Define Apostasy

[LeSellers]

"The Church" that we are referring to is the Roman Catholic Church?

No, the Roman Church did not exist (as we know it, certanly) until Constantine in the IV.

There was a Stake ("church") in Rome during Paul's lifetime, but it had failed long before the Emperor Sol Victus solidified his power over what was left of Christian doctrine in AD 325.

After Peter died, the church continued on and is still alive today?

No, it did not. The Church, as a world-wide (as far as they knew) entity failed by c. AD 200. By then, there was no active Priesthood authority and no keys to authorize anything, not even a baptism, much less a change to a vital ordinance.

They believe that they still retain all the keys and never were in apostasy?

Yes, they do. Which proves nothing germane.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not to belabor the FLDS again, but what would you say to an FLDS member who told you that they had prayed and God spoke to their heart that the FLDS church was the one true church? That the LDS church was in apostasy?

Good for you.

[Calm]

Not to belabor the FLDS again, but what would you say to an FLDS member who told you that they had prayed and God spoke to their heart that the FLDS church was the one true church? That the LDS church was in apostasy?

I would say if that is what you believe, then you should act on that belief.

[Scottie]

Thank you again.

Yes, they do. Which proves nothing germane.

Okay, who is "they"?

[mfbukowski]

Of course I am in a state of Apostasy. I am just in a less state than you.

Yes, that's because you are not in the state of Utah.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, that's because you are not in the state of Utah.

What? I live in West Jordan. Not that any one needed to know that, but I am in Utah.

But alas, I get the pun. good one.

I should not have capitalized "apostasy".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you again.

Okay, who is "they"?

I think the "they", in the context of yours and Lehi's conversation, is the Catholic Church.

[Scottie]

I think the "they", in the context of yours and Lehi's conversation, is the Catholic Church.

I guess I'm confused as to which church died out and how the Catholic church came to be?

Somewhere along the way, there must have been a schism that separated the churches? Peter's church died while the Catholic church thrived?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess I'm confused as to which church died out and how the Catholic church came to be?

Somewhere along the way, there must have been a schism that separated the churches? Peter's church died while the Catholic church thrived?

I think that Peter's church became the Catholic church. We just mean it a little differently than that Catholic point of view.

[LeSellers]

I guess I'm confused as to which church died out and how the Catholic church came to be?

Somewhere along the way, there must have been a schism that separated the churches? Peter's church died while the Catholic church thrived?

I think that Peter's church became the Catholic church. We just mean it a little differently than that Catholic point of view.

It might be better to say that what had once been "Peter's" Church evolved into the Catholic Church. There was no direct connection between the two: it took a very long time for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in the Meridian of Time) to metamorphose into another pagan faith.

It is easy to see in the Bible that there was an ongoing apostasy by the VII decade. All the epistles we have in the Bible and others, besides, address the doctrinal and practice errors that had already begun to creep into the Church.

By c. AD 100, there were no more Apostles (save John, who was effectively nullified by the apostate, and now non-Apostolic church). The loss of the Priesthood keys meant that no new Priesthood holders could be ordained, and, within another few decades, the Church of Jesus Christ was effectively gone. There were no brakes (except tradition, not a reliable hold) on changes to everything from ordinances, to doctrine, to theology. And change they did. By c. AD 200, the connection between what was called the Christian church was totally dissolved from its Petrine "roots".

For the next century, the fractious nature of Christianity had become very nearly open warfare. (There were major battles, especially, but not exclusively, in Africa, where church buildings were destroyed and whole towns and cities were attacked based on which sect it had adopted.)

In the last years of the III, we seen Constantine enter the theatre, and he was not amused. A large minority of people in his new empire had renounced the ancient Roman gods, and adopted this apostate Christianity. The aforementioned fractious nature was wrecking havoc with his political dreams. He was a fabulous politician, and had access to the treasury of Rome. He, by his role as Emperor, and not even a nominal Christian, convoked the bishops (who would have been Stake Presidents had there been any Apostles) to Nicaea, Turkey, and locked the door until they had compromised their positions and emerged with a single version of "Christian" doctrine. He made this offer (which they could not refuse) after entering the hall in all the splendor he could manage, and took the seat of honor and power, and addressed the assembled bishops. It was he who "suggested" the term "homo ouosia" (same nature) that eventually became the crux of the compromise of the Trinity.

It important to note that the Bishop of Rome was considered so mediocre that he was among the few who were not invited, but who came anyway.

A decade or so later, the bishop of Rome became the "first among equals", and at that point, and only at that point, was the Roman Catholic church born.

It was not unopposed. Even today, there are "national" churches throughout the East: Copts in Egypt, Orthodox in Greece, Russia, Syria, etc., and even the Churches of England and Scotland, that (at least pretends to) traces its origin to the III christianization of Britain. It took several decades after Nicaea for Rome to assert and impose its dominance on the West. (When Constantine moved the capital of Rome to Byzantium/Constantinople, he set up the later schism between Rome and the East.)

The source for much of this is Drake's Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. I lent my copy out several months ago, and the loanee has not returned it.

Lehi

[ChristKnight]

It important to note that the Bishop of Rome was considered so mediocre that he was among the few who were not invited, but who came anyway.

The Bishop of Rome didn't attend the Council of Nicaea.

[LeSellers]

The Bishop of Rome didn't attend the Council of Nicaea.

Hmm. As I said, the book is not on my shelf, and I am going on memory.

It may have been the following imperial council (the name of which I have forgotten).

The point about the Bishop of Rome's not being there (or at least not invited) remains: he wasn't considered a player, and certainly not the head of a Roman Church.

Lehi

[Rivers]

Yes, well the FLDS Church is bunch of misogynistic child abusers... I think their claim to the truth is refuted by their actions; which are far louder than their words ever could be.

It could be argued that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders were also child abusers.

[Nathair/|\]

It could be argued that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders were also child abusers.

If that argument was based on unsound premises. Of course, why someone would want to so vilely slander such great and godly men I'll never understand.

[Rivers]

If that argument was based on unsound premises. Of course, why someone would want to so vilely slander such great and godly men I'll never understand.

Exactly. I don't believe they were child abusers, but I often hear Joseph Smith being compared to Warren Jeffs. Joseph Smith did marry a few teenage girls. Joseph is often vilified for his practice of plural marriage.

[Stargazer]

Good, thanks! It's amazing how much more productive one can be when they break the mormon discussion board addiction!!

Yes, I've been contemplating the pointlessness of much of what goes on here, too, lately. I thought you were banned or something, like so many other brave souls on both sides of the fence. Nice to see you're still kicking, boardwise.

The thing about the apostasy is that it was predicted in advance. Of course, some in mainstream Christianity acknowledge this but feel that the Nicean Council, or the Reformation, or what-have-you constituted the Restoration, so to speak. Thus Joseph Smith was not at all needed.

[Franktalk]

The thing about the apostasy is that it was predicted in advance. Of course, some in mainstream Christianity acknowledge this but feel that the Nicean Council, or the Reformation, or what-have-you constituted the Restoration, so to speak. Thus Joseph Smith was not at all needed.

So the question becomes where did the Nicean council get their authority from? Or even the Reformation for that matter. I don't think I have heard either group claim to have received a vision from God to form the group. And even the actions of the leaders does not lead one to suspect a Spiritual authority. When one votes in the results of the meetings it seems to be pretty worldly to me.

[3DOP]

This is in response to LeSellers dubious proposal that the Bishop of Rome was uninvited to the First Council of Nicea because he was "considered so mediocre".

It seems like if it is "important to note that the bishop of Rome was considered so mediocre that he wasn't invited" to the Council, that it would follow that it is "important to note" if he would have been welcomed and instead sent delegates to represent him?

Far from being disdained as "mediocre", the bishopric of Rome was one of very few in the Western Church represented at the Council:

Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope.

---Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, entry on the First Council of Nicea

So there were five Latin churches represented at the Council, and Rome had two delegates. There were reportedly over 300 Greek bishops present. This Council, the ecumenicity of which depends on its ratification by Rome, consisted almost entirely of Greek bishops or their representatives. If Rome had two delegates when the West was barely represented at all, it seems difficult to reconcile with a view that proposes that Rome was "considered so mediocre" by the rest of the Church. And I would reiterate that if it would be important if Rome was disdained, it follows that it would be important if Rome was respected and represented.

[Stargazer]

So the question becomes where did the Nicean council get their authority from? Or even the Reformation for that matter. I don't think I have heard either group claim to have received a vision from God to form the group. And even the actions of the leaders does not lead one to suspect a Spiritual authority. When one votes in the results of the meetings it seems to be pretty worldly to me.

Well, yes, of course, but who cares about authority? The authority comes from the scriptures (by what means is rather muddled), or from tradition. The Catholics claim an unbroken line of authority, by the way, and I don't think they are relying upon the Nicean council for that.

What I never figured out was if the Catholic church had apostatized from the Gospel, what exactly it was that gave the Protestants the authority to reform the church. I mean, if the authority did not rest with the Catholic church due to apostasy, then how could Luther, Calvin, et al. claim any themselves, since it was up in smoke in the first place? The best they could claim was that there was no authority and they were doing the best they could with nothing much, beyond following the scriptures as best they could. Then of course, some of them came up with the theory that the "authoriy", such as it is, rested actually in the body of believers not in any kind of organization. Which is quite clearly unscriptural balderdash, but if it's all you got, well, then one must make do.

So, it's either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox Church, having the best claims to an unbroken chain of authority (if one exists), or a new grant of authority, such as through a new prophet. The Protestants haven't got a leg to stand on (which I believe is what some Catholic church theologian once told LeGrand Richards or some such person). Of course, not having a leg to stand on never stopped anyone before, so...

[Stargazer]

This is in response to LeSellers dubious proposal that the Bishop of Rome was uninvited to the First Council of Nicea because he was "considered so mediocre".

It seems like if it is "important to note that the bishop of Rome was considered so mediocre that he wasn't invited" to the Council, that it would follow that it is "important to note" if he would have been welcomed and instead sent delegates to represent him?

Far from being disdained as "mediocre", the bishopric of Rome was one of very few in the Western Church represented at the Council:

---Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, entry on the First Council of Nicea

So there were five Latin churches represented at the Council, and Rome had two delegates. There were reportedly over 300 Greek bishops present. This Council, the ecumenicity of which depends on its ratification by Rome, consisted almost entirely of Greek bishops or their representatives. If Rome had two delegates when the West was barely represented at all, it seems difficult to reconcile with a view that proposes that Rome was "considered so mediocre" by the rest of the Church. And I would reiterate that if it would be important if Rome was disdained, it follows that it would be important if Rome was respected and represented.

I'll drink to that.

Now, if the Council of Nicea is recognized by God, well, that is an entirely other question.

[Franktalk]

Stargazer,

I think we all can agree that the beast that Daniel saw represents Rome. It rises up after the Greeks. We also see the beast in the end times prophecy of John. So the beast exists for a long time. The beast has broken apart and reformed in many ways over the centuries but was never replaced. The beast is still with us today. So now we see the beast embrace the church a few hundred years after Christ died. I would like someone to tell me how that is a good thing.

I think we have to be careful in describing apostasy. The Word of God was not diminished by a fallen church. The people who love God were not and are not tied to the sins of the church. So the people of the church are a completely different matter than the structure and authority of the church.

What I find telling is what John wrote about our personal relationship with God.

1 John 5:6-8

King James Version (KJV)

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Here on earth we are to use the witness of the Spirit, water of Baptism, and blood of atonement also being spiritual in nature to support us. Where is the Church? John knew that the church would not be there for the people. John knew that the more sure path to faith rest in the Holy Ghost. So why a restored church? Authority for ordinances, a structure for further revelation, and support for missionary work. This is as I see it. Our relationship with God is personal and outside of the church. The church supports but does not define our relationship with God. My two cents.

[juliann]

This is where I thought this would go. We simply don't have enough information to really know what happened and why things weren't passed on.

The way Mr Larson made it sound, the reason LDS say the apostasy happened is because the church had become corrupt and had changed ordinances, which displeased God. Since the LDS church has changed ordinances, they should be in apostasy too.

Thank you for your comments.

I do think we can be a little harsh when it comes to "the apostasy" and I don't find a conclusion based on a few sentences very satisfying. I also think that if we are going to use statements like "corrupt" we are not giving the people who had to live through some pretty horrible stuff much respect.

I think a very good case can be made for such a loss if using early Christian history. The leaders were systematically picked off, first by the Romans then by each other with political strong arming. I visualize it as akin to leaders being in different cities/states, no means to communicate easily, the police come and take the stake president. The wards limp on. Then they get the bishops. People would try to go on but there would be a lot of disagreements and competition. The only thing they would be able to do is "elect" leaders now. And so on.

I like Nibley's term for the second century, when the lights went out. What I found the most convincing was Origen's First Principals in which he tries to lay out a theology with his only support being "as has been handed down". So within a very short period theologians were battling over doctrine. If there is going to be a claim that there was an ongoing organized church where was the leader? Why weren't they just asking the main guy what the doctrine was instead of setting up arguments for and against certain beliefs and practices?

[Magyar]

I guess I'm confused as to which church died out and how the Catholic church came to be?

Somewhere along the way, there must have been a schism that separated the churches? Peter's church died while the Catholic church thrived?

Remember that the Roman Catholic Church is just one of many that emerged in the early centuries of the Christian era and lived to tell the tale. The Mideast and Medit. area, from Ethiopia to Iraq, is to this day full of ancient sects of varying sizes that make no claim to have protested or broken away from Roman Catholicism -- they believe they ARE the original Church of Peter and Paul.

[Magyar]

I do think we can be a little harsh when it comes to "the apostasy" and I don't find a conclusion based on a few sentences very satisfying. I also think that if we are going to use statements like "corrupt" we are not giving the people who had to live through some pretty horrible stuff much respect.

I think a very good case can be made for such a loss if using early Christian history. The leaders were systematically picked off, first by the Romans then by each other with political strong arming. I visualize it as akin to leaders being in different cities/states, no means to communicate easily, the police come and take the stake president. The wards limp on. Then they get the bishops. People would try to go on but there would be a lot of disagreements and competition. The only thing they would be able to do is "elect" leaders now. And so on.

I like Nibley's term for the second century, when the lights went out. What I found the most convincing was Origen's First Principals in which he tries to lay out a theology with his only support being "as has been handed down". So within a very short period theologians were battling over doctrine. If there is going to be a claim that there was an ongoing organized church where was the leader? Why weren't they just asking the main guy what the doctrine was instead of setting up arguments for and against certain beliefs and practices?

Having recently read Confessions and City of God by Augustine -- some of the driest, most uninspired philosophy it has ever been my non-pleasure to wade through -- I can see the miasma of apostasy was in full force by then. Hell for unbaptized infants, hatred for Jews, fervent condemnation of the idea that God could have a physical body (though it's no problem for Christ somehow), and everything drenched in a bland sauce of Hellenistic philosophy.