The Possibility Of A 2Nd Apostasy

[MiserereNobis]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

[Tacenda]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Well according to the FLDS we are in apostasy since we know longer practice polygamy. I guess they don't understand continuing revelation quite as well. Edited October 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[Ahab]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

First of all, it would help if you understood a little more about what an apostasy is, or even what an apostate is.

The true Church of Jesus Christ... whichever body of people that is... is ALWAYS the true Church of Jesus Christ. It's not as if the true Church can ever be or become an apostate church, as some people think. The Church is the body, collectively, and while one member can later become an apostate, by losing his faith, the Church as a whole can never be or become an apostate body. It's either the true Church, or it isn't the true Church and is instead an apostate Church.

So, to answer your question, No, it's not possible for the true Church which is now here, again, to "fall" into apostasy. The body, as a whole, will always remain the true Church, and the worst that can happen is for an apostate body to both claim and convince other people that it is the true Church when it is in fact an apostate Church.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee?

God has assured us that he will not remove the Church again. He still allows the individual members to die, including those who have keys of authority, but he will never remove the body as a whole from the Earth as he did in the past, as John described in the book of Revelation. There will always be members with the keys to keep the Church functioning here on this Earth.

In other words, how would God keep it from happening?

By fostering religious tolerance. By leaving enough members with the keys here who are authorized to use them.

And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

The "primitive" Church, as a body, didn't fall away. That's not what happened. Some members became apostate, but many were killed while still being honorable members, and at some point in time those with the keys were either killed or forbidden to keep the Church functioning while the individual members were either being killed or falling into apostasy. Rome couldn't keep killing Church members if at some point there was an end to them. And when they stopped, what remained on the Earth were only the apostates or those who had never been members... or those who didn't have keys or were not authorized to use them.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Ahab

[KorbenDallas]

Wow, awesome question. I like Todd Christopherson's talk 2 conferences ago about doctrine. Doctrine is only established, it seems, by multiple witnesses among the leaders, and the confirmation in the hearts of the majority of the members (I'm paraphrasing). So, the introduction and perpetuation of doctrine seems to come down to a democracy, after all, but assumes that the Holy Ghost is the party whip. As we can see in politics, power and money can sway a majority of people from their natural inclinations or moral base, if said power and/or money is adequately significant.

I guess I would recognize apostasy by the abandonment of simple true doctrines, i.e. predominance of kindness, adherence to scripture and prayer, and ascetic self-denial. Even now, I get uncomfortable in some LDS congregations that seem to emphasize outward expressions (e.g. wearing a white shirt, staying in sunday clothes all day sunday, being morally indignant over gay people's desire to be loved) over inward commitment and kindness.

Just some thoughts. I want to think about this more.

[shalamabobbi]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

The keys reside in the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 though they are latent in the quorum of the 12. Only one is athorized at any one time to exercise the keys. When he dies, the quorum of the 12 has the keys to confer upon a new leader whereupon they can be exercised again.

For an apostasy to take place those who hold the keys (the first presidency and the 12) have to be killed off faster than the keys can be handed off to someone else.

[ERayR]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

The apostasy refers to the loss of Priesthood authority and keys. There is and will continue to be plenty of individual apostasy but God has promised the Priesthood keys will not be taken from the earth again.

[RobertAC]

The apostasy refers to the loss of Priesthood authority and keys. There is and will continue to be plenty of individual apostasy but God has promised the Priesthood keys will not be taken from the earth again.

I am sure this has been addressed by theologians, but Judaism has certainly abandoned the Aaronic priesthood. No matter how many Hasids say it will return, Judaism is not going to return to the days of a select few males who rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and practice the rites of the priesthood.

Catholicism and Protestantism never adopted the Aaronic priesthood.

In that respect, Mormonism seems to be alone in declaring that its priestly lineage goes back to the days of Moses.

Edited October 17, 2012 by RobertAC

[ERayR]

I am sure this has been addressed by theologians, but Judaism has certainly abandoned the Aaronic priesthood. No matter how many Hasids say it will return, Judaism is not going to return to the days of a select few males who rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and practice the rites of the priesthood.

Catholicism and Protestantism never adopted the Aaronic priesthood.

In that respect, Mormonism seems to be alone in declaring that its priestly lineage goes back to the days of Moses.

Not following what point you are trying to make.

[shalamabobbi]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

If you are interested you will see the lost text which is quoted in the NT in the BOM. This gives a summary of the apostasy and restoration in allegorical form and a very apt description of modern Christiandom as well.

Romans 11:11-25

http://www.bluelette...&c=11&v=1&t=KJV

Jacob 5

https://www.lds.org/...acob/5?lang=eng

Remember that they broke away over offenses like the selling of indulgences, and now have created a God to worship that sanctions the same for free (since salvation in their view is unaffected by works).

For an LDS view/understanding of the atonement this last conference talk by Boyd K Packer is as good a summary as any.

see the Sunday morning session.

http://www.lds.org/g...012/10?lang=eng

[RobertAC]

Not following what point you are trying to make.

More of an observation. If the restoration meant that the Aaronic priesthood was restored, then Mormonism fulfilled that restoration insofar as no other religion has laid any claim to have restored it.

[spartacus]

I am sure this has been addressed by theologians, but Judaism has certainly abandoned the Aaronic priesthood. No matter how many Hasids say it will return, Judaism is not going to return to the days of a select few males who rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and practice the rites of the priesthood.

I'm sure Christians before 1829 would have thought the same thing before Mormonism. If Joseph Smith et al. could do it, so can Judaism. A visitation here, a "grafting" there - Voila!

And, I'm not sure how you can go about claiming what a religion is going to do, let alone what God is going to do with His People.

Catholicism and Protestantism never adopted the Aaronic priesthood.

Catholicism and Protestantism would say Mormonism never adopted the Aaronic priesthood either. Claiming to have something with the same name and adopting the actual thing are two different things.

In that respect, Mormonism seems to be alone in declaring that its priestly lineage goes back to the days of Moses.

Quite.

But again, if Mormonism can do it, so can Judaism.

[spartacus]

If you are interested you will see the lost text which is quoted in the NT in the BOM. This gives a summary of the apostasy and restoration in allegorical form and a very apt description of modern Christiandom as well.

Romans 11:11-25

http://www.bluelette...&c=11&v=1&t=KJV

Jacob 5

https://www.lds.org/...acob/5?lang=eng

Remember that they broke away over offenses like the selling of indulgences, and now have created a God to worship that sanctions the same for free (since salvation in their view is unaffected by works).

For an LDS view/understanding of the atonement this last conference talk by Boyd K Packer is as good a summary as any.

see the Sunday morning session.

http://www.lds.org/g...012/10?lang=eng

Wow... Interesting take on Romans 11:11-25. (Note: I'm not speaking positively.)

[RobertAC]

I'm sure Christians before 1829 would have thought the same thing before Mormonism. If Joseph Smith et al. could do it, so can Judaism. A visitation here, a "grafting" there - Voila!

And, I'm not sure how you can go about claiming what a religion is going to do, let alone what God is going to do with His People.

Catholicism and Protestantism would say Mormonism never adopted the Aaronic priesthood either. Claiming to have something with the same name and adopting the actual thing are two different things.

Quite.

But again, if Mormonism can do it, so can Judaism.

It could happen, but it's not likely to happen. That's not to say that the ancient Jewish priesthood has been forgotten, but to restore as a viable institution would go against a lot of competing ideas.

How God fits into the mix? Who really has the keys to the priesthood? All of that is speculation. That said I do not know of any major religion or religious denomination other than Mormonism that claims that their clergy are part of this specific lineage of priests.

[Avatar4321]

The Priesthood and it's keys will always remain. The Church will not fall into Apostasy like during the Dispensation of Grace.

But let's not pretend thats because of us. The only reason we won't fall into Apostasy is because Christ will return to the earth before that happens. He says He will cut His work short before that happens. If He were not returning, we would fall into Apostasy as easily as any previous dispensation.

Christ didn't employ that solution the first time, because if He had the prophecies concerning the Apostasy and Restoration would not have been fulfilled. You have to remember that the Church is also called the Body of Christ. In reality, the Church is a type for Christ. As the physical body of Christ had to die and be Restored to life. So did the Church, because the Church is a type for Christ. If the Apostasy and Restoration had not occured, the type would not have worked.

[mfbukowski]

Greetings friends!

From the LDS perspective, is there a possibility of the LDS church falling into apostasy and thus requiring another restoration?

If there is such a possibility, how would one know that the apostasy had occurred? I ask this especially in light of the doctrine of continuing revelation, where modern prophets can abandon old doctrines and reveal new ones.

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

I love your questions because they are really really good ones which actually make me think!

I see this, as always as a kind of spiritual epistemological problem. The question really becomes not "was there an apostasy" but how we KNOW there "was an apostasy", and by extension, what would constitute something we would call an "apostasy" should it happen in the future.

The only way we can know there "was" an apostasy is by comparing present beliefs which are confirmed by the Holy Ghost to the individual making the judgement to that person's individual understanding of what constituted ancient Christian beliefs.

In other words, the most likely scenario is that one receives a spiritual confirmation that the church of JCLDS is true, and then one in retrospect looks at present Catholic doctrine and sees how it differs from both his perception of early Christian doctrine and what he has now, as a Mormon, come to believe is correct doctrine. One then concludes that there was an apostasy from those early beliefs.

Putting it very succinctly, it is a belief of the Church of JCLDS that there was an apostasy, therefore if one is a member of the Church of JCLDS, one believes there was an apostasy. It really is not much more complicated than that. You either have a personal witness that the LDS church is true or you don't, and the belief in the apostasy goes with that.

Now it appears that is also true for Protestants including Evangelicals. If they believed Catholicism was true Christianity they would not be Protestants.

And so I think it will be for future generations, just as it is a question for this generation. If you believe that the FLDS church is "true", then that is your belief, and you disagree with the LDS church. If you believe the Community of Christ is "true" and all the others are "apostate".

I mean Catholics believe the LDS church is "apostate" and we all go around calling each other "heretics" etc. and that is not likely to change.

If someone today or in the future thinks that the LDS church is "apostate" right now- what happens? They leave or start their own church etc. and that WILL NOT CHANGE

So as always for me, it boils down to individual testimony, and a decision by each individual human soul which comes into life and lives on this earth- they have to find the truth. It doesn't matter if they lived in the past or in the future- it is a decision each individual has to make for themselves, or leave it up to others to do it for them- others like their parents, the government, tradition, or their vision of the flying spaghetti monster- they get to decide that for themselves.

So if future generations decide that Joseph was an imposter, it's no different than someone today deciding that Joseph was an imposter. There is not much I can do to change that.

So to me, as great a question as it is, I think the very question itself is somewhat confused.

It presumes that religion is a body of factual scientific beliefs "out there" somewhere to be observed and discovered and to which our ideas correspond and that that correspondence can somehow be monitored to see how our beliefs compare to the factual scientific "reality" of religion.

I don't think that is the way it is, nor at the very least can I see how that alleged monitoring of the difference between what is "out there" and what we believe, can happen

And that is where we disagree of course. That is essentially a Platonic way of looking at the world.

For me, the church consists of millions of individual souls having what they believe is a revelation from God himself that what the church of JCLDS teaches is true.

THAT is the essence. Should God choose to reveal something else to others, that is between them and God, and it is largely irrelevant to my life.

All I can know is what he has revealed to me, and that is that the church of JCLDS is true. The rest is none of my business. I guess it is a mystery.

[Damien the Leper]

First there has to be an original apostasy prior to a second. The theories that propose that an apostasy already happened, IMO, are somewhat off base.

I reason this because it is illogical to presume that all the original apostles were in exact agreement, not only with each other, but with Jesus himself. Looking closely at the theological teachings/reflections of Matthew, Jesus and Paul, we see very different ideas and representations of "Christianity". What is logical is to understand that there wasn't a single form of Christianity practiced even in the earliest days of the 1st century. From that point on, we see how diversely the Christian movement develops.

No offense to the LDS here, but I find it to be a false idea that there ever was "one true Christian church". History doesn't exactly attest to such a notion.

[Saints Alive]

...Looking closely at the theological teachings/reflections of Matthew, Jesus and Paul, we see very different ideas and representations of "Christianity". What is logical is to understand that there wasn't a single form of Christianity practiced even in the earliest days of the 1st century. From that point on, we see how diversely the Christian movement develops.

No offense to the LDS here, but I find it to be a false idea that there ever was "one true Christian church". History doesn't exactly attest to such a notion.

I'm sure Thomas S. Monson and the members of the Quorum of the 12 have different ideas about what LDS is... that doesn't mean they belong to a different church. The Brethren have had disagreements in the past, they all still belonged to the same church.

[Ahab]

So to me, as great a question as it is, I think the very question itself is somewhat confused.

It presumes that religion is a body of factual scientific beliefs "out there" somewhere to be observed and discovered and to which our ideas correspond and that that correspondence can somehow be monitored to see how our beliefs compare to the factual scientific "reality" of religion.

I don't think that is the way it is, nor at the very least can I see how that alleged monitoring of the difference between what is "out there" and what we believe, can happen.

I don't understand why you can't see that is the way it is when you just explained so well what you said up above.

Once you know which church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, you can compare all other churches and all other religous beliefs to that Church to see how they compare, issue for issue. The "out there" in this case is what is out there in the world that has anything to do with any kind of religious issue.

And that is where we disagree of course. That is essentially a Platonic way of looking at the world.

Ugh. Please elaborate. I don't see why you say you can't see what you just said up above that you see.

For me, the church consists of millions of individual souls having what they believe is a revelation from God himself that what the church of JCLDS teaches is true.

The world as a whole consists of billions of individual souls having what they believe is a revelation from God himself that what they believe is true, too, though. Do you see a way for any of us to know who or who isn't in an apostate condition?

All I can know is what he has revealed to me, and that is that the church of JCLDS is true. The rest is none of my business. I guess it is a mystery.

You can also know whether or not what someone else says is a revelation from God based on how that compares with what God has told you. If it's in agreement, then it's all from God, but if there is a contradiction it isn't.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Ahab

[CV75]

If there is no such possibility, what is the protection and/or guarantee? In other words, how would God keep it from happening? And why didn't He employ that same method with the primitive Church to keep her from falling away?

John 12: 24 lays out a very important principle that applies to the dynamics of the Fall, Rebirth, the Resurrection, The Apostasy, and other key events in the plan of salvation: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” This explains why He didn’t prevent the primitive Church from falling away.

The other principle is the witness that “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” (Ephesians 4:10). He even suffered the loss of His Church upon the earth.

There is no possibility of another general, global apostasy—the stone cut without hands has already begun to roll forth (Daniel 2). Exactly how God accomplishes this fulfillment of prophecy is not detailed but can be easily witnessed.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm sure Thomas S. Monson and the members of the Quorum of the 12 have different ideas about what LDS is... that doesn't mean they belong to a different church. The Brethren have had disagreements in the past, they all still belonged to the same church.

I'm talking about what these early individuals theologically believed and what they disagreed and rejected between each other. There wasn't a church established in the 1st century. There were only communities that believed and who structured themselves as they saw fit.

President Monson and President Veazey are both Latter Day Saints in the sense that they draw their religious roots to the Restoration. They have different ideas of what being a Latter Day Saint is and neither is more correct than the other.

[Ahab]

First there has to be an original apostasy prior to a second. The theories that propose that an apostasy already happened, IMO, are somewhat off base.

I reason this because it is illogical to presume that all the original apostles were in exact agreement, not only with each other, but with Jesus himself.

While God is one, the rest of us, at best, are still trying to become one with them. We don't all have to agree with each other on every issue to be members of the same Church.

Looking closely at the theological teachings/reflections of Matthew, Jesus and Paul, we see very different ideas and representations of "Christianity".

Different, yes, but collectively they are in harmony on at least most of the major issues.

What is logical is to understand that there wasn't a single form of Christianity practiced even in the earliest days of the 1st century. From that point on, we see how diversely the Christian movement develops.

Christianity is all about following Christ, so the single form of Christianity that existed in the first place was the form of Christianity represented and exemplified by Jesus Christ, himself. From himself it spread to others, some of whom he gave his authority, and along the way people picked up more or less of what he tried to teach them with some falling into apostasy, which is to go against or fall away from what he taught and/or teaches. Something is either in harmony with him and his teachings, or it isn't.

No offense to the LDS here, but I find it to be a false idea that there ever was "one true Christian church". History doesn't exactly attest to such a notion.

Yes, history does exactly attest to that notion, even though you are saying it doesn't.

[pmccombs1]

The world as a whole consists of billions of individual souls having what they believe is a revelation from God himself that what they believe is true, too, though. Do you see a way for any of us to know who or who isn't in an apostate condition?

This is a good question, not directed to me, but to which my own answer would be: No, we don't have any objective way to know for sure. We can only know subjectively. If there were some sure way to measure and quantify religious truth, then all would be compelled to to believe on the basis of reason alone. For all we know, we're wrong. But we don't feel wrong.

As for whether or not there could be a second apostasy, I suppose the question is predicated on the hypothetical reality of a first one which itself presumes the literal existence of orthodoxy (both positions that I personally doubt).

However, assuming there was an apostasy in the face of the fact that apostates certainly didn't consider themselves apostate, nor believe that there could be a general apostasy because of some assurances allegedly made by the Lord Himself, I suppose that those who now do not believe themselves in a state of apostasy, nor that their Church could ever be in apostasy on account of some similar assurances, could in fact be apostates at this time and not know it. There's a precedent for it, thus apostasy could happen again by reason of induction.

I presume the Lord would not deny free will to his chosen leaders in order so satisfy assurances. Perhaps an authorized Church might exist that teaches false doctrines, in which case we might question the Lord's competency.

I also note that those who have historically claimed that the Lord would remove them from power rather than allow them to lead astray are today no longer in power. What are we to make of that?

[pmccombs1]

John 12: 24 lays out a very important principle that applies to the dynamics of the Fall, Rebirth, the Resurrection, The Apostasy, and other key events in the plan of salvation: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” This explains why He didn’t prevent the primitive Church from falling away.

The other principle is the witness that “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” (Ephesians 4:10). He even suffered the loss of His Church upon the earth.

There is no possibility of another general, global apostasy—the stone cut without hands has already begun to roll forth (Daniel 2). Exactly how God accomplishes this fulfillment of prophecy is not detailed but can be easily witnessed.

I like this thinking. This is a good example of how we can find great integrity in the claims of Mormonism. I don't think it's necessarily right thinking, but it's certainly good thinking.

[pmccombs1]

Yes, history does exactly attest to that notion, even though you are saying it doesn't.

I mostly agree with Valentius. I think there are some serious, perhaps fatal, historical problems with the notion of a single, original Christianity. I get my opinion from assessing the evidences presented by Dr. Ehrman in his lectures on early Christian authentication. If he is correct, and if his evidence is legitimate, then original Christianity is a difficult proposition. He may be wrong, but he is certainly plausible.

[mfbukowski]

No offense to the LDS here, but I find it to be a false idea that there ever was "one true Christian church". History doesn't exactly attest to such a notion.

For better or worse, that would apply to Catholics and Protestants as well if it were the case.

But guess what. No one will ever know if you are right or wrong- at least not until we get to the other side- so how much does it matter?