A Historiography of the Great/Total/Universal Apostasy

[SamIam]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

Dark Ages bias? It sounds like you have not read the book.  James Barker was a consummate scholar and few there are that would characterize him less. It is precisely because he approaches the apostasy for what it was without the "charitable" glossing over that mitigates it's significance that merits consideration if one is trying to understand an accurate perception of changing scholarship concerning the subject among other things.  His presentation is straight forward and it suffers not from any lack of references even if there be a few missing.  Additionally, as it formed the basis of several years of Melchizedek priesthood manuals in the early 50's it represents a reasonable source of influence on many in the church who never read the book. Would that it were true, but thus far newer scholarship has often not been better scholarship even if it reflects the social nuances of a more tolerant "charitable" perspective.     

Edited September 6, 2017 by SamIam

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

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.

Thanks for the input. There sure is a lot of information available. Take care.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, SamIam said:

Dark Ages bias? It sounds like you have not read the book.  James Barker was a consummate scholar and few there are that would characterize him less. It is precisely because he approaches the apostasy for what it was without the "charitable" glossing over that mitigates it's significance that merits consideration if one is trying to understand an accurate perception of changing scholarship concerning the subject among other things.  His presentation is straight forward and it suffers not from any lack of references even if there be a few missing.  Additionally, as it formed the basis of several years of Melchizedek priesthood manuals in the early 50's it represents a reasonable source of influence on many in the church who never read the book. Would that it were true, but thus far newer scholarship has often not been better scholarship even if it reflects the social nuances of a more tolerant "charitable" perspective.     

I became very interested in this subject when I saw a video on LDS.org about Robert Mason and his influence on Wilford Woodruff and Woodruff's family. I was led to that from reading an early section of Woodruff's diaries. I couldn't figure out how the apostasy could be total and the things both Woodruff and the church website said about Mason could both be true since Mason was a Presbyterian, never joined the church, but as early as 1800 had visions, interpretations of visions, dreams and tongues and exhibited many of the gifts of the Spirit while greatly influencing Woodruff's spiritual development. Of course, as these things always do, that led to Talmage, which led to Nibley, which led to Morrison, Richards, and an emptier wallet! Thanks 

[SamIam]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I became very interested in this subject when I saw a video on LDS.org about Robert Mason and his influence on Wilford Woodruff and Woodruff's family. I was led to that from reading an early section of Woodruff's diaries. I couldn't figure out how the apostasy could be total and the things both Woodruff and the church website said about Mason could both be true since Mason was a Presbyterian, never joined the church, but as early as 1800 had visions, interpretations of visions, dreams and tongues and exhibited many of the gifts of the Spirit while greatly influencing Woodruff's spiritual development. Of course, as these things always do, that led to Talmage, which led to Nibley, which led to Morrison, Richards, and an emptier wallet! Thanks 

Clearly you touch on an issue that seems a conundrum when compared with general LDS teachings.  It is apparent that the effects of the Holy Ghost are simply not limited to those who have received baptism and confirmation into the LDS church as is often times a default perspective.  Of course within reason, we can expect that God will make exceptions when it suits his purposes and perhaps Mason falls into that "select few" catagory. However, perhaps it is an area that we simply do not have adequate understanding to offset with spiritual experience.  What is clear though is that Father Mason is not an exception to having lived a life according to high standards that would portend to a high spiritual potential and that this state of preparation was surely a component of his capacity to enjoy the gifts of the spirit you reference.  In my own past experience, I have taught many gospel concepts by studying the material and presenting information that was borrowed if you will from others who were either parroting as I was doing or in some cases those who have had the experience and can speak with a more informed perspective.  What I have noted is that when these gifts of the spirit become personally experientially realized as I matured in living correct principles it completely alters both the ability to teach the material and to correctly understand the experiences of others. The challenge then of marrying Robert Mason's experiences to the rehearsal of information by those simply repeating what they have heard rather than what they know is that there appears a conflict which melts away once you have similar experiences of your own. 

Too many attempt to intellectualize spiritual knowledge without the wondrous tempering effect of spiritual experience.  Clearly and obviously knowledge gleaned by the act of living according to spiritual standards such as Robert Mason accomplished exceeds the acts of even the finest quality academic analysis and rehearsal of the information of those of experience. In other words it is better to determine why we may not have such experiences ourselves and correct than to ever read about it in a book.

[David Waltz]

Hello Samlam,

 

Interestingly enough, Barker's, Apostasy from the Divine Church, was the first book on the apostasy by an LDS author that I have read. I purchased the book during my first visit to Salt Lake City back in 1987, and started reading at the airport while waiting for my return flight home—finishing it later that evening.

 

My readings of over two dozen other LDS contributions on the apostasy—Callister, Jackson, Morrison, Nibley, Petersen, Roberts, Smith, Winchester, et al.—came afterwards. As such, I have compared all those subsequent readings to Barker's massive tome. While it its not my intention to discount the value of those other works on the apostasy, Barker's book remains for me the most comprehensive contribution on the issue of apostasy from an LDS perspective—a must read IMO.

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

I'm talking about Nephi's vision in 1 Nephi. 

The traditional symbol of Ashtoreth was a tree that was typically in the temple. This was removed during the Josiah reforms. In the vision both the tree and the woman are described with similar phrases. The tree gives the fruit, the woman gives the baby Jesus. While in some traditions of Ashtoreth like figures the woman is sexualized, in other traditions more influenced by Egypt the motherhood role is emphasized. See "Nephi and his Asherah".

It's not a slam dunk of course. There's other ways it can be interpreted. However we have pretty compelling reasons to see Lehi as part of the anti-deuteronomist group in Jerusalem expressing at least some skepticism of elements of the Josiah reforms. 

[juliann]

13 hours ago, SamIam said:

Dark Ages bias? It sounds like you have not read the book.  James Barker was a consummate scholar and few there are that would characterize him less. It is precisely because he approaches the apostasy for what it was without the "charitable" glossing over that mitigates it's significance that merits consideration if one is trying to understand an accurate perception of changing scholarship concerning the subject among other things.  His presentation is straight forward and it suffers not from any lack of references even if there be a few missing.  Additionally, as it formed the basis of several years of Melchizedek priesthood manuals in the early 50's it represents a reasonable source of influence on many in the church who never read the book. Would that it were true, but thus far newer scholarship has often not been better scholarship even if it reflects the social nuances of a more tolerant "charitable" perspective.     

I stand corrected. I still have concerns about LDS ideas of an apostasy that use "the Dark Ages" as evidence, however, but I should have read the book before speaking rather than looking at its date.