence and a great amount of pessimism.

or the Pastor of Hermas,

Johnny has addressed this at length. Also, one passage that is difficult to interpret should not be held higher than the wealth of clear biblical and ECF testimony that teaches about the preservation of the Church.

or the great weight of corrupt and missing doctrine in the later Church etc.

The only "missing doctrines" are those that had little or no historical or theological precedent before 1830. I have no problem if those are missing from my belief structure and faith community. "Corrupt" is in the eye of the beholder.

More later, some biblical references for BC to take a crack at. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Warn against fighting against doctrinal error and unfaithfulness? Depends on what you mean by 'fighting'. I'd say so far, no, they don't.

I think it is quite clear what Steubie was asking. Dodging based on grammar doesn't help your case. Let me ask you directly: Does the LDS Church leadership ever warn the membership about struggle, opposition, doctrinal controversy, and/or unfaithfulness to the gospel and the church?

Thanks

[Deborah]

Does the LDS Church leadership ever warn the membership about struggle, opposition, doctrinal controversy, and/or unfaithfulness to the gospel and the church?

Well, yes, every General Conference and every month in the church magazines. Depending of course what you mean by warning membership.

[rhinomelon]

Does the LDS Church leadership ever warn the membership about struggle, opposition, doctrinal controversy, and/or unfaithfulness to the gospel and the church?

Well, yes, every General Conference and every month in the church magazines. Depending of course what you mean by warning membership.

While I am not precisely sure if Steubie and I are on the same wavelength as far as this question goes, this is what I gather from the above exchange. Warning about the inevitability of opposition and unfaithfulness (and the need to overcome and resist them) is not a prophecy that these things will, without fail, overcome the church. It is a warning meant to bolster the determination of the membership to combat these inevitable ills.

And yet the LDS interpretation of many biblical passages, Acts 20:29 in particular, takes just such an interpretation, applying it to mainstream Christianity. "Because Paul warned against the coming intrusion of men wanting to destroy the church, that must mean that it happened." It doesn't make sense, unless the LDS church is also inevitably doomed to apostasy, because the First Presidency constantly warns the membership about it.

That's what I see there. Maybe Steubie has some other thoughts. Take care, everyone

[Mortimer]

How about the Didache's theology which rationalizes baptism by pouring water over the head if enough water is not available for immersion? Circa 50-120 A.D. Chapter 7. Also refers to prophets asking for money.

How is this evidence of the Great Apostasy?

Why not?

There is no common belief system between us which will accommodate "evidence." It would be like you being a Muslim, and asking for evidence of Islam's apostate condition. I cite to Joseph Smith, or the popes; you contend that such citation is evidence that Christianity or Mormonism is apostate.

Turning to baptism and the Didache:

If you believe that baptism by immersion is essential, then this is proof that the Church deviated from this absolute.

If you believe that baptism is not essential (the Didache says that it is) or that baptism by immersion is not essential, then you are merely part of the millieu of the apostacy, and no evidence can possibly persuade you.

In my numerous discussions with evangelicals, I point out that the doctrine of sola scriptura is nowhere mentioned in the patristic literature, and thus the doctrine is apostate. Their argument is that Christians finally got it right in the 11th century when the doctrine first was discussed.

In my discussions with evangelicals, I point to numerous patristic statements which say the authority in the ministry is essential, and that obedience to one's bishop is an essential element of Christian worship and practice. I say that this is proof of Protestant apostacy; they say this is proof that the body of Christ finally got it right.

How may "evidence" be produced upon these shifting sands? My cited evidence shows me apostacy; the same evidence shows you that the Church finally got it right. So, why ask the question?

Mort