The Great Apostasy

[changed]

Last week I taught about the apostasy and restoration. This followed on the heels of studying Hosea, one of my favorite books of scripture, in Gospel Doctrine a few weeks ago.

After reading in Hosea of the gentle way in which the Lord promised to deny blessings of the covenant to a wayward Israel so that Israel would see her nakedness and recognize her true husband, I began to see the Apostasy as a blessing. Surely God left mankind to discover our lewdness and awaken to an awareness that all other lovers, be they gods, ideologies, or things which moth doth corrupt, are false and not true benefactors. This He allowed, knowing that he would allure us, bring us into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto us. The glorious promise then is that after we have strayed and are brought back, we are washed, anointed, dressed and the eternal covenant is reinstated. He wants to draw us to Him in judgment, lovingkindness, and mercies and establish the covenant, this time in faithfulness.

So, is it possible that the Great Apostasy is a necessary part of the progression of God's children? If so, is it possible that a degree of personal apostasy is a necessary part of individual spiritual progression?

Jesus learned and grew, he progressed. He progressed without sinning. sure, you could learn things the hard way, but why learn the hard way if you could learn the easy way?

there is a great quote - about how you learn the strength of something by standing up and fighting against it, not by laying down and letting it overpower you...

The best way to learn about sin is to fight it, not join it.

[mercyngrace]

Jesus learned and grew, he progressed. He progressed without sinning. sure, you could learn things the hard way, but why learn the hard way if you could learn the easy way?

How do you know there is an easy way unless you've tried the hard way?

Again, I'm not saying the hard way is the right way only that it is necessary to fall in order to know the joy of redemption.

Back to the Great Apostasy, all I'm saying is that this is may be global type of what happened in the Moses 1 account, what was described in Hosea, and what happens in all of our lives.

[changed]

If we follow the thinking that one is better off and stronger having never sinned vs. having sinned and repented to the natural conclusion, then we seem to be saying that no matter how complete your repentance, you aren't as good or strong as the guy who sinned less than you. So then, the atonement becomes limited in its ability to heal and reconcile.

I think the sinning holds implications - not about our potential, not about what we can become - but instead about where we started out.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 138:55)

55 I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.

there were the noble and great ones, and then there was the rest of us . Weak spirits sin, strong spirits (like Jesus) are able to make it through without sin. We all come to the same end - but we came from different beginnings. So the spirits that sinned can be proud that they overcame much, but embarrased that they started out so low...

We all love Paul, Alma the younger, doubting Thomas...

(New Testament | John 20:29)

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast aseen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

blessed are those who did not doubt, who did not sin, and believed - came to Christ - without being dragged kicking and screaming...

or this one:

(New Testament | Luke 15:11 - 32)

11

[mercyngrace]

I think the sinning holds implications - not about our potential, not about what we can become - but instead about where we started out.

...snip...

So people who sin were less noble spirits and won't inherit all that the Father has? The really righteous ones of us don't sin? I think I feel the rameumptom shaking...

[changed]

How do you know there is an easy way unless you've tried the hard way?

Again, I'm not saying the hard way is the right way only that it is necessary to fall in order to know the joy of redemption.

Back to the Great Apostasy, all I'm saying is that this is may be global type of what happened in the Moses 1 account, what was described in Hosea, and what happens in all of our lives.

I agree that Eve had to eat the fruit.... opposition in all things, but Jesus was able to progress without falling, he experienced sin without having to actually sin himself, so progression is possible without sinning.

God was also always perfect.... unchanging...

[changed]

So people who sin were less noble spirits and won't inherit all that the Father has? The really righteous ones of us don't sin? I think I feel the rameumptom shaking...

people who sin "were" less noble spirits, but still have the potential to inherit all that the Father has through the atonement.

Obviously the most noble Spirit - Jesus - did not sin.

[mercyngrace]

I agree that Eve had to eat the fruit.... opposition in all things, but Jesus was able to progress without falling, he experienced sin without having to actually sin himself, so progression is possible without sinning.

Jesus was a God before He came. Would you point out the other sinless humans for me? I haven't met any.

[mercyngrace]

people who sin "were" less noble spirits, but still have the potential to inherit all that the Father has through the atonement.

I actually heard someone say this in church without any sort of citation. Would you provide a reference for the ideas that:

(1) Noble and Great Ones don't sin

(2) People who sin are less noble than these other people who are walking around sinless among us

[mercyngrace]

I agree that Eve had to eat the fruit.... opposition in all things, but Jesus was able to progress without falling, he experienced sin without having to actually sin himself, so progression is possible without sinning.

God was also always perfect.... unchanging...

Well, that doesn't jive with the KFD or the "as God is..." couplet.

Or the BOM come to think about it, since God could cease to be God.

[changed]

Jesus was a God before He came. Would you point out the other sinless humans for me? I haven't met any.

So, you think Jesus sinned before he came to Earth?

(New Testament | Hebrews 9:27)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die...

perhaps in his previous life where he learned what sin was, he was translated, instead of dieing?

He was a spirit, we were spirits... I get what you are saying, the tree of knowledge was needed - I have a different theory about the tree of knowledge though, and why it was there...

[changed]

Well, that doesn't jive with the KFD or the "as God is..." couplet.

Or the BOM come to think about it, since God could cease to be God.

OK - here is a wild speculation... what if, just what if -

sin = doing something that you know is wrong

transgression = doing something that you do not know is wrong

what if it is possible to learn through transgression, rather than through sin - thus you made mistakes, but you never sinned...

Adam's transgression was needed, but it was not a sin.

btw, another wild speculation, I think the transgression was needed - mainly for having children.... you know how God only accepts those who know? have reached the age of accountability? 8yo? Everyone says that we used our agency to come here, but I don't think that we did. You cannot make an informed choice on something you have never experienced... bringing someone into the world goes against their agency - get's them into something that they were not able to make an informed choice on - and anything that goes against agency isn't perfect, Adam and Eve could not be perfect if they wanted to have kids. jmo. but it seems like if it were not for the have to have kids thing - you could progress without sin... jmo.

[mercyngrace]

So, you think Jesus sinned before he came to Earth?

(New Testament | Hebrews 9:27)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die...

perhaps in his previous life where he learned what sin was, he was translated, instead of dieing?

He was a spirit, we were spirits... I get what you are saying, the tree of knowledge was needed - I have a different theory about the tree of knowledge though, and why it was there...

I don't know about Jesus' life before Earth. I do know it takes a very long time to get to where He was prior to His life here. And I know that if He was a mere mortal at some point, I don't consider that degrading, demeaning, or insulting in any way.

Perhaps. But even being translated doesn't mean you've never sinned.

I don't think there is a single meaning to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I think there are layers and layers of meaning and they all those truths are designed to teach us a variety of eternal truths in the same way that the countless mataphorical descriptions of the Savior are all accurate insofar as they declare His attributes and His Messiahship.

[changed]

I don't know about Jesus' life before Earth. I do know it takes a very long time to get to where He was prior to His life here.

We're all the same age though... not created or made.. perhaps Jesus was the first to start being made? oldest brother? but then time does not exist beyond the veil,

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:8 )

...all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

no before/after, older/younger... no time.

We are unique and what does that say about us? - not because God made us unique, but because we came that way I think... God did not create some better than others, he found us all as we were, great and small, noble and not - and we were adopted... transforming what eternally exists. It's not God's fault for how He found us, but we are all given the same opportunity to advance...

I don't think there is a single meaning to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I think there are layers and layers of meaning and they all those truths are designed to teach us a variety of eternal truths in the same way that the countless mataphorical descriptions of the Savior are all accurate insofar as they declare His attributes and His Messiahship.

I agree.

[mercyngrace]

OK - here is a wild speculation... what if, just what if -

sin = doing something that you know is wrong

transgression = doing something that you do not know is wrong

I don't think that's specualtion I think it routinely taught in the church especially in the context of Adam and Eve.

what if it is possible to learn through transgression, rather than through sin - thus you made mistakes, but you never sinned...

Adam's transgression was needed, but it was not a sin.

btw, another wild speculation, I think the transgression was needed - mainly for having children.... you know how God only accepts those who know? have reached the age of accountability? 8yo? Everyone says that we used our agency to come here, but I don't think that we did. You cannot make an informed choice on something you have never experienced... bringing someone into the world goes against their agency - get's them into something that they were not able to make an informed choice on - and anything that goes against agency isn't perfect, Adam and Eve could not be perfect if they wanted to have kids. jmo. but it seems like if it were not for the have to have kids thing - you could progress without sin... jmo.

Are you saying that it's only a sin if we experience the wrongness of a choice and then willfully choose it again with full knowledge that it separates us from God? When we sin without full knowledge (through experience) it is only transgression?

If this is what you are getting at, then that substantiates what I've been saying all along. The only difference is that we are calling this act of inexperienced but willful separation from God a "transgression" rather than a "sin". It's still something we have to experience in order to know the good from the evil.

[changed]

The only difference is that we are calling this act of inexperienced but willful separation from God a "transgression" rather than a "sin". It's still something we have to experience in order to know the good from the evil.

yes, transgression was needed, experience is needed... sin is not needed though. I think there is a big difference between saying that sin is needed, vs. saying that transgression was needed.

[mercyngrace]

We're all the same age though... not created or made.. perhaps Jesus was the first to start being made? oldest brother? but then time does not exist beyond the veil,

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:8 )

...all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

no before/after, older/younger... no time.

We are unique and what does that say about us? - not because God made us unique, but because we came that way I think... God did not create some better than others, he found us all as we were, great and small, noble and not - and we were adopted... transforming what eternally exists. It's not God's fault for how He found us, but we are all given the same opportunity to advance...

IIRC, JS described progression prior to and after this life. I understand the word "time" is painfully imprecise - that's okay by me but the existence of different kinds of beings who progressed prior to this life and will continue progressing long after this life is over does not support the notion that God "found" us this way. Instead it points to the fact that we acquired attributes in premortality.

Suggesting some are on par with Christ in terms of their ability to remain sinless is also unsupported in scripture. Not only was He the only begotten, He said "I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." He's in a class by Himself Notice also, that while there were many noble and great ones, there was only one who was like unto God.

[mercyngrace]

yes, transgression was needed, experience is needed... sin is not needed though. I think there is a big difference between saying that sin is needed, vs. saying that transgression was needed.

I'm willing to say transgression was needed rather than sin. The actual topic of the thread was "apostasy" which somehow (probably my own carelessness) has been used interchangeably with "sin".

By your definition, then, can someone transgress the word of wisdom? The law of chastity? The law of tithing? Is it entirely possible that someone can leave the church and it not be a sin because they have not had the experiences they need to "sin"?

[Nathair/|\]

I'm willing to say transgression was needed rather than sin. The actual topic of the thread was "apostasy" which somehow (probably my own carelessness) has been used interchangeably with "sin".

By your definition, then, can someone transgress the word of wisdom? The law of chastity? The law of tithing? Is it entirely possible that someone can leave the church and it not be a sin because they have not had the experiences they need to "sin"?

These are probably dumb questions, but in this context, is it necessary for each of us to transgress individually, or is it sufficient to observe the results of another's transgression?

(I am not trying to propose that anyone successfully avoids all transgression in their life, Only trying to simplify the discussion to a point where I can comprehend it.)

Yours under the confused oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Brenda]

By the way, you nailed me on the prodigal son feeling he was sinless. Painful, but not fatal.

I am going to leave our discussion at that. I think to discuss it any further would only have us going in circles. I have enjoyed the repartee though.

Glenn

Happens to me all the time. Join the club. You can sit by me

I enjoyed it, too, Glenn. I'm one of those people who learns a lot by talking things out and I'm willing to take a position I'm not sure about just to learn from the discussion. You brought up some points I'm happy to ponder.

MnG

My hat is off to the two of you. A good respectful exchange of opinions. Thanks for reminding us all how it can be done.

[mercyngrace]

These are probably dumb questions, but in this context, is it necessary for each of us to transgress individually, or is it sufficient to observe the results of another's transgression?

(I am not trying to propose that anyone successfully avoids all transgression in their life, Only trying to simplify the discussion to a point where I can comprehend it.)

Yours under the confused oaks,

Nathair /|\

To trangress or not to transgress. That is the question.

I believe that the nature of the flesh makes transgression inevitable and I believe it may also be necessary so that we can distinguish the good from the evil.

It seems Changed agrees that transgression is required (but not sin - which is transgression with experiential knowledge).

Glenn agrees that we all sin but doesn't believe that it's necessary just inevitable.

For my part, I believe that our own need for mercy is an essential step in acquiring the attributes of God. But that's another thread.

[LeSellers]

So if I understand correctly "The Great Apostasy" refers directly to the loss of priesthood authority after the time of Christ's apostles until JS restored these keys? Or is there more to it?

That's exactly the definition of the apostasy. It resulted in doctrinal errors, the the apostasy itself was the rejection of legitimate Priesthood authority, and specifically, the keys of the Priesthood.

Lehi

[yesucan2]

Technically apostasy began after the deaths of the apostles and it refers to the loss of priesthood authority. As for the splintering into sects and the loss and alteration of doctrine, I believe that is better characterized as "dwindling in unbelief" - a progressive decline.

The restoration of authority happened rather quickly but the distilling of doctrines and our understanding of them continues as we are prepared to receive.

I know where you're coming from, but it wasn't about loss of priesthood authority. There actually were special cases of priesthood authority. What there wasn't was operative priesthood keys for the administration of the Church among mortal man.

[yesucan2]

yes, transgression was needed, experience is needed... sin is not needed though. I think there is a big difference between saying that sin is needed, vs. saying that transgression was needed.

they were in a state of innocence. Sin was not possible.

[Storm Rider]

I know where you're coming from, but it wasn't about loss of priesthood authority. There actually were special cases of priesthood authority. What there wasn't was operative priesthood keys for the administration of the Church among mortal man.

When there are no keys, there is no operation of the priesthood and thus no authority. The special cases you may be referring to were situations operating thorough their own keys.

[mercyngrace]

I know where you're coming from, but it wasn't about loss of priesthood authority. There actually were special cases of priesthood authority. What there wasn't was operative priesthood keys for the administration of the Church among mortal man.

Yes. I decided to go with the basic definition we teach instead of putting the exceptions right out front.

So shoot me.