The great apostasy

[mrmarklin]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

The LDS claim of the great apostasy. I have been looking into this LDS claim and am not finding evidence to support it.

Churches that claim some form of episcopal apostolic succession, dating back to the apostles or to leaders from the apostolic era, include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Communion, and some Lutheran churches .

These churches have documented histories that can trace back their Bishops and church lineages to the original Apostles.

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

One can only infer apostasy  from the writings of Luther, etc. Another indication is the departure from obvious biblical practices such as baptism by immersion, etc.  Clearly,, with all the Christian religions out there, something has gone wrong with the original Church  

Of course the Catholics argue that all these changes are sanctioned by the vicar of Christ and various conferences, such as the one in Nicea. Which of course was approved by the Pope.  One must notice, moreover that every portrait of Peter includes the keys, which the Catholic Church says we’re passed on to Peter’s successors. 

For LDS believers, there is the testimony of Joseph Smith that a restoration was necessary. It really all revolves around that, in the end.  There is no proof, so to speak.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, snowflake said:

The LDS claim of the great apostasy. I have been looking into this LDS claim and am not finding evidence to support it.

Churches that claim some form of episcopal apostolic succession, dating back to the apostles or to leaders from the apostolic era, include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Communion, and some Lutheran churches .

These churches have documented histories that can trace back their Bishops and church lineages to the original Apostles.

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

I think the apostasy from an LDS perspective is primarily about the authority and ordinances. So from our perspective it'd have happened early - most likely in the first century as new apostles were not called. Nibley's "The Passing of the Primitive Church" is the main argument for that. There are other aspects that then are called apostasy such as changes in doctrine but the issue proper is that authority of the apostles. 

As you note various churches claim apostolic succession usually via Bishops though. Mormons don't see that as authoritative. The question mainly ends up being issues for which there's not a lot of good data. i.e. who succeeded Peter in Jerusalem and what happened to the church after the destruction of the temple. The usual non-Mormon answer (beyond a priesthood of all believers as is popular in protestantism) is that Peter ordained Linus as Bishop of Rome. (That's Iranaeus' Against Heresies) The problem with the other figures like Clement, Cletus or Polycarp is that they were Bishops and not over the whole church but Smyrneania or Rome. Clement is usually seen as the third pope, but again from a Mormon perspective was only a Bishop. Further Linus is only first mentioned by Irenaeus around 180 AD while Linus died in 76 AD.

If you're interested there's an interesting debate on the topic between Barry Bickmore and Steve Clifford.

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

They have portraits of Peter??? 

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

Well except that you don't have any early documents claiming that being Bishop of Rome was the same as having Peter's authority. Indeed there's plenty of reasons to think Rome was no different from the other churches in the first century. 

12 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

For LDS believers, there is the testimony of Joseph Smith that a restoration was necessary. It really all revolves around that, in the end.  There is no proof, so to speak.

Ultimately this is right, although again the lack of early claims is problematic for Catholic claims as well. Both groups have a theology of authority and are making claims for the history in the 1st century but neither have 1st century documents to back them up. So there's no public evidence that could support either claim.

I don't think this is a problem for Mormons mind you.

The strongest bit of argument for Mormons is the distinction between a Bishop and an Apostle. The second strongest is the imagery of the woman in Revelation fleeing into the wilderness as a symbolic type of apostasy. But of course appealing to Revelation as evidence is weak evidence at best.  So really all we have are consistent theologies but no objective public evidence for the theology.

[TOmNossor]

11 hours ago, snowflake said:

The LDS claim of the great apostasy. I have been looking into this LDS claim and am not finding evidence to support it.

Churches that claim some form of episcopal apostolic succession, dating back to the apostles or to leaders from the apostolic era, include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Communion, and some Lutheran churches .

These churches have documented histories that can trace back their Bishops and church lineages to the original Apostles.

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

I do not know precisely when it happened, but I think there is a clear way to point to it.

Before I do, I think what Clark said is of value.  I often recommend to Catholic and LDS alike to read three books.  From Apostles to Bishops by Father Francis Sullivan, The Rise of the Papacy by Robert Eno, and Apostles and Bishops by Hugh Nibley.

The first two books are by Catholics scholars.  They explain why they believe that despite all the messiness documented by Nibley and other scholars the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles.  Nibley's thesis is clearer and easier.  In the beginning Apostles AND Bishops were present later Apostles were gone this is a loss of authority.  The Catholic scholars go to great lengths to fill in the glaring blanks between Apostles AND Bishops and Apostles to Bishops.  Without presuposing the Catholic faith, their presentation is not compelling (though I would follow them before I follow those who deny authority all together).

I think the loss of COVENANTAL sacraments in favor of one way reception of GRACE sacraments is part of the problem.  Noel Reynolds book has an essay on this.

But...

I now think the easiest way to demonstrate the apostasy is to explain that God's church was lead by supernatural public revelation during Old Testament times.  God's church was lead by supernatural public revelation during New Testament times.  The Catholic Church does not believe that it is lead by supernatural public revelation any longer.  I even lean strongly toward the Montanist controversy in the late 2nd / early 3rd century as the FIRST time the church boldly claimed, "we do not receive revelation and all who claim to receive revelation are false prophets." (nobody has shown me any ECF before this who denied that Revelation would continue).  Tertullian one of the brilliant ECF (he also documented what he called the "usurpation" of the Peterine office by the Bishop of Rome), didn't believe that revelation would/had ceased.  I do not espouse the particular revelation Tertullian embraced, but he is a witness to the expectation that revelation would not cease.  And yet the Catholic authorities that "won the day" boldly claimed that they did not receive revelation and nobody could.

My view of revelation, even revelation to God's highest human authority, is that it does not create automatons or infallibility.  It is my position that when the Catholic Church cut themselves off from the possibility of Public Revelation, they severed God's main way of guiding His church to "all truth."  Error creep in and God continued to work with His children, but it was the Restoration that returned God's church to the pattern God established in the New and Old Testament.  This is the fullness that was lacking when God acted through Joseph Smith to restore His gospel and His way of guiding His church.

I am quite convinced that the Bible does not teach the end of revelation.  I would be interested if there was anyone earlier than the late 2nd century or early 3rd century who taught revelation would cease.

Charity, TOm 

 

 

 

 

[theplains]

13 hours ago, snowflake said:

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

According to the 1998 version of Gospel Principles, the original church that Jesus found was completely
destroyed.  But Matthew 16:18 would argue against this. It symbolizes the Church as being on the offensive
against the devil and his gates of hell, not the other way around.  But granted, I do believe that apostasy began
in the early church as Paul warning about.    If the formation of sects is a sign of apostasy, then we find this
too in all the Mormon sects which arose after the death of Joseph Smith.

Jim

[mrmarklin]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

They have portraits of Peter??? 

Many.  I believe that Peter did not sit for them, however.

[TOmNossor]

9 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

One can only infer apostasy  from the writings of Luther, etc. Another indication is the departure from obvious biblical practices such as baptism by immersion, etc.  Clearly,, with all the Christian religions out there, something has gone wrong with the original Church  

Of course the Catholics argue that all these changes are sanctioned by the vicar of Christ and various conferences, such as the one in Nicea. Which of course was approved by the Pope.  One must notice, moreover that every portrait of Peter includes the keys, which the Catholic Church says we’re passed on to Peter’s successors. 

For LDS believers, there is the testimony of Joseph Smith that a restoration was necessary. It really all revolves around that, in the end.  There is no proof, so to speak.

LDS have portraits that show Peter, James, and John ordaining Joseph Smith.

LDS then have portraits detailing the authority from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson.

The Roman Church claimed Pope Clement was the first Pope after Peter for many years until more distinguished authors corrected the local church.  The local Roman church was very unconcerned with who was the Bishop/Pope in those early days.  So sure we have portraits, but these are less contemporary than the LDS evidence I offer.

And of course Sixtus is the sixth Pope after Peter.  His name is likely derived because originally Peter was not listed as Bishop of Rome/Pope, AND because nobody knew who the sixth Bishop of Rome was.  So they said it was Sixtus and made a portrait.

Father Francis Sullivan agrees with most authors that there was no singular bishop in Rome until the 2nd century.  That Clement was a distinguished bishop/presbyter and this is likely true for other early "popes."

I do not think portraits of Popes created after the "Rise of the Papacy" are strong evidence for the Peterine headship present within the Bishop of Rome.

Charity, TOm

Edited December 9, 2017 by TOmNossor

[Derl Sanderson]

On 12/8/2017 at 11:31 AM, snowflake said:

The LDS claim of the great apostasy. I have been looking into this LDS claim and am not finding evidence to support it.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "looking into this LDS claim." What sources have you found reliable and recommend? I totally agree with TOmNossor's suggestion of Nibley's book (and I need to read the other two Catholic sources that TOmNossor suggested -- TN is very informed on this topic). Might I also recommend a collection of fairly recent essays on the subject by various LDS scholars and edited by Noel B. Reynolds (I think TOmNossor alluded to it in his post) titled Early Christians in Disarray -- Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy.  

Edited December 9, 2017 by Derl Sanderson
Clarify

[carbon dioxide]

17 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

I am not even convinced that a line of authority from Peter would be valid since I don't believe Peter was the head of the Church anyway in those days.  I believe James was the head.  James being the president of the Church and Peter being the President of the twelve.  A two headed presidency just as found in the LDS Church today.  Regardless,  LDS also have a line of authority from Peter complete with portraits.  That being Peter to Joseph Smith and so on.

Edited December 9, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[cdowis]

On 12/8/2017 at 3:51 PM, snowflake said:

Where in the NT were the Apostles ordaining Priesthood or authority?

Acts 1:2-3 where Christ taught them the "things of the kingdom of God" for 40 days, but not recorded in the Bible.

Your question is based on the false premise that the Bible contains all the instructions pertaining to the administration of the priesthood.  It clearly does not == Eph 4:11-14 == what are the duties of the different callings, who chose and ordained them, etc.

Edited December 10, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:31 PM, snowflake said:

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

See Eph 4:11-14.  The apostasy occurred when the historic Christian church replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers.

The general date is around 400AD, and the Council of Nicea was the marker event for the apostasy.   See the Nibley's  "World and the Prohets" 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-world-and-the-prophets/

Edited December 10, 2017 by cdowis

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/8/2017 at 11:31 AM, snowflake said:

My question is when and where did the so called great apostasy happen?

Where did it happen?  I don't think one can pick an exact day or spot of land where it happened.  When did it happen?  The apostasy was not an event but a process.  Can liken it to cancer.  It started in the New Testament times.  It spread during those years.  When the apostles were take out, the apostasy became terminal just as when cancer spreads throughout the body and it become stage 4 terminal.  However simply becoming terminal does not mean death at that point. There is still a process that occurs until death occurs.  That is true in cancer and true with the apostasy.   There were still righteous people around after the apostles died.  They still had the priesthood and would still be able to ordain others to it just as we would today if all the general authorities died.  However the lose of essential keys made it more difficult and put limits on the priesthood.  The apostasy lasted 1260 years according to the scriptures.  The restoration of the church was in 1830 so the apostasy was fully enforce around 570 A.D.  Not a quiet time in European history.  We don't know the specific events in 570 A.D but that is the target area.

[cdowis]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:31 PM, snowflake said:

 

Churches that claim some form of episcopal apostolic succession, dating back to the apostles or to leaders from the apostolic era, include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Communion, and some Lutheran churches .

These churches have documented histories that can trace back their Bishops and church lineages to the original Apostles.

 

The LDS church has documented history that Christ called Joseph Smith as a prophet and restored His church on the earth, with the keys of the priesthood.

 

Now you show us your history of succession as recorded in the Bible and we will do likewise.  

Edited December 10, 2017 by cdowis

[Freedom]

There is also the whole question of how the bible came to be:

http://grantsrants.ca/brief-history-bible-came-old-testament/

http://grantsrants.ca/brief-history-bible-came-new-testament-onward/

Not exactly a need, tidy and inspired process.

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

See Eph 4:11-14.  The apostasy occurred when the historic Christian church replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers.

The general date is around 400AD, and the Council of Nicea was the marker event for the apostasy.   See the Nibley's  "World and the Prohets" 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/the-world-and-the-prophets/

I personally like the Nicean council as a good benchmark because the nature of God changed, as the Arianists lost the battle to recognize essentially what LDS now believe about the Godhead.  This battle went on in the Church for several centuries after.

BTW Isaac Newton was a closet Arianist. 

[Spammer]

The point at issue at the Council of Nicea was whether the Son is created (the Arian view) or uncreated (the Catholic view).  Both views are older than the council, so the position that the Catholic view was an invention of the council is in error. Interestingly, both views agreed that the Father is uncreated and disembodied. Neither believed what Mormons believe about the nature of the Father. Belief in an uncreated, disembodied Father goes back at least as far as Irenaeus, Catholic Bishop of Lyon, who wrote his Against Heresies 150 years before the Council of Nicea. 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Spammer

[Stormin' Mormon]

The modern church was established with a specific mission: to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. 

I believe the church of Peter's day was also established with a specific mission: to blanket the world with a rudimentary knowledge of Jesus Christ as quickly as possible, before such knowledge could be lost. The church planted this knowledge so far and wide that not even the dark ages could uproot it. Widespread Christianity, even lacking priesthood authority, provided a fertile topsoil in which the latter day church could begin its work. 

The ancient church did not fail at its mission. Christ did not set up his church for failure. The Great Apostasy was an unfortunate side effect of the necessarily rapid spread of the gospel. With the technology then extant, you couldn't have both rapid dissemination and uniform doctrine. 

The Great Apostasy was not a failure in God's plan. If the ancient apostles hadn't set up a church that was far-flung and thus suceptible to apostasy, then our work today in preparing the world for the Millennium woud be nigh impossible. 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The modern church was established with a specific mission: to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. 

I believe the church of Peter's day was also established with a specific mission: to blanket the world with a rudimentary knowledge of Jesus Christ as quickly as possible, before such knowledge could be lost. The church planted this knowledge so far and wide that not even the dark ages could uproot it. Widespread Christianity, even lacking priesthood authority, provided a fertile topsoil in which the latter day church could begin its work. 

The ancient church did not fail at its mission. Christ did not set up his church for failure. The Great Apostasy was an unfortunate side affect of the necessarily rapid spread of the gospel. With the technology then extant, you couldn't have both rapid dissemination and uniform doctrine. 

The Great Apostasy was not a failure in God's plan. If the ancient apostles hadn't set up a church that was far-flung and thus suceptible to apostasy, then our work today in preparing the world for the Millennium woud be nigh impossible. 

 

Interesting idea.  First stage, prepare soil including planting and harvesting crops that enrich the soil but are not the intended final product.  

The problem of growth without sufficient number of active Priesthood holders is once that affects the world today even with a much higher rate of mobility and fast long distance communication.  There is no reason to think there would have been a different result in the early church.

The current stage is also an intermediary one of preparation, imo.  Final stage might be the harvest of the Millennium.  Perhaps we are simply getting the irrigation system and other enrichment necessities in place with limited harvest to build up the seed quality and quantity.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Calm

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Interesting idea.  First stage, prepare soil including planting and harvesting crops that enrich the soil but are not the intended final product.  

The problem of growth without sufficient number of active Priesthood holders is once that affects the world today even with a much higher rate of mobility and fast long distance communication.  There is no reason to think there would have been a different result in the early church.

The current stage is also an intermediary one of preparation, imo.  Final stage might be the harvest of the Millennium.  Perhaps we are simply getting the irrigation system and other enrichment necessities in place with limited harvest to build up the seed quality and quantity.

I must plug a long and somewhat convoluted article that of which I am a huge fan.

I have always been troubled about the firm conviction that this is the last dispensation.  Such was the view of ever dispensation as best I can tell.  What is absolutely true is that there have always been devote followers of Christ who thought the second coming was during their lifetime.

This article has helped me to see a POSSIBLE reason that this is the last dispensation and why the Peterine church (and perhaps the Mohammedian church) did not have the staying power that I believe and hope the Latter-Day Christian Church has.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/

Charity, TOm

 

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

According to the 1998 version of Gospel Principles, the original church that Jesus found was completely destroyed.  But Matthew 16:18 would argue against this. It symbolizes the Church as being on the offensive against the devil and his gates of hell, not the other way around.  But granted, I do believe that apostasy began in the early church as Paul warning about.    If the formation of sects is a sign of apostasy, then we find this too in all the Mormon sects which arose after the death of Joseph Smith.

Again Revelation has the woman (the Church) fleeing into the wilderness and then restored. So the gates of hell didn't prevail against it. Likewise even if the fulness was taken away there was still a fair bit remaining that was frequently taught with sincerity by the Christians, Jews and Muslims who had portions of the truth.

I don't have an 1998 Gospel Principles manual, but I suspect they were referring to certain structural elements. And those do seem to have disappeared. 

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, Spammer said:

The point at issue at the Council of Nicea was whether the Son is created (the Arian view) or uncreated (the Catholic view).  Both views are older than the council, so the position that the Catholic view was an invention of the council is in error. Interestingly, both views agreed that the Father is uncreated and disembodied. Neither believed what Mormons believe about the nature of the Father. Belief in an uncreated, disembodied Father goes back at least as far as Irenaeus, Catholic Bishop of Lyon, who wrote his Against Heresies 150 years before the Council of Nicea. 

Yep. 

The Council of Nicea simply  replaced one heresy for another.  And those who voted against the Creed faced the wrath of the guy running the show, the Emperor Constantine who then banished them. 

Another interesting aspect was that the representative of Rome had no special recognition from these church leaders -- he was just one of the guys.  Nothing special.

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

22 hours ago, theplains said:

According to the 1998 version of Gospel Principles, the original church that Jesus found was completely
destroyed.  

Jim

It says the pretty much same thing as the current one.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

"The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete."

"The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruc- tion of the Church was complete."

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

Edited December 10, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

On 12/8/2017 at 9:33 PM, mrmarklin said:

The Apostasy is problematic for LDS, because one can go into any Catholic Church and see a chart showing a line of authority from Peter, complete with portraits!

One can only infer apostasy  from the writings of Luther, etc. Another indication is the departure from obvious biblical practices such as baptism by immersion, etc.  Clearly,, with all the Christian religions out there, something has gone wrong with the original Church  

Line of authority does not prevent apostasy. The Lord told Israel that a famine of the word of the Lord was coming. Did you ever notice that once the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 started, the prophets of the OT disappeared? Did you ever notice that the High Priest became a corrupted office, and appointee of Rome? DId you ever notice they were so apostate that they crucified our Lord? So although Jesus told the people they should follow what those in the seat of Moses said, He said those very people telling them what to do were a generation of vipers and whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones - do you think it safe to say that Jesus thought they were apostate?

Bishops are not apostles. Apostles such as Peter were married. If you believe everyone that can trace a line of authority to an apostle is not apostate, how do you explain the myriad conflicting teachings? Roman Catholics used not to let their priests marry, and still really don't. Eastern orthodox do, etc, etc.

In my next post I will show that you do not need to rely on apostasy based on the writings of Luther, etc.

[The Nehor]

On 12/8/2017 at 3:57 PM, snowflake said:

So Christ created his church to last around 60 years, then canned the whole thing for 1800 years......till Joseph came along.......nonsense.

So God revealed himself unto man and then gave up and drowned everyone when Noah came around......nonsense.