A Historiography of the Great/Total/Universal Apostasy

[hagoth7]

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 I do agree with your conclusion, Anabaptists were there at the forefront suffering terribly. Nothing funny about that. 

Agreed.

[hagoth7]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Trying to tie in numerology with hermeneutics is an age old endeavor that has rarely, if ever produced fruit. Just my humble opinion. 

Eye of the beholder.

Daniel 9 and Lehi's parallel Messianic timeline make it clear that the day/year principle is a valid one.

If some opt not to take advantage of it, meh, their/your loss.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that it's hard to separate the views of early Mormonism from the restorationist movement out of which it comes. That book isn't bad (although I don't think it really contains what you are thinking of). I especially liked the contribution of Taylor Petrey (his essay was titled " Purity and Parallels: Constructing the Apostasy Narrative of Early Christianity"). I would recommend this volume (which has nothing to do with early Mormonism, and everything to do with perceptions of the apostasy in Early America preceding the rise of Mormonism):

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/D/bo3619682.html

 

The idea of apostasy isn't unique to Mormonism. Mormonism's view of the apostasy is built from a contemporary foundation (and especially it's language of the apostasy). Mormonism later begins to produce its own sort of technical language on the subject, but in its earliest stages, it is anything but unique in this regard. This is, I think part of the reason why we don't have a historiography (in the sense that you seem to be suggesting) because you first have to come to terms with the way the idea comes to Mormonism in the perspectives of its first members (all of whom started their lives as something other than Mormons).

Ben McGuire

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

I'll beg to differ.

1776 definitely is something.

As is 1844: the martyrdom of two messengers of God.

But how do you get those dates? 1776 - 1260 = 516. As others noted numerology in either mystic, dating, or gematria terms doesn't exactly have a successful history.

Quote

And the day/year principle is well founded/demonstrated by a close examination of the 70 sevens in Daniel 9. Also explicitly stated to be so in two other passages, (plus the Rev 12 JST that you cited).

But the JST Rev 12 doesn't make a days/years connection it just changes the word days to the word years. (Or is that your point - I'm not quite sure what you're saying)

Quote

First the math perspective. year 1260 of the Muslim calendar (AH) ends precisely in 1844 AD of our Gregorian calendar.

Why use a Muslim calendar? What's the significance of New Year's 622 for non-Muslims? It seems very, very ad hoc.

Quote

Second, as to why martyrdom is a more telling point of restoration and apostasy....I've addressed that point sufficiently elsewhere in this forum and in print...published ca. two decades ago. Won't impose on others to rehash it much here. It is essentially the true mark of a true disciple...love. (By this shall men know that ye are my disciples...) And no greater love...than to lay down one's life for one's friends.

And as to a high-water mark of apostasy, rejecting and killing Christ's servants/troubadours is what is repeatedly foretold as the epicenter of ripened apostasy.

I confess that doesn't make much sense to me either historically or more importantly as the context of Rev 12 which talks of the woman fleeing to the wilderness. To the last point I'm even more confused since the image appears to be dating the end of the apostasy if it's the time the woman is in the wilderness. If the woman is the Church, as I said, we'd expect an earlier date not a martyrdom.

Quote

Not with a mortal myopic view. They will prophesy to the Jews (and **are** prophesying to the Jews today).  Ezekiel continues prophesying to you...and likely to your forefathers.

You're missing the point. D&C 77 explicitly says it happens after the gathering. At best the gathering was at the end of WWII and Jerusalem isn't captured until the Six Day War. To say this dating is just "mortal myopic view" seems extremely ad hoc when convenient facts don't line up. The traditional interpretation is that they're Elijah and Moses but I'm fine with an interpretation like McConkie that they're two later prophets. However making them Hyrum and Joseph makes zero sense to me I confess. To say they are prophesying to Jews today in the form you suggest (presumably by their texts) is problematic with regards to Hyrum (who made no texts) but also it runs into problem with the verses that follow 11:3. Most significantly the statement that their bodies will remain in the square in Jerusalem. While you could try to interpret this very figuratively again it points to the ad hoc nature of these interpretations.

Quote

Not really.

Both Daniel and Revelation foretold the restoration (Daniel 2...stone rolling forth) (and Rev 14...angel flying through the midst of heaven...). Parallel messages, simply with different imagery.

And they both foretold persecution/martyrdom as part of that.

So not surprising that both would echo the same year.

I'm just telling you what Joseph Smith said on the subject. It's fine to treat it as just his interpretation of course and reject it. But it ought carry weight I think. 

My own view clearly is that there's no way to know what these numbers mean. My guess is that they don't really mean anything except very vague periods. I'm open to them meaning something else but I think any exegesis has to be non-question begging. i.e. not just fitting some events on them and discarding any parts of verses that don't fit not to mention having starting points that make no sense contextually. That is you have to be able to, without specifying events in advance, make pretty clear descriptions that would let us to pick events. No one can do that as I've seen it. Which strongly implies the numbers are at this stage unknowable and perhaps even irrelevant.

Edited September 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well, I made an attempt at telling you all a Mennonite joke. If that was offensive I am sorry. I simply enjoy humor. I even heard Mormon jokes at MHA. I found some are identical to Mennonite jokes with just the name of the faith group changed. I do agree with your conclusion, Anabaptists were there at the forefront suffering terribly. Nothing funny about that. 

Not at all

Yet in relation to our previous discussions, I am sure you will see parallels between what motivated the Anabaptists and what motivated Joseph Smith, and I am sure that would relate to our "exclusivity" discussion.

If the church needed restoration, there must have been something "wrong" perceived with the status quo.  The first perception of that and defining it, to me, defines the author's perception of what therefore needed to be done to change, to make it "right".

Somewhere in there that process, must have occurred the thought- "This isn't right, it should be more like this...."

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not at all

Yet in relation to our previous discussions, I am sure you will see parallels between what motivated the Anabaptists and what motivated Joseph Smith, and I am sure that would relate to our "exclusivity" discussion.

If the church needed restoration, there must have been something "wrong" perceived with the status quo.  The first perception of that and defining it, to me, defines the author's perception of what therefore needed to be done to change, to make it "right".

Somewhere in there that process, must have occurred the thought- "This isn't right, it should be more like this...."

Yes, we certainly agree. I think the church in the first century and the church in the twenty-first century (including the LDS church and the Mennonite church) needs a much greater emphasis on continued restoration/improvement/what is needed  "to make it 'right.'" As long as the church (defined as the ekklesia - not as any particular faith group) is composed of humans like you and me, it will collectively need continual improvement (in the Drucker sense of kaizen). I think one of the key LDS contributions to that is their attempt to fill in the blanks in many areas that many others have simply ignored as a mystery. I admire that very much. It is one of the things that makes me want to learn more. 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll confess I'm pretty skeptical of most prophet dating schemes.  Most seem pretty ad hoc and largely working backwards. Here the issues are even more pronounced. First though the JST changes the 1260 days to years. That's what I meant by not being sure how to take the JST since 1260 years doesn't seem to point to anything.

The JST points in the right direction but isn't complete. If you look back at Rev 12 you will see that it basically repeats itself in Rev 12:14 using the Hebrew version of time, times and a half time from Daniel 7. The Hebrew word being used there also refers to a year. So it is a year, 2 years and half, which again on the long count prophetic calendar is 1260 days.

Revelation also refers to a 42 month period.  On the long count calendar used for prophecy that is 42 X 30 = 1260 days. 

Revelation 13:5

5 And there was given unto him a ^amouth speaking great things and ^bblasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 11:2

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the ^aholy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

The power ended when one of the heads was wounded to death. Revelation also associates seven hills with the seven heads and an eighth which is of the seven. The hill vaticanus was captured by Napolean's general Berthier in 1798 bringing the long stretch of continual vatican rule to an end as the Historicist view points out, 1260 years after it began when Rome was finally wrested from Ostrogoth control. However, the wound does heal, and the vatican regained its temporal power as a country.

Quote

For your numbers though, why on earth would the martyrdom be significant rather than dates like the starting the Church in 1830 or the restoration of the priesthood in 1829? Even if you point to the higher ordinances things get a bit blurry since we have partial endowments in 1831 and 1836. The main endowment is 1842. From a prophetic standpoint of apostasy, there's really nothing significant about 1844 IMO. (Plus I don't quite get the 1260 days/year as reaching 1844 just from a math perspective) 

Even if you tie the martyrdom to the two prophets of Revelation (which I don't think works for various reasons) I don't see how that ties to this date. Most significantly D&C 77 says they "prophesy to the Jews after they are gathered and have built the city of Jerusalem." So it couldn't be Joseph.

I agree. I don't see any prophetic connection here. Joseph and Hyrum are not the two witnesses of the seventh seal. They are in the sixth. They are among the 144,000 of Rev 7.

Quote

Also Joseph's beliefs were that Daniel and Revelation were quite different and referred to very different things.

This is really why I am responding to your post. I looked at that, and didn't see enough specificity to see what exactly Joseph is talking about. I don't think he is talking about all of Daniel. Daniel 7 is clearly related to Rev 12 and 13 - see the above tie to 1260 years. Also it is not clear which is supposedly temporal and which is heavenly. He seems to be continuing with a thought about the 4 beasts in heaven in Revelation. What do you think Joseph is trying to say?

6 hours ago, Alan said:

For me, the scriptures describe the church as "being in the wilderness" prior to the restoration. Maybe it's just the way we use and understand words, but the church being in the wilderness does not mean the same thing and non-existent.

Curiously, the sea represents the world or highly populated areas in Revelation - at least where Satan has dominion. The woman is chased off into the wilderness. Literally that suggests she survived in small remnants or in pieces. There is some historical evidence to suggest this. Little pockets of resistance such as the Waldensian movement arose here and there. The next beast of Revelation rises out of the earth or wilderness (Rev 13) rather than the sea. Next is the image of the beast - when the great and terrible image of Daniel 2 shall finally be defeated.

Edited September 5, 2017 by RevTestament

[hope_for_things]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have been increasingly interested in studying the LDS concept of an apostasy - sometimes in the LDS literature it is called the Total Apostasy, the Great Apostasy, and/or the Universal Apostasy. I have read more and more articles, etc. from the evangelical and Catholic perspective that identify it as the most important issue between Mormons and members of other faith groups. Reading Talmage's book on the subject, I know it was important to him. That makes it pretty important. So, I started buying books and reading articles to better understand the LDS concept.  So, I have read and read books, articles and the scriptures, trying my best to gain an understanding. 

Separately from this , I received an invitation to submit a presentation for next years MHS conference in Boise. I presented this year and had a great time.  So I began casting around in the empty caverns of my mind on what I might offer up to the committee as a topic for a presentation. I assumed it would be something about the Mexican Colonies. That is an area of LDS history that I know best. Then as I kept reading about the apostasy I began to think - might there be a need for a presentation on the historiography of the Great Apostasy? In other words, what is the LDS (I don't care about non-LDS sources) chronological sequence of writings, beliefs, etc. about the apostasy? It seems to have changed, modified, been refined, matured - you pick a word, over time. Then I hesitated, could I as a non-Mormon write a historiography of the Great Apostasy and present it? I decided yes I could. There have been any number of non-LDS speakers at MHA, some with great regularity. Some of them have won the highest prizes. 

Ok.  so now I am thinking about it seriously, so I begin to look around to see if there indeed already exists a historiography of the apostasy? If so, i need to move back to the colonies. No value in doing something that has already been done. So I begin searching and lo and behold I find a fairly new book published by Oxford Press entitled Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy, a series of articles edited by Miranda Wilcox and John D. Young.  The article titles sound very interesting. I don't know any of the authors. Reading the descriptors it seems to be something done by "faithful" Mormons. The reviews were five stars with a solo one star. Sometimes reviews say more about the reviewer than the book! 

Ok...After all that introduction do any of you know this book? Do you recommend it and the authors? Have any of you read it? I have limited funds and it is a bit expensive. I trust your collective judgment and would value your opinions on the book. Does it represent the historiography of the apostasy for which I have been looking?  Is there something else you think is better? I have Morrison's and Richard's books already. Thanks so much. 

You may want to also listen to this interview with some of the editors, and this book review.    

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2014/10/01/251-252-mormonisms-apostasy-narrative/

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3772&index=15

 

 

[David Waltz]

Hello Navidad,

 

I own, and have read, Standing Apart. It is a good collection of essays on the issue of apostasy from a Mormon viewpoint, focusing on historical aspects as the subtitle suggests. As with most collections, some are better than others; but as a whole, I found the essays to be a bit too brief.

 

Moving on, I think you will find Dursteler's contribution, "Historical Periodization in the LDS Great Apostasy Narrative" (pages 23-54) of interest. This work was originally published under the title "Inheriting the 'Great Apostasy': The Evolution of Latter-day Saint Views on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance", which first appeared in the Journal of Mormon History back in 2002; free pdf copy available online at:

 

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol28/iss2/1/

 

This same essay, in a slightly edited form, also appeared in the the book, Early Christians in Disarray - Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy (2005). The entire book can be read online at:

 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/early-christians-in-disarray-contemporary-lds-perspectives-on-the-christian-apostasy/

 

IMO, before spending money on Standing Apart, I think you should start with Dursteler's article, and then check out all the contributions in Early Christians in Disarray. Free is a very good price...

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

Edited September 6, 2017 by David Waltz
Small correction. 2nd edit fixed broken link.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes, we certainly agree. I think the church in the first century and the church in the twenty-first century (including the LDS church and the Mennonite church) needs a much greater emphasis on continued restoration/improvement/what is needed  "to make it 'right.'" As long as the church (defined as the ekklesia - not as any particular faith group) is composed of humans like you and me, it will collectively need continual improvement (in the Drucker sense of kaizen). I think one of the key LDS contributions to that is their attempt to fill in the blanks in many areas that many others have simply ignored as a mystery. I admire that very much. It is one of the things that makes me want to learn more. 

Well I think we are finally getting to understand each other- I agree completely.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The JST points in the right direction but isn't complete. If you look back at Rev 12 you will see that it basically repeats itself in Rev 12:14 using the Hebrew version of time, times and a half time from Daniel 7. The Hebrew word being used there also refers to a year. So it is a year, 2 years and half, which again on the long count prophetic calendar is 1260 days.

Right, but the question is whether it's doing the same thing or is a different time or period. But I recognize the period is a common one in apocalyptic texts. That to me suggests it's just a kind of round number frequently appealed to rather than an actual prophesy of how long something takes.

Quote

The power ended when one of the heads was wounded to death. Revelation also associates seven hills with the seven heads and an eighth which is of the seven. The hill vaticanus was captured by Napolean's general Berthier in 1798 bringing the long stretch of continual vatican rule to an end as the Historicist view points out, 1260 years after it began when Rome was finally wrested from Ostrogoth control. However, the wound does heal, and the vatican regained its temporal power as a country.

Again I'm pretty skeptical of applying it to specific events unless one can do so in a non-question begging way.

Quote

This is really why I am responding to your post. I looked at that, and didn't see enough specificity to see what exactly Joseph is talking about. I don't think he is talking about all of Daniel. Daniel 7 is clearly related to Rev 12 and 13 - see the above tie to 1260 years. Also it is not clear which is supposedly temporal and which is heavenly. He seems to be continuing with a thought about the 4 beasts in heaven in Revelation. What do you think Joseph is trying to say?

I think he's getting at the imagery primarily. He was very emphatic that John was seeing actual things in heaven not on earth. Why, I can't say. I'm not saying we have to accept him there, but he had pretty strong feelings on the point.

Quote

Curiously, the sea represents the world or highly populated areas in Revelation - at least where Satan has dominion. The woman is chased off into the wilderness. Literally that suggests she survived in small remnants or in pieces. There is some historical evidence to suggest this. Little pockets of resistance such as the Waldensian movement arose here and there. The next beast of Revelation rises out of the earth or wilderness (Rev 13) rather than the sea. Next is the image of the beast - when the great and terrible image of Daniel 2 shall finally be defeated.

I'm not sure how that follows. The woman fleeing to the wilderness might simply mean being removed from the earth.  If the woman is the woman from 1 Nephi 11 then things get complex. That would mean the dragon attacking her parallels the more clear prophecy about the apostasy there.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure how that follows. The woman fleeing to the wilderness might simply mean being removed from the earth.  If the woman is the woman from 1 Nephi 11 then things get complex. That would mean the dragon attacking her parallels the more clear prophecy about the apostasy there.

You mean apostasy in 1 Nephi 11 or 14?

1 Nephi 11 seems to clearly be speaking of Mary as the virgin and mother of Yeshua "after the manner of the flesh."

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You mean apostasy in 1 Nephi 11 or 14?

1 Nephi 11 seems to clearly be speaking of Mary as the virgin and mother of Yeshua "after the manner of the flesh."

Right but the imagery is broader than that. As others noted she's a combination of the woman and the tree of life. (Ashtoreth imagery as others have noted) Also the typical Catholic interpretation of the woman in Rev is also Mary. Plus Nephi claims to be seeing the same vision as John. Now Nephi stops at a crucial point leaving it for John, but the imagery likely was the same. It's just that unlike John's apocalypse Nephi was kind enough to provide an interpretation.

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but the imagery is broader than that. As others noted she's a combination of the woman and the tree of life. (Ashtoreth imagery as others have noted) Also the typical Catholic interpretation of the woman in Rev is also Mary. Plus Nephi claims to be seeing the same vision as John. Now Nephi stops at a crucial point leaving it for John, but the imagery likely was the same. It's just that unlike John's apocalypse Nephi was kind enough to provide an interpretation.

Just a quick question. You all seem to be following an allegorical school of interpretation of the book of Revelation; trying to find the hidden meaning in each word or phrase of the text. Is that a constant among LDS interpreters of the Book of Revelation? Just curious. 

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Just a quick question. You all seem to be following an allegorical school of interpretation of the book of Revelation; trying to find the hidden meaning in each word or phrase of the text. Is that a constant among LDS interpreters of the Book of Revelation? Just curious. 

There's no real consensus. I'm fairly skeptical of being able to tie things to actual events. Joseph thought John saw actual things in heaven but that the actual things he saw had symbolic meanings, much like with Nephi's vision.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just a quick question. You all seem to be following an allegorical school of interpretation of the book of Revelation; trying to find the hidden meaning in each word or phrase of the text. Is that a constant among LDS interpreters of the Book of Revelation? Just curious. 

Literal dragons?

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but the imagery is broader than that. As others noted she's a combination of the woman and the tree of life. (Ashtoreth imagery as others have noted) Also the typical Catholic interpretation of the woman in Rev is also Mary. Plus Nephi claims to be seeing the same vision as John. Now Nephi stops at a crucial point leaving it for John, but the imagery likely was the same. It's just that unlike John's apocalypse Nephi was kind enough to provide an interpretation.

Losing me there. I don't follow Ashtoreth or Ashtorah imagery. I view Yeshua as the tree of life. He is at least the root. He is the trunk, so in that sense He can also represent the whole tree. Without Him the tree dies. The rest of the tree is dependent upon Him. He was the only one to enter this world with eternal life given of the Father. 

The Church is the branches. "I am the vine. Ye are the branches."

A similar imagery is a stone building. Yeshua is the cornerstone on which the rest of the building is oriented and built.

Obviously the woman in Rev 12 is not any temporal female. She is chased off into the wilderness for 1260 years. Hey, not even Adam lived that long...

Edited September 6, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just a quick question. You all seem to be following an allegorical school of interpretation of the book of Revelation; trying to find the hidden meaning in each word or phrase of the text. Is that a constant among LDS interpreters of the Book of Revelation? Just curious. 

I'm afraid you are going to be quite disappointed of you are hoping to go to MHA and tell them this is how the LDS Church thinks the apostasy occurred... especially, if you are looking for much scripture tied to it. Like Nevo said, you'll have to wade through many conference materials and books to even begin to piece together much.  I feel there is not much consensus on it beyond some scriptures I have quoted.

It's not like the SDA church where you can go read their whole spiel about Revelation and Daniel, the "mark" of the Sunday law, etc. Our Church is more based on revelation, and for the most part, I think the presidency has been silent on it. This is much moreso in recent times. The further back you go, probably the more you will find. But don't expect to find whole discourses on the book of Revelation. Why? Because the Lord didn't reveal it. 

SDAs have already "eaten" their revelations several times. For the most part I think the only parts they got right were already fleshed out by other historicists. One finds similar notable "parallels" between Ellen White's other "revelations" and prior authors. No national Sunday law will ever get passed in the USA - that is unconstitutional, and the country is now too secular to care. Sorry, I digress. Anyway, I have found keys to understanding the Book of Revelation largely derive from Daniel - believe it or not.

[SamIam]

On 9/4/2017 at 4:23 PM, Navidad said:

Ok.  so now I am thinking about it seriously, so I begin to look around to see if there indeed already exists a historiography of the apostasy? If so, i need to move back to the colonies. No value in doing something that has already been done. So I begin searching and lo and behold I find a fairly new book published by Oxford Press entitled Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy, a series of articles edited by Miranda Wilcox and John D. Young.  The article titles sound very interesting. I don't know any of the authors. Reading the descriptors it seems to be something done by "faithful" Mormons. The reviews were five stars with a solo one star. Sometimes reviews say more about the reviewer than the book! 

Ok...After all that introduction do any of you know this book? Do you recommend it and the authors? Have any of you read it? I have limited funds and it is a bit expensive. I trust your collective judgment and would value your opinions on the book. Does it represent the historiography of the apostasy for which I have been looking?  Is there something else you think is better? I have Morrison's and Richard's books already. Thanks so much. 

Frankly for my dollar one of the best books was written by James L. Barker - Apostasy from the Divine Church.

https://www.amazon.com/Apostasy-divine-church-James-Barker/dp/0884945448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504660682&sr=1-1&keywords=barker+apostasy

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Literal dragons?

I am not sure if this question is directed at me or not? If it is, then no I don't see the only option as seeing the dragons as literal. It is not allegory or literal. Biblical interpretation is much richer than that. By and large The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature for the most part, as is Daniel. It uses Old Testament images and symbols that come from more than 20 Old Testament books. It should be interpreted as apocalyptic literature. Neither allegorically (looking for the hidden meanings under the words, or literally.  If that wasn't a question for me, sorry for butting in. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I'm afraid you are going to be quite disappointed of you are hoping to go to MHA and tell them this is how the LDS Church thinks the apostasy occurred... especially, if you are looking for much scripture tied to it. Like Nevo said, you'll have to wade through many conference materials and books to even begin to piece together much.  I feel there is not much consensus on it beyond some scriptures I have quoted.

It's not like the SDA church where you can go read their whole spiel about Revelation and Daniel, the "mark" of the Sunday law, etc. Our Church is more based on revelation, and for the most part, I think the presidency has been silent on it. This is much moreso in recent times. The further back you go, probably the more you will find. But don't expect to find whole discourses on the book of Revelation. Why? Because the Lord didn't reveal it. 

SDAs have already "eaten" their revelations several times. For the most part I think the only parts they got right were already fleshed out by other historicists. One finds similar notable "parallels" between Ellen White's other "revelations" and prior authors. No national Sunday law will ever get passed in the USA - that is unconstitutional, and the country is now too secular to care. Sorry, I digress. Anyway, I have found keys to understanding the Book of Revelation largely derive from Daniel - believe it or not.

Hi Rev: I never brought up the book of Revelation. I just asked a question about a fairly new book I just found out about. That was it. Then, when the conversation moved into the meanings of symbols used in Revelation and debates began what this or that meant and numerology, I got curious because what I was hearing was an allegorical interpretation. I wasn't criticizing it or even trying to make any comment about it. I just realized I knew nothing about how Mormons interpret apocalyptic literature and asked if the allegorical approach is the norm. That's it. I never tied Revelation (the book) to the apostasy. In fact as of now, I have forgotten the whole idea as anything appropriate for MHA. 

[Navidad]

42 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Frankly for my dollar one of the best books was written by James L. Barker - Apostasy from the Divine Church.

https://www.amazon.com/Apostasy-divine-church-James-Barker/dp/0884945448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504660682&sr=1-1&keywords=barker+apostasy

Thanks. I have already added it to my "gotta buy" list. Thanks so much

[hagoth7]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...It seems very, very ad hoc.

I confess that doesn't make much sense to me either historically or more importantly as the context of Rev 12 which talks of the woman fleeing to the wilderness....

I could get you to see what I've seen, but it wouldn't benefit you today.

Perhaps another day. (Between now and then, if you're interested, further initial documentation is available in my URL.)

I will politely withdraw and let this thread revert to being an anthology on apostasy.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, SamIam said:

Frankly for my dollar one of the best books was written by James L. Barker - Apostasy from the Divine Church.

https://www.amazon.com/Apostasy-divine-church-James-Barker/dp/0884945448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504660682&sr=1-1&keywords=barker+apostasy

Anything that was written while "the Dark Ages" bias was prevalent isn't much help beyond establishing a trajectory of thinking. Modern scholarship takes a much more charitable look at "apostasy." It isn't supportable to insist that God almost disappeared when there were supreme acts of spirituality throughout history. Also, Barker died before it was published and he hadn't supplied all references from what I understand.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure if this question is directed at me or not? If it is, then no I don't see the only option as seeing the dragons as literal. It is not allegory or literal. Biblical interpretation is much richer than that. By and large The Book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature for the most part, as is Daniel. It uses Old Testament images and symbols that come from more than 20 Old Testament books. It should be interpreted as apocalyptic literature. Neither allegorically (looking for the hidden meanings under the words, or literally.  If that wasn't a question for me, sorry for butting in. 

Yes that question was for you, and thanks for the answer- you were riding nuances I was not thinking about at the time.  Typically if one is quoted, one can assume that the question is directed to the one who is quoted.

Edited September 6, 2017 by mfbukowski