The Great Apostacy

[mfbukowski]

John could have had all the keys and might have been able to pass them on under normal circumstances, but the Lord had denied him the permission/authority to do so because of the occurring apostasy.

In my view that is possible, but I cannot imagine why the Lord would have done that- that would be a direct interference with what was happening, and essentially makes the Lord responsible for the Apostasy which was pretty much inevitable anyway at that point.

[LDSGuy]

Just something to think about.... Revelations 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The JST changes days to years. I have heard that the complete and total Apostasy of the Church occurred around 570 A.D. If you add the the 1260 in the verse to 570 you get the number or year of 1830. However, I don't know how someone eventually arrived at the year 570. Maybe they subtracted 1260 from 1830 and concluded that year must have been the complete end of the Church.

Any thoughts? Sorry I don't have any sources. I just remember hearing it in conversations. I'll see if I can't find a source. It's an interesting thought though.

[Alan]

In my view the apostacy was fairly gradual and wasn't complete until the 6th century. Around 570AD to be more precise.

Nibley states that the apostolic fathers said that the apostles had left instructions about how the office of Bishop etc was to be perpetuated; presumably other offices too. This would have been required anyway as travel and distance were problems then and the Twelve and the Seventy would have been unable to zip around as they do now.

It is true that the church was in terminal decline following the death of the apostles, but it would have survived in some places much longer than others. It is thought by some that the church survived in the British Isles well into the 6th century. By the time the Roman missionaries arrived they found the Celtic church well established and claiming apostolic authority from John. Some time later the Celtic church surrendered to Rome at the Whitby Synod and went home to lick their wounds and die. It is thought they did this because they knew they no longet had the priesthood - the last priest having died in a shipwreck in the Irish Sea. Indeed this is cited as one of the reasons the Celtic church made no attempt to convert the heathen English (Angles and Saxons) when they arrived in Britain - they knew that since the priesthood line had ended they had very little to offer.

[mfbukowski]

Succession in the Presidency

Just lost a huge post, so this one will be quick and not formatted too well.

This is an excellent article on Succession in the Presidency.

Here are some quotes:

Of this fact Elder Heber C. Kimball testified:

“Joseph has passed behind the vail and he pulled off his shoes, and some one else puts them on, until he passes the vail to Bro. Joseph. President Young is our president, and our head, and he puts the shoes on first. If Brother Hyrum had remained here, he would have put them on—Hyrum is gone with Joseph and is still his counsellor. The Twelve have received the keys of the kingdom and as long as there is one of them left, he will hold them in preference to any one else.”26

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DC 102: 9

The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church.

D&C 102:10

And it is according to the dignity of his office that he should preside over the council of the church; and it is his privilege to be assisted by two other presidents, appointed after the same manner that he himself was appointed.

D&C 102:11

And in case of the absence of one or both of those who are appointed to assist him, he has power to preside over the council without an assistant; and in case he himself is absent, the other presidents have power to preside in his stead, both or either of them.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3. At the President’s death there is no First Presidency over the Twelve. Following the principles taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the President of the Church dies, the quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved and the counselors, if they previously had been in the Quorum of the Twelve, return to their respective places of seniority in that quorum. The senior Apostle, as President of the Twelve, automatically, by virtue of that seniority, becomes the “Presiding High Priest” of the Church and, as such, actively holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom and “preside over the whole church” (see D&C 107:65–66, 91). “Equal in authority” to the First Presidency, this presiding quorum of Twelve Apostles is as much a Presidency of the Church as the First Presidency is when it is fully organized and operative (see D&C 107:23–24). Likewise, the President of the Twelve at that time is as much the President of the Church in function and authority as when he becomes sustained as such in a newly organized First Presidency.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“There is no mystery about the choosing of the successor to the President of the Church,” President Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed. “The Lord settled this a long time ago, and the senior apostle automatically becomes the presiding officer of the Church, and he is so sustained by the Council of the Twelve which becomes the presiding body of the Church when there is no First Presidency.”35

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[LeSellers]

So you are saying that theoretically the prophet cannot act without the Q of 12 in such a situaiton, and pass on the keys?

Not at all. The prophet is the President of the Quorum of the First Presidency. He is not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The President of the Church is also the President of the High Priesthood. Both callings give him keys. An Apostle does not have the keys of presidency. As a quorum, they hold them in common. Acting as a quorum, they can preside over the Church, and their President has keys over the quorum.

That John as the last surviving Apostle, and therefore as senior Apostle, was not the de facto President of the Q of 12 and therefore did not hold the keys to theoretically pass on to Polycarp?

John was the last of the Apostles. The list in Matthew is not by seniority as best I can tell.

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

I'd be happy to see this as a listing by seniority because it does say, "The first, Simon who is called Peter ...". However, listing these men by fraternal relationships ("Andrew, his brother, .. and John his brother") and being sure to list Judas Iscariot last makes me believe it was not. Notice the differences in the listing according to Luke.

14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

That the lists are not identical is a bit of a problem.

If my assumption, that the oldest man among them was the first senior Apostle and the youngest the most junior, then, by all the accounts I have read would have John fill that role. In any case, we know that he was the last living among the those named as Apostles in the New Testament, which would make him the senior. The question then is, does his being the sole remaining Apostle automatically bestow on him the keys of the Presidency of the High Priesthood?

I maintain that there was no faithful Priesthood body over whom for him to have presided. By the early II, as the epistles tell us, there were notable members of the Church who rejected apostolic authority. That was the apostasy, irrespective of the doctrine that (as those same epistles relate) had been distorted or forgotten.

John had his personal Priesthood, but he no longer held keys.

That one surviving member of the Q of 12 does not have the authority to be President?

I'd say we definitely disagree if that is what you are saying- I would like to see some evidence for that

Well as it was not my meaning, there is no conflict.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Well as it was not my meaning, there is no conflict.

Ok well thanks for the clarification!

[urroner]

In my view that is possible, but I cannot imagine why the Lord would have done that- that would be a direct interference with what was happening, and essentially makes the Lord responsible for the Apostasy which was pretty much inevitable anyway at that point.

Suppose there was anybody worthy to pass the keys on to at the time or suppose there was a person worthy, but not a congregation worthy.

[russianwolfe]

I have a question: Can the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles operate if there are not 12 members? Or if there is less than twelve members, is their only function to appoint men to fill the empty seats and then they can operate fully?

Marvin

[LeSellers]

I have a question: Can the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles operate if there are not 12 members? Or if there is less than twelve members, is their only function to appoint men to fill the empty seats and then they can operate fully?

The quorum can function with fewer than 12. At one point (or perhaps more than one), there were as few as seven members of the Quorum, after untimely deaths and apostasies.

Further, the prophet/President of the High Priesthood is the one who calls new Apostles, not the other members of the Quorum. Of course, when there is no President, the Apostles, as a quorum (even if their count is not full), have the keys and responsibilities the prophet would have were he there.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I have a question: Can the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles operate if there are not 12 members? Or if there is less than twelve members, is their only function to appoint men to fill the empty seats and then they can operate fully?

Marvin

If you think about it, it would be impossible to a single prophet to organize the Quorum at all if it could not function with just a President only and no members.

The Savior himself was technically the President of the Melchizadek Priesthood on Earth before he called his Quorum, and he functioned just fine! So were Joseph and Oliver at one point.

[volgadon]

In my view the apostacy was fairly gradual and wasn't complete until the 6th century. Around 570AD to be more precise.

Nibley states that the apostolic fathers said that the apostles had left instructions about how the office of Bishop etc was to be perpetuated; presumably other offices too. This would have been required anyway as travel and distance were problems then and the Twelve and the Seventy would have been unable to zip around as they do now.

It is true that the church was in terminal decline following the death of the apostles, but it would have survived in some places much longer than others. It is thought by some that the church survived in the British Isles well into the 6th century. By the time the Roman missionaries arrived they found the Celtic church well established and claiming apostolic authority from John. Some time later the Celtic church surrendered to Rome at the Whitby Synod and went home to lick their wounds and die. It is thought they did this because they knew they no longet had the priesthood - the last priest having died in a shipwreck in the Irish Sea. Indeed this is cited as one of the reasons the Celtic church made no attempt to convert the heathen English (Angles and Saxons) when they arrived in Britain - they knew that since the priesthood line had ended they had very little to offer.

There is a similar Armenian tradition from around 450 AD or so.

[ebeddoulos]

We know that after Jesus was resurrected, that he gave the remaining eleven apostles what came to be known as the Great Commission.

"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:16-20)

Prior to dispersing to the world, the Apostles completed the quorum with Matthias as the replacement for Judas.

“And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:23-26)

Their prayer was answered. It would appear that God chose Matthias by lot.

“The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:33)

By way of confirmation, on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost fell upon all twelve Apostles which would include Matthias.

“AND when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:1-4)

There was a full quorum of twelve when the Apostles chose Stephen and the others of the Seven.

“Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” (Acts 6:2)

So we know that the Apostolic Quorum replaced members who became functioning members of the Quorum. We know that the remaining apostles were involved in the replacement activity. We know the method that they used.

Traditionally the apostles were said to have travelled from England to India to North Africa and points in between. Travel methods were primative at best. Even with Roman engineered roads it was slow. Horseback is not that much faster than walking and walking was cheaper. Ships could be said to be ocean worthy but they were barely so and it was slow and seasonal. Roman mail service was reserved for the government but even it was slow at an average of 50 miles per day. If the apostles wanted a letter sent it went by way of someone traveling in that direction.

The apostles could not travel or communicate in any effective manner. Cutters, clippers, ocean liners, railroads, automobiles, airplanes, jet transport, telegraph, telephone, cell phone, e-mail, moveable type and printing presses, text messaging, fax machines, satellite communications, streaming videos, etc., were all in the far distant and unimaginable future. Perhaps the apostasy occurred simply because the apostles did not/could not get together to choose replacements. Perhaps technology or rather the lack thereof is as much to blame as the errors that crept into the doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps the apostasy occurred simply because the apostles did not/could not get together to choose replacements. Perhaps technology or rather the lack thereof is as much to blame as the errors that crept into the doctrine?

I am sure you are right about this. Another problem, was that since each region was so isolated, with little or no communication between them, at least by modern standards, it would be easy for the doctrine to drift regionally without anyone even really noticing. As I posted earlier, it is clear that the Apostasy was already underway in Paul's time due to doctrinal drift.

Yet in some ways I am convinced that, like the Fall, the Apostasy can be seen as a blessing and part of God's overall plan. The good news, even with what Constantine did to/for the church is that the very simple message that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God who died for our sins, became institutionalized in a way which it never could have been in times like ours, and therefore it became a central part of Western culture.

Today you could never have governments and kings institutionalizing religion- but really that is what kept that central, simple message alive for 2000 years so that when the time was right to restore all the fine points of doctrine as Joseph did, the West was already Christian and ready for the details of correct doctrine to be overlayed on the foundation which was already there.

If Paul could have Twittered the epistles, I think the message would have just disappeared as a "fad" a few years after it got started and never would have had the depth of penetration into the culture that it actually had, with kings and popes demanding fealty to Christianity.

I think perhaps if Christ had come today, the message would have just become a few sound bytes in a sea of information overload, and perhaps never survived, just as yesterday's big news story is forgotten within a few months.

I mean the Gulf oil spill started a year ago today- and who cares about it now? Even though the problems are on-going, the Japanese earthquake is already fading from consciousness, and the Haitian quake is all but forgotten.

How big a story today would it be if some followers of a homeless street preacher claimed he could work miracles and was raised from the dead?

No one would even listen!!

[Mars]

Yet in some ways I am convinced that, like the Fall, the Apostasy can be seen as a blessing and part of God's overall plan. The good news, even with what Constantine did to/for the church is that the very simple message that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God who died for our sins, became institutionalized in a way which it never could have been in times like ours, and therefore it became a central part of Western culture.

Today you could never have governments and kings institutionalizing religion- but really that is what kept that central, simple message alive for 2000 years so that when the time was right to restore all the fine points of doctrine as Joseph did, the West was already Christian and ready for the details of correct doctrine to be overlayed on the foundation which was already there.

What about the East?

[Vance]

Yet in some ways I am convinced that, like the Fall, the Apostasy can be seen as a blessing and part of God's overall plan. The good news, even with what Constantine did to/for the church is that the very simple message that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God who died for our sins, became institutionalized in a way which it never could have been in times like ours, and therefore it became a central part of Western culture.

Today you could never have governments and kings institutionalizing religion- but really that is what kept that central, simple message alive for 2000 years so that when the time was right to restore all the fine points of doctrine as Joseph did, the West was already Christian and ready for the details of correct doctrine to be overlayed on the foundation which was already there.

Yup. Thank God for the Catholic Church. Despite perhaps, the wrongness of their methods, they did spread Christianity to the New World and Asia (Philippines).

[mfbukowski]

What about the East?

Good question!?!?

Well some of the influence from the West, obviously got through- by the time of the restoration there were many Christians in that part of the World. A minority for sure, but still a foothold for Christianity was there.

But honestly I think that much of LDS doctrine would not be completely foreign to many who believe in Eastern religions; the notion of eternal progression, some cyclic notions possibly present in the King Follette Discourse, the importance of personal revelation and personal progression toward righteousness, and certainly the idea of exaltation seems somewhat parallel Nirvana type beliefs, plus the general notion that we existed before we came here and that we are eternal spirits experiencing physicality- all those parallel Eastern beliefs. Another area of agreement is the idea of "opposition in all things" which to some extent parallels Taoism, and certainly the notion of Heavenly Mother and the unity of male/female as "one flesh" can be seen in certain aspects of Hinduism.

So maybe in their own way, Eastern religions are already "half way" there-(?) at least from an LDS point of view. So again, on this way of seeing things perhaps they were also "prepared" for the restoration in their way.

[Mars]

You're good, you.

[mfbukowski]

You're good, you.

Just throw money!

[inquiringmind]

Thank you all.

Where was the Great Apostacy of the Church predicted in scripture?

[Kevin Christensen]

Thank you all.

Where was the Great Apostacy of the Church predicted in scripture?

Try this.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=108&chapid=1232

He bascially reads the New Testament passages on the apostasy and reads them in chronological order. By doing this, he not only shows the predictions of the apostasy, but detailed descriptions of it happening.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[inquiringmind]

Paul wrote that those who would depart would give heed to what he calls "seducing spirits" and "doctrines of devils."...John, who at this point certainly was the senior apostle of the church, told his readers that the last hours of the church had come, as prophesied, and that the powers of apostasy were among them in force. He stated:Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time (1 John 2:18, emphasis added).

But John also wrote (in this same epistle, to the same church, in the same hour):

By this know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4:2.)

If the Church was led into apostacy by heeding seducing spirits (not long after John wrote), how is it that the Church never denied that Jesus came in the flesh?

[Artemis]

Yup. Thank God for the Catholic Church. Despite perhaps, the wrongness of their methods, they did spread Christianity to the New World and Asia (Philippines).

True Christianity (pre-Catholic) would have found it's way around the world whether the Catholic Church had existed or not - without all of the "wrong methods".

[mfbukowski]

But John also wrote (in this same epistle, to the same church, in the same hour):

By this know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4:2.)

If the Church was led into apostacy by heeding seducing spirits (not long after John wrote), how is it that the Church never denied that Jesus came in the flesh?

This is confused.

Suppose A, B, C, D, and E are true principles. Suppose principle A= "Jesus came in the flesh".

Suppose the church lost principles BCDE.

That still would have been an "apostasy" because so much truth was lost- the fact that one important point was kept was great- but the church was still in apostasy.

[Calm]

True Christianity (pre-Catholic) would have found it's way around the world whether the Catholic Church had existed or not - without all of the "wrong methods".

I am not sure we can assume something would have happened if something else didn't happen historically speaking...at least not without a time machine that we can take back to try things out the other way.

[inquiringmind]

This is confused.

Suppose A, B, C, D, and E are true principles. Suppose principle A= "Jesus came in the flesh".

Suppose the church lost principles BCDE.

That still would have been an "apostasy" because so much truth was lost- the fact that one important point was kept was great- but the church was still in apostasy.

But LDS scholars seem to be saying that the Apostacy was led by evil spirits, and John seems to say that such spirits couldn't confess principle A--so how could the Church they led, and those that followed these spirits, continue to uphold that principle?