Can we accurately say/prove there was an Apostasy?

[Gervin]

Do Latter Day Saints point to a period of time when the Church was without error and operated in a manner that was ordained by Christ? What would be the time period and/or where were these churches? thankyou/G

[TOmNossor]

TOm and David,

Nice to see your book recommendations on this thread. I have read Bishops' Lists and From Apostles to Bishops and even posted excerpts of a review on my blog.

I am trying to get out a draft of my review essay on Nibley's Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity in the next few days. It is hard to write when I get so many new leads. I would love to get some feedback from either of you.

I would be thrilled to read what you put together even though there will be a slight tinge of guilt.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Do Latter Day Saints point to a period of time when the Church was without error and operated in a manner that was ordained by Christ? What would be the time period and/or where were these churches? thankyou/G

I think the LDS should recognize that to be properly constituted, Christâ??s Church should be lead by Apostles. This would then make the very early Church a properly constituted church of Christ.

To be â??without errorâ? IMO is not something that Christâ??s Church can or has been depending upon how unrestricted the term â??errorâ? is allowed to be. Peter denied Christ. Paul and Peter disagreed (perhaps to the detrimentally). Joseph Smith got angry. Brigham Young taught something akin to â??Adam/God.â? Humans have always fallen short of the glory of God.

Charity, TOm

[Cold Steel]

Just compare the way it was to the way it is.

• Christ's church had apostles and prophets, so do we.
  
• Christ's church taught baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit, so do we.
  
• Christ's church had revelation, the gifts of prophecy, an open canon and a hierarchical structure, so do we.
  
• Those called in Christ's church were called by revelation, so are ours.
  
• Christ's kingdom held keys that would bind on heaven and Earth, do does ours.
  
• Members of the church were called saints, so it is with the LDS church. Saints were not removed and venerated as they are in some faiths.
  
• Priests, bishops, apostles and other leaders were free to marry, so it is with the LDS.
  
• The Lord established His kingdom with witnesses and a system of checks and balances, so do we.
  

My Baptist father used to tell a minister friend that if someone dropped him onto this planet with only a copy of the Bible and he had to figure out which church was right, he'd have to pick the LDS hands down. Offhand, I can't think of a reason why the above wouldn't be obvious.

[John Larsen]

Quite simply, because the Church after Jesus was NOT the "Church of God." It was Christ's church, and apostles were a distinct authority in that church. So unless Jesus has dropped ownership, your argument falls rather flat.

Where does it say that Apostles had to continue for the Church to remain Christ's Church? CFR.

[John Larsen]

Just compare the way it was to the way it is.

• Christ's church had apostles and prophets, so do we.
  
• Christ's church taught baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit, so do we.
  
• Christ's church had revelation, the gifts of prophecy, an open canon and a hierarchical structure, so do we.
  
• Those called in Christ's church were called by revelation, so are ours.
  
• Christ's kingdom held keys that would bind on heaven and Earth, do does ours.
  
• Members of the church were called saints, so it is with the LDS church. Saints were not removed and venerated as they are in some faiths.
  
• Priests, bishops, apostles and other leaders were free to marry, so it is with the LDS.
  
• The Lord established His kingdom with witnesses and a system of checks and balances, so do we.
  

My Baptist father used to tell a minister friend that if someone dropped him onto this planet with only a copy of the Bible and he had to figure out which church was right, he'd have to pick the LDS hands down. Offhand, I can't think of a reason why the above wouldn't be obvious.

It seems like an FLDS could create a similar list of activities by the early Mormon Church that have been abandoned (but they continue) including polygamy, The Church Patriarch, having all things in common, etc.

[thatjimguy]

There are literally 100s of splinter groups and break-offs from the Mormon Church. Is that a sign of Mormon apostasy since there are so many "Mormon" sects? How is the one "shattering" evidence of apostasy and the other not?

Are there really that many? I thought there were only about 4-5! Where is a good list of them and why they broke off?

[AeonJ]

Where does it say that Apostles had to continue for the Church to remain Christ's Church? CFR.

I think the more pressing accurate accusatory question would be were in the Bible says that the Apostles could be phased out?

[John Larsen]

Are there really that many? I thought there were only about 4-5! Where is a good list of them and why they broke off?

The DUP printed a book a few years back that detailed several of the big early ones. I have it, but it is currently in storage. If you do a google search, you can find several organizations that are still around that claim their authority back to Joseph Smith.

I think the more pressing accurate accusatory question would be were in the Bible says that the Apostles could be phased out?

Even more accurately, the new testament says that Jesus called 12 apostles. No where does it even say that Jesus started a church, let alone appoint those 12 as some kind of office. For me to prove they were phased out, you would first have to demonstrate that they were phased in.

[AeonJ]

The DUP printed a book a few years back that detailed several of the big early ones. I have it, but it is currently in storage. If you do a google search, you can find several organizations that are still around that claim their authority back to Joseph Smith.Even more accurately, the new testament says that Jesus called 12 apostles. No where does it even say that Jesus started a church, let alone appoint those 12 as some kind of office. For me to prove they were phased out, you would first have to demonstrate that they were phased in.

the term christian is in the Bible, therefore Christianity was there. Apostles as you should know went past just the original 12. They kept ordaining them w/o Jesus. (This of course mysteriously stopped) Which should alarm you as a said christian.

[russianwolfe]

Proving that there was an apostacy is the wrong approach. Contention is the spirit of the devil, and little good can come from tearing down the beliefs of others.

It is much more constructive to prove that there was a restoration by viewing and enjoying the fruits thereof.

Rather than trying to prove where the power of God is not to be found, it is much more important to find it.

Amen.

Marvin

[3DOP]

Hello David,

I need to read Cirlot which I think you have recommended to me before. It thought Bishop List was a little more abstract than the others, but it was interesting (especially since the author was a Protestant).

I just reread your post you linked to. I was more impressed with it the second time (which is to say that I was fairly impressed with it this time and not as much the first time, but that was likely due to my less focused reading before) than I was the first. I think I might send it to my Sedavacantist friend and see what he makes of it.

Concerning â??Revelationâ? I find it difficult to align â??no new revelationâ? with â??doctrinal development guided by the Holy Spirit.â? I like FiLtER Boyâ??s (aka Editor Boy, aka â?¦, why does he try to confuse me so?) statement, â??We say that revelation is closed because we have all the information. We say that revelation continues because we have yet to understand it all.â? It is perhaps my LDS goggles that make it difficult for me to say, God revealed all, God reveals nothing new, AND God reveals the understanding of the all he previously revealed. To me, if it comes from God and it is for the entire church, it is revelation, and my creation of the term â??Supernatural Public Revelationâ? vs. â??Natural Revelationâ? is my attempt to differentiate (I use â??Natural Revelationâ? to mean the intellectual process spirit guided men employ to resolve doctrinal conflict, not as it is customarily used).

Of course, I have half a dozen professional Catholic apologists denying doctrinal development by insisting that the early church was like todayâ??s Catholic Church to help me see problems with DD.

I am currently reading Dunnâ??s The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition. In addition to what I expected to find concerning Justification and â?¦, I am continuing to be thrust into the position that conflict among Christâ??s Apostles is part (or much) of the â??Why?â? of the apostasy. This is a hard thing to embrace for me as if feels like â??speaking not well of the Lordâ??s anointed.â? In addition to this, I am well aware that there was conflict within the Twelve at the beginning of the CoJCoLDS. But, for whatever reason, I keep coming back to this as an answer for a question I think LDS have not addressed well, â??WHY did the Apostasy happen?â?

Charity, TOm

Hey Tom,

Thanks for the "props". I would never have remembered saying it that way, but I had been wanting to express the idea again! Do Mormons think the Church exhaustively understands all of God's revelation at once, immediately? I am just wondering. If not, then there is a way while retaining your "LDS goggles" of seeing how the riches and depths of God's revelation demands that we continue to progress more and more in our appreciation of God's ways and laws, as they have been received, whether you add a verse to Doctrine and Covenants or not. I understand why it happens because of those professional apologists you mentioned, but Mormons would be better served, if they would understand the way revelation continues in the Catholic Church, to be told in no uncertain way that we believe that God continually enlightens His Church by the light of the Holy Ghost, both individually and corporately. It is completely wrongheaded and misleading to Mormons when they hear Catholic Answers affirm the teaching about a closed canon. That is only the first half of the whole truth.

I am not being facetious when I call myself liberal. I am a liberal Traditionalist Catholic who is more progressive than some liberated female who thinks it is time for her to be a priest. These "conservative Conservatives" who make a livelihood out of pop apologetics get their support from conservative Catholics who need to hear simple, memorable ways they can defend their faith. Maybe there is some value in this, but I agree that they are too optimistic. For Catholics, it is imperative to conserve the faith as we have received it. It is further imperative that we progress strongly in the same faith. Many have called this by the name, doctrinal development, but in my opinion, that expression carries a too natural sounding quality about it. Perhaps something like revelatory advancement would more clearly illustrate the sense by which, not through human art and reason alone, but by virtue of the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Catholic Church continues to grow in its understanding of the deposit of faith which we understand to be all the sufficient ocean of information which will always give new vistas for our meditations until the end of time.

3DOP, aka fIlTEr boY

[Redeemed]

Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

'For ever ' I wonder what Christ meant by that ? maybe He didn't get the apostasy memo?

redeemed

[Terran]

I'm surprised no on has mentioned the book Apostacy from the Divine Church, by James L. Barker. It's a book of almost 800 pages and Barker gives an account of Christianity from the first to the sixteenth century and a detailed account of the apostacy. I also believe he only uses documentation from sources that are accepted by the Catholic Church to "prove" the falling away.

[jadams_4242]

I've gone over this with Catholics who say they also have a literal Apostilic Succession.

They say an Apostle is just another name for Bishop, so they don't need apostles nowadays.

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

They seem to have iron clad defenses of (facts?) that seems to render them (un)reachable/teachable.

I'm even a little shaken in faith that they have these answers to thier historic defense of being the Church. ANy help??

How can anyone doubt the "dark ages" period was not an apostasy?

[a5m5a5d]

This is funny because my mission prep class just talked about this subject last night. We were talking about how to explain to people the Apostasy and how we believe our church is a restoration of christ's church. we were taught to teach it as simple as possible.

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

A prophet of God is the mouthpiece of God on Earth. Without a prophet, Christ's church cannot be on the Earth. A prophet is a preacher of righteousness, who denounces sin. A prophet is also a seer and revelator, meaning they are not "spiritually near-sighted" as the rest of the world is. This also means that through a prophet, God continues revelation and scripture.

But the simplest way to see that there WAS an apostasy, and the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of true gospel is to look at the end of the book of Revelation. You'll see after the last verse in CAPS is says, "THE END." The end of the prophets, the end of revelation, the end of scripture, AKA apostasy. And with all simplicity, Joseph Smith is called as a Prophet of God, and the church is restored with prophets, continuing revelation, and continuing scripture that we have here today.

[mormon fool]

Just compare the way it was to the way it is.

• Christ's church had apostles and prophets, so do we.
  
• Christ's church taught baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit, so do we.
  
• Christ's church had revelation, the gifts of prophecy, an open canon and a hierarchical structure, so do we.
  
• Those called in Christ's church were called by revelation, so are ours.
  
• Christ's kingdom held keys that would bind on heaven and Earth, do does ours.
  
• Members of the church were called saints, so it is with the LDS church. Saints were not removed and venerated as they are in some faiths.
  
• Priests, bishops, apostles and other leaders were free to marry, so it is with the LDS.
  
• The Lord established His kingdom with witnesses and a system of checks and balances, so do we.
  

My Baptist father used to tell a minister friend that if someone dropped him onto this planet with only a copy of the Bible and he had to figure out which church was right, he'd have to pick the LDS hands down. Offhand, I can't think of a reason why the above wouldn't be obvious.

I think any denomination so inclined might be able to create such a way it is/ was list where they score points for having similarities with the New Testament church. At best, this is the "museum approach" to preserving authentic Christianity and it has a danger of creating fundamentalists. Paradoxically, an open canon or belief in continuing revelation could theoretically overturn any item on the list above. (I am channeling Kevin Barney in A Tale of Two Restorations).

If someone was just given a set of 1880 LDS scriptures, but set loose in 2009 which Mormon schism would they join?

While I have my own opinions on how to evaluate rival truth claims, a little bit of introspection and appreciation of other POV's tells me that it is anything but a simple or obvious issue.

[TOmNossor]

I'm surprised no on has mentioned the book Apostacy from the Divine Church, by James L. Barker. It's a book of almost 800 pages and Barker gives an account of Christianity from the first to the sixteenth century and a detailed account of the apostacy. I also believe he only uses documentation from sources that are accepted by the Catholic Church to "prove" the falling away.

This is also an excellent book. Would you believe that Barker wrote 3 years of Priesthood lessons containing almost the same information? What an amazing few years of lessons that would have been.

I think Barker traces authority development AND doctrinal development well. His book is perhaps less dense than Nibleyâ??s, but it covers a wider range of topics too.

BTW, he used Catholic and Protestant sources and did a pretty good job of making sure he was not building an argument against Catholicism with only anti-Catholic Protestant sources. I am pretty sure one of his more interesting sources is future Cardinal Newman in his pre-Catholic days.

One of the difficulties with using his book is that most of his Catholic and Protestant sources are not translated into English. Barker was a world known linguist and translated his own sources for us.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

Do Mormons think the Church exhaustively understands all of God's revelation at once, immediately? I am just wondering. If not, then there is a way while retaining your "LDS goggles" of seeing how the riches and depths of God's revelation demands that we continue to progress more and more in our appreciation of God's ways and laws, as they have been received, whether you add a verse to Doctrine and Covenants or not.

As a LDS, I see doctrinal development and fluidity within the CoJCoLDS not only as a spirit guided pursuit of truth, but also as an event that occurs more freely within a church that does not emphasize doctrine near as much as Catholicism. So, I can definitely see how one could call Catholic doctrinal development the â??revelatory advancementâ? of knowledge. At the same time, moving from subordinationist Christians to Thomist Christians is a very radical change (and I think many are backing off from Thomist formulations today). Moving from Bishops who are local leaders that might exhort one another as equals to Roman primacy is a very radical change (that seems firmly in place thought there is not a complete absence of collegial leadership). I think I too would be a â??liberal Traditionalist Catholicâ? (who manhandled Vatican II into Catholic Traditional teaching, without rejecting any VII). But, as a LDS, I think the case against a view that liberality is consistent with Catholic Tradition, is worth making (with or without the generous support of â??pop Catholic apologistsâ?).

I understand why it happens because of those professional apologists you mentioned, but Mormons would be better served, if they would understand the way revelation continues in the Catholic Church, to be told in no uncertain way that we believe that God continually enlightens His Church by the light of the Holy Ghost, both individually and corporately. It is completely wrongheaded and misleading to Mormons when they hear Catholic Answers affirm the teaching about a closed canon. That is only the first half of the whole truth.

Part of the problem with Catholic apologists is that they direct most of there efforts against Protestants who are convinced that the Pope reveals new things all the time. But, I do not think they can have it both ways. If they want to tell their Protestant brothers that the Pope does not receive revelation, it is difficult to see how they can tell LDS that he does.

In addition to this, I still see a difference between Peterâ??s vision as â??supernatural public revelationâ? and the developing of theology during the first 4 councils of the Catholic Church. Davidâ??s quotes from Gregory Nazianzen almost suggests there are three testaments, NT, OT, and Church Testament. I would suggest that revelation is boldly received and promulgated in the NT and OT, but the Church Testament revelation is a different animal. The Restoration Testament is far more similar to the OT and NT than is the Church Testament.

Charity, TOm

[John Larsen]

Will be happy to oblige.

Eph 4 [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

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

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Pretty clear to me that we not yet "in the unity of the faith", and we are still "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine".

Reasonable people may interpret that scripture different than you do. In fact, most people do.

[Lightbearer]

I've gone over this with Catholics who say they also have a literal Apostilic Succession.

They say an Apostle is just another name for Bishop, so they don't need apostles nowadays.

They say everyone that broke off are just heretics including the Eastern Orthodox.

They seem to have iron clad defenses of (facts?) that seems to render them (un)reachable/teachable.

I'm even a little shaken in faith that they have these answers to thier historic defense of being the Church. ANy help??

Of course we can accurately say there was an Apostasy I just quote the following:

(D&C 1:11-23) "Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear: Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh; And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth. And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophetsâ?? The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of fleshâ?? But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; That faith also might increase in the earth; That mine everlasting covenant might be established; That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers."

This is quite clear, the Gospel of Jesus Christ had to be restored because it had been lost. I am not joking here, we did not determine the great apostasy because of a new reading of the Bible or a different interpretation of scripture. We are unabashedly declaring that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to a Prophet in 1820 and that Christ declared that:

(Joseph Smith 1:19) "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â?

This quote is often "softened" so as not to sound so harsh or to avoid offending, but the essential fact is the fullness of the Gospel was totally lost and that nobody had the true Church when Joseph walked into that grove in 1820. They may have had a "form of godliness" but the power and authority was not there. We could go through countless scriptures that tell of the apostasy... but in the end it is just a matter of who you are going to choose to believe. I prefer this scripture in D&C 1 because it is rather straight and to the point. As for proof, that must come by the power of the Holy Ghost to those who will listen or as it states in that revelation: "that all that will hear may hear."

[David Waltz]

Hi Dave (aka mormon fool),

So good to know that you have started blogging again! I am headed over there right after I post thisâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[thesometimesaint]

jadams_4040:

I think the Apostasy was a done deal by the time the Dark Ages showed up. Personal Opinion; With the death of the last Apostles the Church was gone no later than about 120 CE. The Dark Ages didn't really start till the fall of Rome in another 3 centuries.

[Gervin]

Re: "Do Latter Day Saints point to a period of time when the Church was without error and operated in a manner that was ordained by Christ? What would be the time period and/or where were these churches? thankyou/G"

Please point out a source where we believe that the church has ever been "without error".

I was asking a question, not making a statement.

On the contrary, we teach that we are human beings, that the church is not a "nursing home for the perfect", and we make mistakes. We do not teach "perfection in the church", but the restoration of priesthood authority with all the ordinances, authority, and power to lead us back to the presence of the Father. We teach that the prophets are human beings with authority to administer the kingdom of God on earth.

I didn't imply that the church members operated outside of human nature and I didn't use the word "perfection." The LDS Church claims the loss of the correct ordinances through apostacy. This claim implies a time period when, or a particular church where, the now restored ordinances existed. I merely asked if the LDS Church or members propose a specific timeframe or church. thankyou/G

[David Waltz]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for responding. You posted:

>>I need to read Cirlot which I think you have recommended to me before. It thought Bishop List was a little more abstract than the others, but it was interesting (especially since the author was a Protestant).>>

Me: Cirlotâ??s (an Anglo-Catholic) book is nothing short of brilliant. And Williamsâ?? book, though, as you say, is â??a little more abstractâ?, is interesting on two counts: first, the relationship between early Churchâ??s ministry (i.e. church officers) and intertestamental Judaim is explored; and second, some of the conclusions he reaches are quite amazing given the fact that he is patristic professor at a conservative Baptist seminary.

>>I just reread your post you linked to. I was more impressed with it the second time (which is to say that I was fairly impressed with it this time and not as much the first time, but that was likely due to my less focused reading before) than I was the first. I think I might send it to my Sedavacantist friend and see what he makes of it.>>

Me: I suspect that some of my threads tend to be a bit too long for a blogâ??so good to hear that your second reading was more beneficial.

>>Concerning â??Revelationâ? I find it difficult to align â??no new revelationâ? with â??doctrinal development guided by the Holy Spirit.â? I like FiLtER Boyâ??s (aka Editor Boy, aka â?¦, why does he try to confuse me so?) statement, â??We say that revelation is closed because we have all the information. We say that revelation continues because we have yet to understand it all.â? It is perhaps my LDS goggles that make it difficult for me to say, God revealed all, God reveals nothing new, AND God reveals the understanding of the all he previously revealed. To me, if it comes from God and it is for the entire church, it is revelation, and my creation of the term â??Supernatural Public Revelationâ? vs. â??Natural Revelationâ? is my attempt to differentiate (I use â??Natural Revelationâ? to mean the intellectual process spirit guided men employ to resolve doctrinal conflict, not as it is customarily used).>>

Me: â??Natural revelationâ? is generally reserved for what one can discern about God via His creation (see Rom. 1:20). As for â??supernatural revelationâ?, I have found it useful to sub-divide this category into: public, private, and official. Public = Sacred Scripture; private = to the individual; and official = the guidance given to Church in itâ??s official capacity (i.e. Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra promulgations).

>>Of course, I have half a dozen professional Catholic apologists denying doctrinal development by insisting that the early church was like todayâ??s Catholic Church to help me see problems with DD.>>

Me: Those silly â??professionalsâ? (be they Catholic or Protestant)â?¦

>>I am currently reading Dunnâ??s The New Perspective on Paul: Revised Edition. In addition to what I expected to find concerning Justification and â?¦, I am continuing to be thrust into the position that conflict among Christâ??s Apostles is part (or much) of the â??Why?â? of the apostasy. This is a hard thing to embrace for me as if feels like â??speaking not well of the Lordâ??s anointed.â? In addition to this, I am well aware that there was conflict within the Twelve at the beginning of the CoJCoLDS. But, for whatever reason, I keep coming back to this as an answer for a question I think LDS have not addressed well, â??WHY did the Apostasy happen?â?>>

Me: IMHO Dunnâ??s fundamental working premise is unproven (i.e. unresolved conflict between the Twelve and their Jewish disciples, with Paul and the Gentile disciples).

Grace and peace,

David