The Great Apostasy - So what changed?

[RevTestament]

Personally, I like the ordinance changes, believe the President carries the keys to authorize their change, believe they are totally appropriate and meaningful in light of scripture, and lastly and most importantly no longer involve my wearing long sleeved wool garments 24/7.

[JLHPROF]

On 2/17/2017 at 8:24 PM, RevTestament said:

Personally, I like the ordinance changes, believe the President carries the keys to authorize their change, believe they are totally appropriate and meaningful in light of scripture, and lastly and most importantly no longer involve my wearing long sleeved wool garments 24/7.

I'm sure many early Christians loved their changes too.

I think if we as members were really being honest we would be able to admit we would have absolutely no more idea if our leaders made unauthorized changes to the doctrines and ordinances than the early Chrsitians had with their leaders.  We are to busy sustaining them to actually pay attention.  There is absolutely nothing Pres. Monson could announce about the laws and ordinances that would cause much resistance.  He could switch us to sprinkling, do away with garments, remove the office of Teacher or Elder and the vast majority of the Chirch would just roll with it and call it authorized.

We as members today are no more diligent (or in most cases no more aware) than the early Christians that fell into apostasy.  We'd never know if we were.  Would you?  Would I?

I think maybe if we could admit that we members as a whole would have no idea if a change toward apostasy in an area of the gospel had happened it might be progress.

Edited February 20, 2017 by JLHPROF

[hagoth7]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So you are going with "we haven't actually changed the ordinances like the early Christians did" argument.
....

No. That is not what I am saying.

It is worse.

For starters, most 21st century Mormons have completely forgotten half of the meaning of the English word "ordinance."

Once we resume speaking the same language, we can advance that portion of the discussion a wee bit more.

Edited February 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

No.

It is worse.

For starters, most 21st century Mormons have completely forgotten half of the meaning of the English word "ordinance."

Once we resume speaking the same language, we can advance that portion of the discussion a wee bit.

So define it then...

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm sure many early Christians loved their changes too.

I think if we as members were really being honest we would be able to admit we would have absolutely no more idea if our leaders made unauthorized changes to the doctrines and ordinances than the early Chrsitians had with their leaders.  We are to busy sustaining them to actually pay attention.  There is absolutely nothing Pres. Monsoon could announce about the laws and ordinances that would cause much resistance.  He could switch us to sprinkling, do away with garments, remove the office of Teacher or Elder and the vast majority of the Chirch would just roll with it and call it authorized.

We as members today are no more diligent (or in most cases no more aware) than the early Christians that fell into apostasy.  We'd never know if we were.  Would you?  Would I?

I think maybe if we could admit that we members as a whole would have no idea if a change toward apostasy in an area of the gospel had happened it might be progress.

We are you so intent on assuming the worst?  Why not assume that, just like our leaders, there are many church members who are led by and in tune with the Spirit.  There are many members who are faithful in keeping the commandments, attending their sacrament meetings and the temple, and enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost (just as the general leadership of the church also does).  You seem to be constantly trying to justify your belief, and convince others, that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are leading us down the wrong path.  Perhaps I'm misunderstand you entirely, but that seems to be what this whole thread is about.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm sure many early Christians loved their changes too.

I think if we as members were really being honest we would be able to admit we would have absolutely no more idea if our leaders made unauthorized changes to the doctrines and ordinances than the early Chrsitians had with their leaders.  We are to busy sustaining them to actually pay attention.  There is absolutely nothing Pres. Monsoon could announce about the laws and ordinances that would cause much resistance.  He could switch us to sprinkling, do away with garments, remove the office of Teacher or Elder and the vast majority of the Chirch would just roll with it and call it authorized.

We as members today are no more diligent (or in most cases no more aware) than the early Christians that fell into apostasy.  We'd never know if we were.  Would you?  Would I?

I think maybe if we could admit that we members as a whole would have no idea if a change toward apostasy in an area of the gospel had happened it might be progress.

appropriate progress:

Isa 22:

 20 ¶And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

 23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.

 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it.

[hagoth7]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So define it then...

Webster kindly did it for us long ago

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/ordinance

Edited February 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

....Why not assume that, just like our leaders, there are many church members who are led by and in tune with the Spirit....You seem to be constantly trying to justify your belief, and convince others, that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are leading us down the wrong path.  Perhaps I'm misunderstand you entirely, but that seems to be what this whole thread is about.

You may be overstating his case.

Edited February 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[rongo]

On 2/16/2017 at 4:06 PM, JLHPROF said:

It must have taken one heck of a major loss of revelation and sin for ALL the Apostles and ALL the 70 in the days of Christ to stop ordaining successors and allow the Apostasy to complete.

You've repeated several times this thought aloud that it must have been something major that kept the key-holders from ordaining successors/replacements. Calm even suggested that they couldn't have been so stupid as to have been unable to see that others needed to be ordained. I think the simple answer is that God, himself told them through revelation to stop ordaining successors and let the apostasy happen. It had been foretold, and they knew of it (passim). There is a fascinating part of Pistis Sophia (a Gnostic work) that records the resurrected Jesus teaching the apostles and their wives things strikingly similar to the endowment, and after holding a prayer circle with them, telling them that these things would soon be removed from the earth, and that they were not to teach them to others. This made the apostles sad, and they asked Jesus why he would let that happen. Jesus explained that it was for a wise purpose known to him, and that they would be restored at a later time.

I don't think the thought that any remaining key-holders were compelled and duty-bound to ordain others is valid. John remained, which ex-Mormons love bringing up as if it were a fatal blow ---- for precisely the same reason as this assumption (i.e., that if he lived, he would of course have continued to ordain others). Joseph Smith taught that John's mission was primarily to the lost ten tribes, but Elder Wirthlin (very intriguingly) told the missionaries of the Germany Hamburg Mission in October 1994 that John had played a key role in the fall of Communism and the opening up of Eastern Europe for the gospel.

I would *really* like to know more about *that*!  Translated beings have been busy with much more important things than offering roadside assistance to Mormons. It will be interesting to see what has happened with the lost tribes when we get their records (and whether they, too, had  a great apostasy), but it is clear that key-holders have remained on earth during the Great Apostasy without ordaining others --- certainly, in my mind, because God told them not to.

We also have similar record of dispensations where the Melchizedek Priesthood and keys were on the earth, without quorums being built and maintained (e.g., Elijah, Isaiah, Moses, etc.). D&C 84 even tells of God himself ordaining Esaias during a time when Abraham was on the earth. What kind of conditions brought *that* about?

[rodheadlee]

You guys are looking in the wrong place. It was the hearts and minds of the people where the apostasy occurred.Just look at the examples given in the Book of Mormon.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

We are you so intent on assuming the worst?  Why not assume that, just like our leaders, there are many church members who are led by and in tune with the Spirit.  There are many members who are faithful in keeping the commandments, attending their sacrament meetings and the temple, and enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost (just as the general leadership of the church also does).  You seem to be constantly trying to justify your belief, and convince others, that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are leading us down the wrong path.  Perhaps I'm misunderstand you entirely, but that seems to be what this whole thread is about.

No, I am not about anything other than following what God has revealed.  I ascribe no sinister motives as we often do to apostasy.  I don't see a sin involved.  I don't see the Church as fallen or false, but I don't see dilligence in adhering to what God has revealed as he revealed it either.  It's the literalist in me.  This thread is about nothing more than comparing how changes made by the early Christians to doctrine and ordinance are different/similar to what is easily observed today.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You guys are looking in the wrong place. It was the hearts and minds of the people where the apostasy occurred.Just look at the examples given in the Book of Mormon.

Apostasy is not a matter of authority - that is an astute point rhl. Apostasy is a matter of going astray. Presumably, for example, even if all the apostles were lost to the church in the 7yrs war, the bishops continued to have authority to baptize new members. But if bishops met and changed the ordinances and formed a creed which demonstably differs from scripture without representing a majority of the church, would you agree that represents apostasy?

[ksfisher]

6 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

You may be overstating his case.

Perhaps.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I am not about anything other than following what God has revealed.  I ascribe no sinister motives as we often do to apostasy.  I don't see a sin involved.  I don't see the Church as fallen or false, but I don't see dilligence in adhering to what God has revealed as he revealed it either.  It's the literalist in me.  This thread is about nothing more than comparing how changes made by the early Christians to doctrine and ordinance are different/similar to what is easily observed today.

Are the two situations comparable?  Is the 1st and 2nd century world a good comparison to the 20th and 21st century?  I would argue that the challenges faced by the early church are to disimilar to the challenges that the church faces today.  A good comparison cannot be made between the two organizations.

[ksfisher]

57 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Apostasy is not a matter of authority - that is an astute point rhl. Apostasy is a matter of going astray. Presumably, for example, even if all the apostles were lost to the church in the 7yrs war, the bishops continued to have authority to baptize new members. But if bishops met and changed the ordinances and formed a creed which demonstably differs from scripture without representing a majority of the church, would you agree that represents apostasy?

The bishops would have continued to have authority to baptize, but new would not have authority to confer the Holy Ghost.  They would also not have authority to ordain new bishops.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Are the two situations comparable?  Is the 1st and 2nd century world a good comparison to the 20th and 21st century?  I would argue that the challenges faced by the early church are to disimilar to the challenges that the church faces today.  A good comparison cannot be made between the two organizations.

They may not be the same and I recognize that.  That may be one of the differences in situation.  There are differences and similarities.  Addressing both is a good exercise in having an honest perspective.

Again, I look at all the changes we have made and all the changes they made and wondering about similar causes and recognizable differences.
I am also curious about the source of many modifications made over the years.  Some are clearly connected to revelation, further light, etc.  Some seem to have come without any divine approval due to member desires.  And still others seem largely to have come for no reason.

Take Baptism.  Joseph and Oliver were instructed on baptism by John the Baptist himself.  We have made a few changes (nothing major) to that ordinance.  But do we deviate from how John the Baptist instructed Joseph and Oliver to perform the ordinance?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Was there an actual revelation about each minor change made to the ordinance?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

But then we can look at the sacrament.  First it was bread and wine only.  Then a second revelation was given authorizing the substitution of water.  Pretty clear cut.
 

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Apostasy is not a matter of authority - that is an astute point rhl. Apostasy is a matter of going astray. Presumably, for example, even if all the apostles were lost to the church in the 7yrs war, the bishops continued to have authority to baptize new members. But if bishops met and changed the ordinances and formed a creed which demonstably differs from scripture without representing a majority of the church, would you agree that represents apostasy?

Yes, I believe the apostasy as already occurred in their hearts and minds and they have lost the Holy Spirit to guide them. 

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The bishops would have continued to have authority to baptize, but new would not have authority to confer the Holy Ghost.

Why not? Who confers the Holy Spirit now? Don't know of any stake presidents back then.

Quote

 They would also not have authority to ordain new bishops.

While I do believe at first the apostles seemed to have ordained the bishops, the bishops apparently had authority to ordain others, since the office of bishop continued. You are assuming the setup was exactly like the present church, but there is no evidence they had a first presidency of an extra 3 apostles, stake presidencies, etc.

[mrmarklin]

We really have only latter day revelation that tells us what things were changed and what doctrines were lost. A very substantial portion certainly remains the same. 

Some obvious changes are:  baptism, as the word itself means to immerse.  Others such as clerical celibacy, indulgences etc were introduced much later in the church.  The Catholics would argue the Pope has the right to decide these changes via his infallibility.

 

The early church was characterized by scattered bishoprics across the Roman Empire.  After a few years it was obvious that while the church was growing, the doctrine was diverging.  Several needs became obvious to those who had the church's best interests at heart.  Hence councils where the prominent bishops could make the doctrine uniform, the need to compile a common set of scriptures to "universalize " the doctrines and a common leadership, ultimately ending with the primacy of the Roman bishops taking the lead.

As LDS we know there. was a great apostasy, and men such as Luther led the way to change back to what they saw as deviance.  But the reality is that until we had access to modern revelation we didn't have the full picture..

In my opinion it was at least 1-200 years before the priesthood was fully taken from the world.  At least in the Roman Empire.

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by mrmarklin

[Foreigner]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Apostasy is not a matter of authority - that is an astute point rhl. Apostasy is a matter of going astray.

Apostasy can have dimensions, at least width and depth. Why not to define it as a dimensional variable? This can go horizontal when going astray from the pure Christ doctrine. This can go vertical when authority and spirituality fades away. Let us consider the last. Apostle Paul listed nine spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:8-10), all manifested in his lifetime. It seems that they faded away quite quickly after him. This could be a good indicator of apostasy. Now let us turn to the Book of Mormon. Moroni 10:9-16 counts the same nine gifts and asserts later 24-25 that can be nothing good without them. Now you can examine LDS units everywhere and find none of the gifts. They used to appear scarcely in the first years of the Church. (Yes, Mormons are quite ingenious in arguing that all is well, especially comparing missionary’s muttering in foreign language to – glossolalia…) Any conclusions?

[Tacenda]

On 2/17/2017 at 11:09 PM, JLHPROF said:

I'm sure many early Christians loved their changes too.

I think if we as members were really being honest we would be able to admit we would have absolutely no more idea if our leaders made unauthorized changes to the doctrines and ordinances than the early Chrsitians had with their leaders.  We are to busy sustaining them to actually pay attention.  There is absolutely nothing Pres. Monsoon could announce about the laws and ordinances that would cause much resistance.  He could switch us to sprinkling, do away with garments, remove the office of Teacher or Elder and the vast majority of the Chirch would just roll with it and call it authorized.

We as members today are no more diligent (or in most cases no more aware) than the early Christians that fell into apostasy.  We'd never know if we were.  Would you?  Would I?

I think maybe if we could admit that we members as a whole would have no idea if a change toward apostasy in an area of the gospel had happened it might be progress.

President Monsoon?

[juliann]

On 2/17/2017 at 10:05 AM, JLHPROF said:

I will read these this weekend.

Thank you!

I very much advise staying away from the Hopkins book, he is a hobbyist who mainly uses secondary sources and the evil "Greek philosophy" trope.  Christians in Disarray is the best. There is a much more recent treatment but I can't recall the title. 

We cannot understand any concept of apostasy without first acknowledging that our Church is not a copy of some pristine one minded NT church.  It is all question begging, we can't make any meaningful statements about what happened to priesthood without first establishing that that era had our version of priesthood. There is certainly no evidence for it from the Bible itself. It is very evident that there were multiple groups where we think there was just one, that didn't happen until the politicians exerted their authority over Christianity and got rid of competitors. We are covered with additional revelation so I have never understood the need to recreate a biblical world that can't be supported. It doesn't need to be.

Part of that re-creation is the idea that there was some well connected central authority at a time where communication required traveling great distances. What is clear from the Bible through Paul is that leadership didn't agree even then. Ignatius, in my opinion, is the best guide to what happened as he writes to his congregations while being taken to the lions. He pleads for unity and caution against deceivers. In one epistle, he pleads for prayers for one city who lost their bishop and now only have Christ to lead them. 

Origen then tells us the results as he writes in First Principles that he is attempting to pull together what has been passed down. By that time they are trying to re-create the doctrines and seem to be doing it by memory or tradition. Or in Origen's case, by reason.  In between there is, of course, battling between those seeking not just theological  pre-eminence but political power over rivals. 

I have never liked this idea that God just packed his bags and left people to fend for themselves, however. It seems a tad arrogant to set up centuries of good people as throw- aways to position ourselves as the chosen. 

 

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Apostasy can have dimensions, at least width and depth. Why not to define it as a dimensional variable? This can go horizontal when going astray from the pure Christ doctrine. This can go vertical when authority and spirituality fades away. Let us consider the last. Apostle Paul listed nine spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:8-10), all manifested in his lifetime. It seems that they faded away quite quickly after him. This could be a good indicator of apostasy. Now let us turn to the Book of Mormon. Moroni 10:9-16 counts the same nine gifts and asserts later 24-25 that can be nothing good without them. Now you can examine LDS units everywhere and find none of the gifts. They used to appear scarcely in the first years of the Church. (Yes, Mormons are quite ingenious in arguing that all is well, especially comparing missionary’s muttering in foreign language to – glossolalia…) Any conclusions?

I'll just say I believe the early church went apostate and so lost all authority rather than vice versa.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

President Monsoon?

11:30 at night typo.
Silly me.  Fixed!

[JarMan]

I have a hard time understanding the apostasy in light of Matthew 16:18 where Christ says he is building his church on a rock. Regardless of whether that rock is Peter himself or revelation or something else, wouldn't it have been more accurate to say he was building his church upon sand? Or if the church exists or fails based on keys, shouldn't he have said the rock was the keys?