The Great Apostasy - So what changed?

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd love some clarification on these two statements.  If Peter were the only apostle living he could pass on the keys by ordaining someone with or without a full quorum.

And where does modern day revelation determine he couldn't do that?

As stated in previous posts citing modern scripture, we LDS understand succession. Remember that Brigham Young cited the D&C in his assertion that after Joseph's death the Twelve held the keys to the church. This was sustained by the membership at the time.  Other claims, such as Sidney Rigdon's, were set aside.  So clearly there are guidelines given to us in modern scripture.

 

But there is nothing in the Bible that has this clarity.  Our missionaries teach that after the apostles were scattered, killed or otherwise died, the authority left the church.  But this is certainly not the Catholic position.  Their position is that God gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and he passed them on.

Further, any tweaks in doctrine or ordinances have been approved by the popes for the past 2,000 years exercising their keys ex Cathedra. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by mrmarklin
Clarity.

[hagoth7]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 Iwant to know what happened in the congregations say, 25 years after the last apostle died.  How was the covenant broken?  What caused revelation to cease?  What were the first ordinances to be aaltered....

We claim revelation today to change ordinances.  I am sure they did then too.  I am curious about the process that led to apostasy.

The process began with intimidation and murder and was swept under the carpet with Orwellian shifts in semantics so people forgot things as simple as what spectrum of meaning the word "ordinance' actually encompasses.

Ordinances. "You keeo using that word. I don't think that it means...."

Look up that word in Webster's 1828 dictionary to restore the broader meaning of what an ordinance (changed or otherwise) can meam or encompass.

That brief query should restore/expand the paradigm a wee bit.

Then perhaps we can/should discuss broken covenant.

Thoughts? Impressions?

Edited February 17, 2017 by hagoth7

[CV75]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You've shown that the Seventy have the authority to seal, but I don't see any mention made of the Seventy holding priesthood keys or the keys of the sealing power.  Without priesthood keys the Seventy have no authority, on their own, to perform priesthood ordinances or ordain others to the priesthood.  When a priesthood holder performs an ordinance or ordain another to the priesthood it is done under the direction and by the authority of one who holds priesthood keys.

I tend to agree--all the keys of the First Presidency are not conferred upon the members of the Seventy as they are the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. D&C 107 refers to the three quorums being equal in authority in their decisions. I think there would need to be a special dispensation to restore the keys if only the quorums of Seventy remained, even if they were to continue to make decisions for the Church until such time of restoration. But let's find out more!

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct.  But if the 12 and FP were to die/apostatize the keys automatically fall on the 70 without ordination or restoration because they hold the same combined authority as the 12 or FP.  That means they hold sufficient priesthood office to negate the need for restoring the keys again, even if they are under the presiding authority of the 12.  They could literally get together and ordain a new Quorum of the 12 if the current one was destroyed.

Isn't it the presidency of the 70 who have this authorization and access to keys?

[mfbukowski]

Let's get real. If the Q of  15 got wiped out someone would come up with a revelation or 3.

Can we get back on topic now?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

The process began with intimidation and murder and was swept under the carpet with Orwellian shifts in semantics so people forgot things as simple as what spectrum of meaning the word "ordinance' actually encompasses.

Ordinances. "You keeo using that word. I don't think that it means...."

Look up that word in Webster's 1828 dictionary to restore the broader meaning of what an ordinance (changed or otherwise) can meam or encompass.

That brief query should restore/expand the paradigm a wee bit.

Then perhaps we can/should discuss broken covenant.

Thoughts? Impressions?

So you are going with "we haven't actually changed the ordinances like the early Christians did" argument.
Fair enough.  Don't agree.  I see the exact same kinds of changes except we claim our to be authorized.

And the breaking of the everlasting covenant is the interesting other side of this coin.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

As stated in previous posts citing modern scripture, we LDS understand succession. Remember that Brigham Young cited the D&C in his assertion that after Joseph's death the Twelve held the keys to the church. This was sustained by the membership at the time.  Other claims, such as Sidney Rigdon's, were set aside.  So clearly there are guidelines given to us in modern scripture.

 

The succession wasn't clear at all. It was pretty chaotic with many competing claimants. That what lead to the first of many divisions within the Mormon movement. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

The succession wasn't clear at all. It was pretty chaotic with many competing claimants. That what lead to the first of many divisions within the Mormon movement.

Hundreds at last count, all claiming to be "authorized".

[Derl Sanderson]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I've been reading and studying on the many changes made to the ordinances of the gospel since they were first restored (a VERY long list).
Now, leaving aside whether they are correct and authorized or not, my mind went to the Great Apostasy.

Given what we know of the gospel from the restoration, WHAT apostasy occurred?  What was changed?  What happened that caused priesthood authority to be lost?
We state this often in our manuals and lessons:
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-22-the-apostasy?lang=eng

Is the only difference between what happened after the Apostles to the early Church and what has happened to the Church today that we believe the changes we have made were authorized and that their changes weren't? 

What actual actions taken by the early Church caused the Great Apostasy?
Because the ones described in the manual link sound awfully familiar...
 

Big topic, well beyond the scope of this board. My understanding isn't complete, but I have read, did enjoy, and recommend these books:

Nibley

Noel Reynolds, ed.

Barry Bickmore

Richard Hopkins

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So you are going with "we haven't actually changed the ordinances like the early Christians did" argument.
Fair enough.  Don't agree.  I see the exact same kinds of changes except we claim our to be authorized.

And the breaking of the everlasting covenant is the interesting other side of this coin.

 The temple ordinance as been changed, and this in my lifetime.

[mrmarklin]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

The succession wasn't clear at all. It was pretty chaotic with many competing claimants. That what lead to the first of many divisions within the Mormon movement. 

Very true.  But Brigham Young's interpretation was accepted by the body of the church.

[JLHPROF]

I want to try a slightly different approach using a hypothetical situation.

It's 100AD.  All of the Apostles have died (except John of course  ).  You are a member of a Christian congregation living in some arid country many miles from Jerusalem.  The head of your congregation holding the priesthood comes to Church and reads an announcement.

• "Our leaders have decreed that due to the difficulty in obtaining water in this land we are now authorized to baptize using only a few drops of water.  Ideally immersion should still be the preferred method of baptism and should not be superseded by sprinkling.  But both since both immersing and washing are implied in the use of the word baptism we consider the pattern to be in the application of water and after much prayerful consideration we have unanimously decided that members may use this modified baptism and not be considered out of harmony."

Now we come to this dispensation.  It's 1923.  You are a member of a ward in Salt Lake City.  Your Stake President gathers the adult members together and reads an announcement.

• Our leaders after careful and prayerful consideration have unanimously decided that the following modifications may be permitted, and a garment of the following style be worn by those Church members who wish to adopt it:  (temple content left out of course)
  It may be observed that no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given, and that the present style of garment differs very materially from that in use in the early history of the Church.
  It is the mind of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve that this modified garment may be used by those who desire to adopt it, without violating any covenant they make in the House of the Lord, and with a clear conscience, so long as they keep the covenants which they have made and remember that the garment is the emblem of the Holy Priesthood designed by the Lord as a covering for the body, and that it should be carefully preserved from mutilation and unnecessary exposure, and be properly marked.
  It should be clearly understood that this modified garment does not supersede the approved garment now in use, that either of these patterns may be worn, as Church members prefer, without being considered unorthodox, and those using either will not be out of harmony with the order of the Church.

 

Is there really any difference?  Would you as a member recognize a difference?
How would the early members of the Church have known there was a problem leading to the Great Apostasy?

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Big topic, well beyond the scope of this board. My understanding isn't complete, but I have read, did enjoy, and recommend these books:

Nibley

Noel Reynolds, ed.

Barry Bickmore

Richard Hopkins

I will read these this weekend.

Thank you!

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Very true.  But Brigham Young's interpretation was accepted by the body of the church.

Sure. But the Nicene Creed was also accepted by the body of the church.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's get real. If the Q of  15 got wiped out someone would come up with a revelation or 3.

Can we get back on topic now?

Joseph Smith: been there, done that!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there really any difference?  Would you as a member recognize a difference?
How would the early members of the Church have known there was a problem leading to the Great Apostasy?

The big difference I see is that in 1923, all the Apostles aren’t dead and the instructions are easily verifiable as coming from the top. They also had the promise that this is the dispensation of the fullness of times with no further apostasy, while the early saints had a prophecy and were warned that a falling away was to come. I think another big difference is that I'm not sure how much the early saints could keep on top of things without having much reference material available to them.

I'm sure there were those in the primitive church that had the same spirit as the reformers and recognized that something was amiss, but what were they to do but wait (no one had the keys to do anything about it), just as did those that looked for a restoration of the ancient church in Joseph's Smith's day and believed so readily when they saw it.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The big difference I see is that in 1923, all the Apostles aren’t dead and the instructions are easily verifiable as coming from the top. They also had the promise that this is the dispensation of the fullness of times with no further apostasy, while the early saints had a prophecy and were warned that a falling away was to come. I think another big difference is that I'm not sure how much the early saints could keep on top of things without having much reference material available to them.

I'm sure there were those in the primitive church that had the same spirit as the reformers and recognized that something was amiss, but what were they to do but wait (no one had the keys to do anything about it), just as did those that looked for a restoration of the ancient church in Joseph's Smith's day and believed so readily when they saw it.

 

So it all comes back to "we are authorized, they were not even though they thought they were".

And the sheer number of changes is far greater than is generally realized.  Ordinances eliminated, ordinances changed, parts of ordinances removed.  I don't think a single ordinance has remained untouched.

Edited February 17, 2017 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Very true.  But Brigham Young's interpretation was accepted by the body of the church.

What interpretation was that? BY was voted in by a majority vote in a field of several other candidates including Sidney.

Even BY delayed this confirmation in an attempt to try to nominate Joseph Smith III as the next president, and talked about setting up a receivership or trust for him. The practice of the senior-most apostle was a later tradition adopted at his death - nothing more. Anyone can get nominated as president. Confirmation only requires a majority vote which will be cast by the church hopefully under inspiration of revelation.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So it all comes back to "we are authorized, they were not even though they thought they were".

And the sheer number of changes is far greater than is generally realized.  Ordinances eliminated, ordinances changed, parts of ordinances removed.  I don't think a single ordinance has remained untouched.

No one is able to use the keys in this world if he’s dead (generally speaking), and no one is authorized if the keys have been taken from the earth. I think there were early saints who must have recognized these principles and were aware of their dire straits, but did the best they did with what they had. We have no record of a dead man (ministering spirit, translated being, or resurrected person) using or conveying them to another in the NT, and not up until they visited Joseph Smith.

I don’t think God left the early saints comfortless; I think He took them into His bosom, figuratively and perhaps in some cases literally (like John), following the pattern of His treatment of those taken up into Enoch’s Zion. I think John's revelation alludes to this with the prophecies for the seven churches. But I think we can recognize that there were ancient saints that knew the leaders were not authorized as well as those who thought they were, or who didn’t comprehend or appreciate such a significant distinction.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I want to try a slightly different approach using a hypothetical situation.

It's 100AD.  All of the Apostles have died (except John of course  ).  You are a member of a Christian congregation living in some arid country many miles from Jerusalem.  The head of your congregation holding the priesthood comes to Church and reads an announcement.

• "Our leaders have decreed that due to the difficulty in obtaining water in this land we are now authorized to baptize using only a few drops of water.  Ideally immersion should still be the preferred method of baptism and should not be superseded by sprinkling.  But both since both immersing and washing are implied in the use of the word baptism we consider the pattern to be in the application of water and after much prayerful consideration we have unanimously decided that members may use this modified baptism and not be considered out of harmony."

Now we come to this dispensation.  It's 1923.  You are a member of a ward in Salt Lake City.  Your Stake President gathers the adult members together and reads an announcement.

• Our leaders after careful and prayerful consideration have unanimously decided that the following modifications may be permitted, and a garment of the following style be worn by those Church members who wish to adopt it:  (temple content left out of course)
  It may be observed that no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given, and that the present style of garment differs very materially from that in use in the early history of the Church.
  It is the mind of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve that this modified garment may be used by those who desire to adopt it, without violating any covenant they make in the House of the Lord, and with a clear conscience, so long as they keep the covenants which they have made and remember that the garment is the emblem of the Holy Priesthood designed by the Lord as a covering for the body, and that it should be carefully preserved from mutilation and unnecessary exposure, and be properly marked.
  It should be clearly understood that this modified garment does not supersede the approved garment now in use, that either of these patterns may be worn, as Church members prefer, without being considered unorthodox, and those using either will not be out of harmony with the order of the Church.

 

Is there really any difference?  Would you as a member recognize a difference?
How would the early members of the Church have known there was a problem leading to the Great Apostasy?

That is the problem isn't it?

We tend to assume that there were practices that had the stamp of approval of Jesus, complete with Priesthood Manuals, clearly defined doctrine about the Godhead, exactly how and where to do baptisms for the dead, conditions of worthiness, etc etc when of course it was nothing like that

The assumption that we can actually define which practices were "true" and which were "false" and then compare them to today's practices for an international organization and try to reproduce the ancient practices today just doesn't make sense.

And where do we make the cut?  The epistles repeatedly speak of the apostasy happening as they were being written- so what was the "correct" procedure and doctrine and how do we tell what it was?  The Gospel is not an exercise in archaeology or historical research in an attempt to reproduce the exact standards of 37 AD and not 38 AD which someone might allege is "after the apostasy" while an earlier date is "before the apostasy".

How do we know that Peter himself did not become "apostate"?  How do we know that the Sabbath is not supposed to be on Saturday?  Or that Christians were "supposed to" keep Kosher food laws?  

I am picking extreme examples that no one disputes to make a point- that one practice blends into another until the entire purpose for the practice in the first place is lost.

We see that in Judaism where the Mosaic law itself became an idol- and that which was to bring God's people to  knowledge of Him turned into leading them away from Him through idolatry

That is why the whole premise of the thread if faulty

God restored his church for the latter days, not as a copy or photograph- a snapshot in time- of his ancient church but a new and LIVING church for our days.

THAT is what the Restoration should be.    We do not dress up in robes reproducing the garments of 33 AD to attend church, and walk to church in our sandals with meetings in people's homes

That itself would be idolatry.  That would deny the entire purpose of latter day prophets if doctrines and practices were frozen as they were as of an arbitrary date.  The notion is absurd.

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I want to try a slightly different approach using a hypothetical situation.

It's 100AD.  All of the Apostles have died (except John of course  ).  You are a member of a Christian congregation living in some arid country many miles from Jerusalem.  The head of your congregation holding the priesthood comes to Church and reads an announcement.

• "Our leaders have decreed that due to the difficulty in obtaining water in this land we are now authorized to baptize using only a few drops of water.  Ideally immersion should still be the preferred method of baptism and should not be superseded by sprinkling.  But both since both immersing and washing are implied in the use of the word baptism we consider the pattern to be in the application of water and after much prayerful consideration we have unanimously decided that members may use this modified baptism and not be considered out of harmony."

Now we come to this dispensation.  It's 1923.  You are a member of a ward in Salt Lake City.  Your Stake President gathers the adult members together and reads an announcement.

• Our leaders after careful and prayerful consideration have unanimously decided that the following modifications may be permitted, and a garment of the following style be worn by those Church members who wish to adopt it:  (temple content left out of course)
  It may be observed that no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given, and that the present style of garment differs very materially from that in use in the early history of the Church.
  It is the mind of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve that this modified garment may be used by those who desire to adopt it, without violating any covenant they make in the House of the Lord, and with a clear conscience, so long as they keep the covenants which they have made and remember that the garment is the emblem of the Holy Priesthood designed by the Lord as a covering for the body, and that it should be carefully preserved from mutilation and unnecessary exposure, and be properly marked.
  It should be clearly understood that this modified garment does not supersede the approved garment now in use, that either of these patterns may be worn, as Church members prefer, without being considered unorthodox, and those using either will not be out of harmony with the order of the Church.

 

Is there really any difference?  Would you as a member recognize a difference?
How would the early members of the Church have known there was a problem leading to the Great Apostasy?

Your first example is a change to an ordinance.  The second example is a change to an item of clothing that is a symbol of a covenant. 

In your first example those to whom the priesthood keys had been given (the apostles) had not approved the change.  In your second the change was made by those who have the authority to receive revelation and make changes.

So, yes, there is a difference that church members who look to the prophet and apostles to lead the church would be able to see.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is why the whole premise of the thread if faulty

God restored his church for the latter days, not as a copy or photograph- a snapshot in time- of his ancient church but a new and LIVING church for our days.

I disagree.  It is not a faulty premise because I am not asking why we are not a copy of the ancient Church.
The premise of the thread is how the changes came about to the early Church that led to Apostasy and how we know that the changes we have made in a similar fashion are NOT apostasy.

My premise has nothing to do with being the same as the Church in the days of Christ.  It is about how changing God's revealed word led to apostasy once and how we have so many changes and recognizing the differences/similarities in the situation.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Your first example is a change to an ordinance.  The second example is a change to an item of clothing that is a symbol of a covenant.

Oh come on, I picked that at random.
I could have gone with anything.  The changed ordinances are numerous.  (And I disagree concerning the garment).
 

Quote

In your first example those to whom the priesthood keys had been given (the apostles) had not approved the change.  In your second the change was made by those who have the authority to receive revelation and make changes.

So, yes, there is a difference that church members who look to the prophet and apostles to lead the church would be able to see.

And again, it comes back to "we are actually authorized, they were not even though they thought they were".

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh come on, I picked that at random.
I could have gone with anything.  The changed ordinances are numerous.  (And I disagree concerning the garment).
 

And again, it comes back to "we are actually authorized, they were not even though they thought they were".

I does come down to whether one believes that the keys of the priesthood were restored to this earth and have been handed down to our prophets and apostles today. 

If those keys are in the hands of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve today then I don't see a basis for your concerns.

If they are not then there is no one on earth today that is authorized to officiate in any gospel ordinance. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I does come down to whether one believes that the keys of the priesthood were restored to this earth and have been handed down to our prophets and apostles today.

If those keys are in the hands of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve today then I don't see a basis for your concerns.

If they are not then there is no one on earth today that is authorized to officiate in any gospel ordinance.

I believe the keys of the priesthood were restored 6 times prior to our day and all 6 times people changed and altered ordinances and doctrines resulting in the breaking of the covenants.
I believe they have been restored for the final time and that a final apostasy will not happen but that God will preserve this last dispensation and set us in order when we err.
However, I am also open minded enough to recognize that the mortal men in this dispensation are no less immune to making unauthorized changes to God's revealed truths than they were in the previous 6 dispensations.  And as a student of Mormon doctrine that interests me.
As I said in the OP, "I've been reading and studying on the many changes made to the ordinances of the gospel since they were first restored" and I was curious at what point the previous apostasies reached the point of no return.  We may never be permitted by God to get there but it's naïve to think we haven't made any moves in that direction.