Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[SteubieU]

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.

You hit the nail straight on the head, my friend. And said it much more eloquently than I could have!

[SteubieU]

BC Space, I have a legitimate question, a question that I am really interested in your answer to:

How do you see what happened in the early Church as being substantially different than what happened after the death of Joseph Smith as far as splinter groups and such?

[USU78]

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]

How do you see what happened in the early Church as being substantially different than what happened after the death of Joseph Smith as far as splinter groups and such?

Early Church: The Lord, through the Bible (verses we have already discussed) and the ECF, predicted the Universal Apostasy.

Restored Church: The Lord, through JS, said the priesthood and oracles of God shall would never be taken away (D&C 13:1, D&C 90:3-4).

In other words, there is prophetic prediction of Universal Apostasy for the early Church, none such for the Restored Church.

In other words, none of the splinters from the early Christian Apostasy can be God authorized whereas one of the groups who came after JS is.

[rhinomelon]

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.

I would disagree with this. Mainstream Christianity and the LDS church both claim to best represent early, apostolic Christianity. That is a common source of "evidence" to which we can turn (and I would say we must turn) in order to explore our foundation. I agree that you quoting Joseph Smith and me quoting the Pope would be rather fruitless, as they come much after the fact. But there is that common beginning. From all I've read and studied, the LDS church has no real foundation in history, other than a few random quotes and a great deal of speculation. Of course, I am still reading and studying

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.

But here you err in assuming that the Didache is the absolute, when it is not.

In other words, there is prophetic prediction of Universal Apostasy for the early Church, none such for the Restored Church.

The position of the LDS church must be this, although the biblical and ECF basis for it is quite shaky, as we've already seen. It is an odd combination of pessimism with regard to the early church, and a hope that they did in fact fail.

Anyway, it is not the texts on the Great Apostasy that interest me as much, although they are important and by no means conclusive with regard to the LDS Great Apostasy. The more I think and write on the subject, the more I become concerned with the theological implications of the Great Apostasy, especially as it relates to the power and sovereignty of God. The Great Apostasy, if it were true, would represent nothing less than the failure of God, in my opinion. The care of the Church, although full of imperfect human beings, is ultimately the duty of Christ, the bridegroom.

More thoughts on this later, probably tomorrow. Take care, everyone

[USU78]

The Great Apostasy, if it were true, would represent nothing less than the failure of God, in my opinion.

Not if you believe G-d is serious about man's personal sovereignty.

If G-d chooses, in love for us, not to interfere with our choices it is not His fault if His children reject Him. What else is the Eden Myth than a depiction of man's willful rejection of G-d?

[juliann]

The position of the LDS church must be this, although the biblical and ECF basis for it is quite shaky, as we've already seen. It is an odd combination of pessimism with regard to the early church, and a hope that they did in fact fail.

The Bible is full of evidence. You are just giving other explanations to what we would consider a plain reading. As for the ECFs....I don't know where there is to go when you have one of the first, Justin Martyr complaining about religious texts being tampered with. LDS theology rests more on the OT than Church Fathers. You are completely bypassing this. I've missed a lot but I don't see where anyone has explained the loss of the temple...the handy interpretation that it was merely metaphorical isn't too convincing when the apostles continued to go to the temple.

Where was the head of the church, Rhino? Why were the philosophers allowed to determine what church doctrine was? Why did Origen not go ask the head of the church to clarify his questions?

  The more I think and write on the subject, the more I become concerned with the theological implications of the Great Apostasy, especially as it relates to the power and sovereignty of God. The Great Apostasy, if it were true, would represent nothing less than the failure of God, in my opinion.

Then how do you explain the cycle of apostasy in OT times? You do have to explain that if you are maintaining any position that apostasy is a failure of God.

[juliann]

But here you err in assuming that the Didache is the absolute, when it is not.

In other words, there is prophetic prediction of Universal Apostasy for the early Church, none such for the Restored Church.

But it is another witness. Why were they having to make up rules about how to deal with wandering prophets? Why didn't they just go ask the head of the church who they should listen to? Even the Corinthian "pseudo-apostles" came with letters of recommendation from Jerusalem, Rhino. That should tell you that there was an order to things, there was a need to authenticate authority...even when there was squabbling. This created huge problems for Paul because these guys had the right credentials while he has to argue for his. Did you not notice that Paul never just says their letters of recommendation are fake? Why not? He obviously thought these guys were bringing a false message. It is only mid-century yet we have biblical proof that,

1. Letter of recommendation were expected and allowed the bearer to represent the gospel.

2. The power struggles were in full swing.

[rhinomelon]

Not if you believe G-d is serious about man's personal sovereignty.

If G-d chooses, in love for us, not to interfere with our choices it is not His fault if His children reject Him. What else is the Eden Myth than a depiction of man's willful rejection of G-d?

I agree that free will is something that God respects and gives humanity. However, this does not mean that God is completely hands off when it comes to interacting with human beings. Far from it. Biblically speaking, God continually works in the hearts of human beings, calling them to Himself. God also promises to answer those who seek Him. The Holy Spirit promises to be continually active in the minds and hearts of those who seek and follow Christ. I fail to see how there could be a complete apostasy when it obviously does not all rest on human ability. Did God stop calling people to Himself? Did the Holy Spirit suddenly abandon those who were earnestly seeking Christ? Did the life and love of Christ suddenly stop flowing into the Christians around the world, changing lives and attracting more and more people to the faith? Quite simply, the answer to all these questions is "no".

This is a failing within the LDS position, in my opinion. Everything stands or falls based on human effort (or lack thereof). Both the Old and New Testaments put a great deal more emphasis on the sovereignty and constant working of God, while still acknowledging and accounting for human desire or effort. The LDS view misses this balance.

The Bible is full of evidence. You are just giving other explanations to what we would consider a plain reading.

I find this ironic, as the plain reading of most of the passages LDS refer to clearly indicates a partial apostasy, not a complete one. Some will fall away, some will lead others astray, etc. None of the verses I've seen predict a total apostasy in the clear, plainest reading of the text.

More in a bit. Take care, and good thoughts for me to ponder.

[rhinomelon]

As for the ECFs....I don't know where there is to go when you have one of the first, Justin Martyr complaining about religious texts being tampered with. LDS theology rests more on the OT than Church Fathers. You are completely bypassing this.

Was he complaining about tampering with the apostolic writings, later known as the New Testament? Or was he focusing more on the Old Testament writings?

LDS theology does rest a great deal on the Old Testament, which is a helpful distinction to keep in mind most of the time. However, given the LDS principle that latter revelation must judge former revelation, why doesn't LDS theology rest more on the New Testament?

I've missed a lot but I don't see where anyone has explained the loss of the temple...the handy interpretation that it was merely metaphorical isn't too convincing when the apostles continued to go to the temple.

The apostles went to the temple because they were Jewish. In the early days of Christianity (before it was even called Christianity), it was a Jewish movement, through and through. Jesus was the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, of the whole Jewish system. The temple played an enormous part in Judaism. However, as the divide between Christians and Jews grew wider (no doubt brought on in part by the inclusion of the Gentiles in the former), the temple became less and less of an issue. Temple visitation was not a requirement for early Christians. It ceased to be an issue for Christianity when it was destroyed in AD 70.

The concept of temple was drastically changed in Christianity, starting with Jesus himself, and continuing on more obviously with the apostles. God's temple is now His people, the people of the new covenant. Believers are temples of God. This is amply attested to in the earliest of the church fathers, like Ignatius, for example. The equating of "temple" with a specific building to which one had to go was not really a part of early Christianity at all.

Where was the head of the church, Rhino? Why were the philosophers allowed to determine what church doctrine was? Why did Origen not go ask the head of the church to clarify his questions?

Who was the one head of the church in the apostolic period? Where is that found biblically? The early church was not a systematic organization, much as LDS would like to think so. The organization developed over time.

Then how do you explain the cycle of apostasy in OT times? You do have to explain that if you are maintaining any position that apostasy is a failure of God.

Good question. The Israelites rejected God, but never was the apostasy a complete and total one. Elijah thought he was the last at one point, but God said there were seven thousand others! Also, God never rejected Israel and chose another people to be His covenant people. God continued with Israel, continued to send prophets and continued to work in and through Israel despite their fickle nature.

This is the way I see it at this point. In addition, the situation of the Church is slightly different than that of Israel in some important respects, such as how God deals with each.

Anyway, time to head out. Thanks for all the thoughts, everyone. Take care

[Mortimer]

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.

But here you err in assuming that the Didache is the absolute, when it is not.

You lost me.

The Didache simply reports the Church's theological debate over baptism. Evidence of a drift.

Many many other examples from the patristics. The Shepherd of Hermes, long considered scripture in the ancient church, reports on the practice of baptism for the dead as an acceptable practice.

[juliann]

Was he complaining about tampering with the apostolic writings, later known as the New Testament? Or was he focusing more on the Old Testament writings?

All they had was the "Old Testament". To tamper with that was to tamper with Christianity.

However, many writings other than these [Acts, Hebrews, Apocalypse of John] were highly esteemed, and often even more widely used.  The letter known as 1 Clement was prominent among them.  Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.3) spoke highly of it, Clement of Alexandria called it

[1dc]

Who was the one head of the church in the apostolic period? Where is that found biblically?

The early church was not a systematic organization, much as LDS would like to think so. The organization developed over time.

Yes...but it developed in a way that would have been unrecognizable to the first apostles. I am very puzzled as to how you can support a "nonsystematic" church. They had offices. They replaced empty positions. They had meetings. Why was Paul traveling to Jerusalem to meet with Peter? Why did he defer to him? Why do the Apostolic Fathers put such emphasis on hearers of John? If there was no "system" what was Paul advocating and why? On what basis?

You rock Juliann.

Many Christians have followed traditions but facts are stubborn little things (relative to both traditions and LDS claims). There's no way traditional stories show unity. If they claim there was not organization then it doesn't fit tradition, if they claim there was, then the facts tend to suggest the organization and doctrine evolved instead of remaining pure. While not absolute proof, it is very convincing.

It also soberingly suggests concerns for LDS leaders . . except that documents, education, and communication are also far more prevelant among adherents now than then.

[BCSpace]

The position of the LDS church must be this, although the biblical and ECF basis for it is quite shaky, as we've already seen.

How so? You have not addressed the verses in context yet, you have not explained why later doctrines contradicted earlier ones instead of building on them. And you have not explained LDS-like doctrines extant in the early Church that are non-existant in the later church.

It is an odd combination of pessimism with regard to the early church,

A continuing attempt to avoid answering the questions.

and a hope that they did in fact fail.

We are quite certain (as is much of nonLDS Christian scholarship). No need for hope here.

Anyway, it is not the texts on the Great Apostasy that interest me as much, although they are important and by no means conclusive with regard to the LDS Great Apostasy.

Yet another attempt to avoid answering the questions.

[rhinomelon]

How so? You have not addressed the verses in context yet, you have not explained why later doctrines contradicted earlier ones instead of building on them.

I have addressed your verses using nothing but context, and I find them incredibly lacking in anything resembling a total, Great Apostasy. You simply haven't responded to what I've said.

We are quite certain (as is much of nonLDS Christian scholarship). No need for hope here.

Non-LDS scholarship does not defend any kind of "Great Apostasy", which is a matter of foundational faith for the LDS community. Non-LDS scholarship can point to the evolution of doctrine and organization, maybe asserting that it isn't what Jesus and the apostles started out with, but they don't draw absurd conclusions like a complete apostasy from the truth.

So look at my responses thus far, particularly to your passage from Acts and I Timothy. Then respond to my response, instead of ignoring it. That is how discussion works.

Take care

[rhinomelon]

All they had was the "Old Testament". To tamper with that was to tamper with Christianity.

I would disagree with that right off the bat. The earliest church fathers quoted from the writings of the apostles alongside those of the New Testament. Clement quoted Ephesians as "Sacred Scripture". The apostolic testimony and writings was an integral part of the framework of Christianity from the very beginning, even before the canon was formed.

And I agree that early Christians used many texts. But with regard to the tampering spoken of by Justin Martyr (and correct me if I'm wrong here), he asserted that it was the Jews who were altering the text, changing it from what was said in the Septuagint. Not only that, but in this passage, Justin quotes a passage from Jeremiah which is not extant in the text. Irenaeus, I think, quotes the same one twice, attributing it to Isaiah once and Jeremiah once. Is this passage found in any ancient text, aside from the ECF? I don't believe that it is. So why assume that it was tampered with at all, when all we have is an accusation? Is this a "guilty until proven innocent" method of historical study?

If it was not "total" there would have been no need for new prophets. The pattern has remained the same since the inception of written records.

So the fact that the LDS church keeps getting new prophets means they are constantly in apostasy? Your above statement doesn't compute. Why assume that the prophets are only sent when the apostasy becomes total, instead of before? Also, I think you are forgetting that the New Testament does not speak of an office of "prophet". There are prophets, to be sure, but not an office or position of leadership for the whole church. The New Testament is different from the Old Testament in this regard.

More later. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Good questions raised about the place of the temple in early Christianity, juliann. I'm going to do a little reading on that over the weekend, so hopefully I'll have something moderately intelligent to say on the topic next week.

Any thoughts from Steubie on this one? Take care, everyone

[rameumptom]

As I understand what was happening in the first few centuries AD, this is what happened:

There were men ordained all over the place with the priesthood (apostles, bishops, elders, etc). However, as these people spread forth and were killed or died, getting back together to reorganize an area or a quorum grew difficult. When Fox' Book of Martyrs has the apostles being killed all over Asia and Europe (from India to Rome), we can see it could have taken years for the Church to find out that they were short a few of the Twelve.

Many people tried to step into the vacuums being created by such deaths. The Gnostics claimed to have the authority and secrets of the original apostles. They wrote their books as if written by Peter, Thomas and others of the 12. Many members in many areas accepted these teachings as authentic, and so we have major apostasy going on. Eusebius wrote at length at many key Church leaders, such as Marcion, that were teaching non-orthodox ideas. At the Council of Nicea, we see several differing beliefs in the Trinity: Athanasius', Arius', and what is now called Origenism (which Eusebius believed in). Those that did not agree with Athanasius ended up excommunicated and exiled. Eusebius himself was exiled.

Later, St Jerome and others began to attack earlier staunch "orthodox" leaders like Origen as being "heretic." This is true, even though Origen was a leading Father of his day, and quoted by many Church leaders prior to Jerome and Augustine.

Because of the many claims of new revelations and secrets being revealed by the Gnostics and others, the proto-orthodox Church was finally forced to proclaim that there was no more revelation. They established an authoritative list of scripture, to protect the Church from being "deceived" by faked writings and revelations. Even very popular books like the Shepherd of Hermes and Enoch were discarded because of the revelations within them did not fully agree with Jerome's ideas on orthodoxy and provenance.

This rejection of continuing revelation came against the beliefs of the early Church Fathers that insisted on revelation. Even Justin Martyr explained to the Jew Trypho that if Christianity did not have continuing revelation, it would be as dead as Judaism. Yet a couple centuries later, the orthodox Church had rejected revelation, because they could not control it.

With the death of the apostles, some authority remained in the local churches. However, it dissipated along with the rejection of key beliefs: such as continuing revelation. By the time of Jerome, the authority was pretty much gone.

Apostasy continued. If one believes the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to be the true Church, then any and every new Christian church that came out of it is a sign of apostasy. Yet, their claim of original authority is challenged by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which have as ancient a claim as their own.

With thousands of Christian Churches today, and each differing at least a little in doctrine and substance, we can see that an apostasy has taken place. Was all the truth lost? Of course not. God gives to all mankind as much truth as they are willing to receive (Alma 29: . But many of the key truths and authorities were lost. And the only way to officially restore them was by an angel from God. Because without revelation, many of the lost truths could never be found again, except as an opinion/belief in an occasional Christian church.

[flavo]

Which is the true church establised by Jesus? All churches have a date and person who founded the church. How can that be possible? If there was no apostacy, wouldn't there be a church that is historically dated to the time of Christ and have Him as the founder? Secondly, if it is His church, wouldn't it be called by His name?

There is no confucion over who started Buddaism.

And also, a reformed church cannot count as a true church. The classical argument of "the gates of hell not prevailing" would void out the true church becoming corrupt in the first place. I cannot believe a dead tree can grow a new branch, They would both share the corrupted roots system.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church that I am aware of that claims restoration not reformation.

Adventist William Miller c.1820

Amish Jacob Amman c.1600

Assemblies of God From Pentecostalism 1914

Baptist John Smyth 1609

Christadelphian (Brethren of Christ) John Thomas c.1844

Christian Scientist Mary Baker Eddy 1879

Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) Thomas Campbell c.1827

Church of God From different religious bodies

end of 19th century

Church of God in Christ Largest of Church of God 1895

Church of Nazarene From different religious bodies 1908

Congregational Robert Brown 1600

Congregationalist Pilgrims and Puritans 1648

Episcopal (Anglican, Church of England) Henry VIII 1534

Four Square Gospel Aimee Semple McPherson 1927

Holiness From Methodism 1867

Lutheran Martin Luther 1517

Mennonite Menno Simons c.1536

Methodist John Wesley 1739

Methodist Episcopal 60 Preachers 1784

Methodist Protestant Methodism 1830

Pentecostal Charles F. Parkham 1901

Presbyterian John Knox 1560

Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) George Fox 1649

Salvation Army William Booth 1865

Seventh Day Baptists Stephen Mumford 1672

Seventh Day Adventist Ellen Harmon White 1844

United Church of Christ From Reformed and Congregationalist Churches 1961

United Methodist From Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren Churches

[rhinomelon]

There were men ordained all over the place with the priesthood (apostles, bishops, elders, etc). However, as these people spread forth and were killed or died, getting back together to reorganize an area or a quorum grew difficult. When Fox' Book of Martyrs has the apostles being killed all over Asia and Europe (from India to Rome), we can see it could have taken years for the Church to find out that they were short a few of the Twelve.

This is where I see a problem with the whole line of reasoning. Where is a "quorum" ever mentioned? Where in the New Testament do we see it necessary to have a quorum of twelve?

I think this is an example of LDS reading back into history what should be there, but isn't mentioned. Not only is it not mentioned, but gathering any kind of quorum together would be impossible back then, even before the severe persecutions started, as the apostles were out spreading the gospel and starting churches.

Many people tried to step into the vacuums being created by such deaths. The Gnostics claimed to have the authority and secrets of the original apostles. They wrote their books as if written by Peter, Thomas and others of the 12. Many members in many areas accepted these teachings as authentic, and so we have major apostasy going on.

Many splinter groups arose after the death of Joseph Smith as well. By your logic, wouldn't that mean that they all were apostate?

Eusebius wrote at length at many key Church leaders, such as Marcion, that were teaching non-orthodox ideas. At the Council of Nicea, we see several differing beliefs in the Trinity: Athanasius', Arius', and what is now called Origenism (which Eusebius believed in). Those that did not agree with Athanasius ended up excommunicated and exiled. Eusebius himself was exiled.

I don't know that they were excommunicated. The bishops that supported Arianism were removed from their ecclesial posts, and some were exiled. This all changed when Arians gained political power, and began killing and exiling those who believed in the classic Trinity. Athanasius was exiled in this period. But the Trinity became the accepted doctrine of the Church, not by force or coercion (as the Arians tried), but by bearing with the persecutions, and (with a few exceptions, no doubt) by simply being Christians. This I see as further evidence that the Trinity is a true concept of the nature of God, as it effected great change for the better and people were willing to die for it. Now the Trinity is a central doctrine which unites Christians of all stripes and denominations.

Also, I'm interested in where you found your quotes from Jerome and Justin Martyr regarding continuing revelation and all that. Got any references? I'll want to study those this weekend, when I have time

Anyway, take care everyone

[rhinomelon]

And also, a reformed church cannot count as a true church. The classical argument of "the gates of hell not prevailing" would void out the true church becoming corrupt in the first place. I cannot believe a dead tree can grow a new branch, They would both share the corrupted roots system.

Except Jesus is the vine, and all of his followers are the branches. Some branches no doubt get sick and maybe even die, but the Church is not the source. It is the receiver.

Also, you are mixing "reformation" with "restoration". "Reformation" does not necessarily mean that what is being reformed is totally and utterly corrupt. Indeed, if there was nothing to work with, why try to reform anything?

So what is your working definition of "church"? Do any of the churches you listed claim to be the only true church?

Take care

[USU78]

Perhaps a better question would be: what is the evidence that there was no general apostacy?

Anyone care to take that one on?

[flavo]

Except Jesus is the vine, and all of his followers are the branches. Some branches no doubt get sick and maybe even die, but the Church is not the source. It is the receiver.

Also, you are mixing "reformation" with "restoration". "Reformation" does not necessarily mean that what is being reformed is totally and utterly corrupt. Indeed, if there was nothing to work with, why try to reform anything?

So what is your working definition of "church"? Do any of the churches you listed claim to be the only true church?

Take care

Jesus said " And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

He said he would build MY CHURCH not churhces. There was one true church. Did that change? Which one is the true church Jesus built?

If Jesus is the vine, there is no getting sick and dying. You would have to remove yourself from the vine to die. If jesus is the sustaining vine, unless you are pulled away from the vine, you will not decay and die.

What was Jesus's definition of church? It must be something of importance because He built one, and I want to know which one is His so I can be a part of it.

Do you know which one it is? What church do you go to? Do you go to a church that you believe to be true? If you believe it to be true, would you go join another church? Do you believe all churches to be true?

You must be where you are because you believe it has more truth than another. Why do people get so bent out of shape for the LDS church to claim it has the only true church? How many churches did Jesus create? There has to be one. Ther can only be one.

[flavo]

Also, you are mixing "reformation" with "restoration". "Reformation" does not necessarily mean that what is being reformed is totally and utterly corrupt. Indeed, if there was nothing to work with, why try to reform anything?

If the scripture in Matt. 16 is correct, how can there be any corruption in the church that Christ built? The gates of hell would not prevail against it right. If corruption entered in then hell was prevailing against the church Christ built.

[SteubieU]

I think there is something that we need to figure out together here. There are two sets of presuppositions that are going along here, and there may not be any common ground. Here is what I see:

1. The "non-apostasy" group says that the early Church was, by and large, faithful to the teachings that Jesus gave. Although there were some, even many groups, that believed things that are in opposition to what was later understood as truth, by and large the Church was faithful to Christ.

In this group, things that early Christian and Christian-like groups that depart from what would be considered orthodox mainstream Christianity are merely evidence that Christianity was spreading so quickly, in a situation of persecution, among lots of influences, and facing lots of new questions not directly answered by what had been revealed that not everyone could know what was true and what was not. THey would conclude that, for the most part, the early Christians agreed (at least implicitly) with the things that are considered orthodox now. Things that may agree with mormonism are merely flukes, and no early Church father can be shown to hold an LDS view on even a majority (more than 2?) of distinctively LDS doctrines.

2. The LDS, "apostasy" group that says that the early Christians were getting farther and farther away from revealed truth as time went on. Things got out of hand quicly, and soon there was no legitimate authority.

FOr this group, the early Church fathers were by and large off as far as true doctrine, though there are still some elements of true LDS theology among them; that they are scattered merely shows the extent of the apostasy.

Would anyone like to add anything to this before we move on?