Apostasy and the Removal of the President

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From Merriam-Webster on-line (senses 1 and 3 apply to Latter-day Saint usage in my opinion):

Definition of quorum

 

1: a select group

2: the number (such as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business

3: a Mormon body comprising those in the same grade of priesthood

Also from the 1828 Webster's which is useful to see if Joseph and other early leaders were novel in their usage:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Quorum

Quote

QUO'RUM, noun [Latin gen. plural of qui, who.]

1. A bench of justices, or such a number of officers or members as is competent by law or constitution to transact business; as a quorum of the house of representatives. A constitutional quorum was not present.

2. A special commission of justices.

 

[mapman]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's a discussion on the gay marriage policy thread that touches on issues of apostasy. I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience because it is of interest to me. This thread isn't about the gay marriage policy, so take that topic over there. Thanks!

Here are some questions I have. Answer any you'd like  

I've heard that the LDS church will not be allowed to go into apostasy. Why? Why would the original church be allowed to but not the restored church?

What would constitute apostasy in the LDS church? Any specific examples would be great.

How would you know the LDS church has gone into apostasy? Of course, the president wouldn't tell you; he would tell you the opposite.

How can the president be removed? There was mention in the other thread that God would kill him before he went into apostasy. There was also mention that he can be removed. What is the procedure for removing the president?

If God would kill the president before he led the church astray, doesn't that mean de facto that he is infallible?

Add any other questions/answers you'd like related to the topic. Thanks!

There's an uncanonized revelation of Joseph Smith that lays out a process for the church body to try members of the first presidency for "transgression." Back then there was the stake of Zion in Missouri with the high council, and then various stakes and branches of the church in different locations. According to this revelation, the high council can put the first presidency on trial, present three witnesses to testify against them, and then vote whether to remove them. Then it would go to the rest of the church for a vote, and 

Quote

if said decision shall be acknowleged by a majority of her stakes then it shall <answer> for <all> her stakes And again the presidency of said Church may be tried by the <voice> of the whole body of <the Church of> Zion, and the <voice of a majority> of all her stakes, And again except a majority is had by the voice of the Church of Zion, and the majority of her stakes, the charges will be considered not sustained

We no longer have a central stake, so this process wouldn't work any more. If there is some sort of updated process put in place for us to try the president of the church, they haven't told us what it is.

Edited to add: From what I understand, I think that the quorum of the twelve is understood to be a high council when it comes to church discipline, something like the Supreme Court. So maybe discipline against the first presidency would have to start with the apostles.

Edited April 25, 2019 by mapman

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The Catholic church pretty much just assumes that it did. 

There is some evidence, but it is scant and won't convince a non-believer. The second pope, Linus, is mentioned in the Bible as being with Paul in Rome. The early church fathers also discuss the transmission of the Roman episcopate to Linus.

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also from the 1828 Webster's which is useful to see if Joseph and other early leaders were novel in their usage:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Quorum

 

Thanks. This helps explain its current LDS usage.

[Joshua Valentine]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's a discussion on the gay marriage policy thread that touches on issues of apostasy. I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience because it is of interest to me. This thread isn't about the gay marriage policy, so take that topic over there. Thanks!

Here are some questions I have. Answer any you'd like  

I've heard that the LDS church will not be allowed to go into apostasy. Why? Why would the original church be allowed to but not the restored church?

What would constitute apostasy in the LDS church? Any specific examples would be great.

How would you know the LDS church has gone into apostasy? Of course, the president wouldn't tell you; he would tell you the opposite.

How can the president be removed? There was mention in the other thread that God would kill him before he went into apostasy. There was also mention that he can be removed. What is the procedure for removing the president?

If God would kill the president before he led the church astray, doesn't that mean de facto that he is infallible?

Add any other questions/answers you'd like related to the topic. Thanks!

 

3 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I think we have the wrong angle on this.  All three members of the Presidency form a quorum.  All three would have to go off the tracks so to speak or else if just one did it would become quickly known. 

This reminds me of Trump, accusations of obstruction, and his staff not fulfilling his directives... But:

1) Going for this ¨quorum angle¨ does not mean that the President can´t lead the LDS Church astray without the other two members of the Presidency. The very questions that MiserereNobis asks must be answered in order to know whether the President can lead the LDS Church astray on his own (which seems likely if he tells ¨you the opposite¨ and you believe it for a while (Brethren or members)), how likely it is that the First Presidency could go along innocently before realizing the error, etc.

2) If we take Joseph Smith´s (et al.) word for it, on its face it does seem that it is possible for the President of the LDS Church to lead the LDS Church astray, or else why say it the way he and they did? They didn´t say ¨b/c the First Presidency would have to be in on it and they would catch it, don´t worry¨ or that ¨the First Presidency will never lead you astray¨.

3) With strong authoritarian structure this is always the drawback or risk. What I constantly find interesting, and rather convenient, is that the LDS Church claims such authority and tries to claim the benefits of such localized power and authority all while: believing apostasies have happened (many times?) in the past (but conveniently won´t happen again to the LDS Church), constantly calling ¨we don´t believe in infallibility¨ for so many questionable events, and while insisting on ¨continuation of revelation¨ (instead of led astray) for the many doctrinal/policy changes over the 200 yrs of the movement.

                       Another question (perhaps better on a separate thread): What effectively causes this difference between the previous instantiations of God´s Church  (that fell away) and the LDS Church (that never will)?  Is it because God won´t let it happen (lack of agency) or because the spirit children chosen to be assigned to this era are so much better than those used in the previous (fallen) ones? Whatever the answer is, is that answer justified given claims or consistent given history?

Anyway, it would be good to discuss the particular questions MiserereNobis brings up before trying to come up with a catchall general answer. [I haven´t read all the comments, so perhaps you have already started working on this.]

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

There never was an apostasy, the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ. 

 

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ha. I'm with you on this one, buddy  

It's one of the great ironies in the Church that the Church today differs from the Church Joseph Smith restored almost as much the Catholic Church differs fromthe Church Jesus and Peter established.

Yet the same member that decries the changes made in the early Church after Christ and the Apostles somehow sees no similarities in today's Church.

[Joshua Valentine]

33 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It is at least recorded in church records that it happened. The Catholic church pretty much just assumes that it did. 

The Peter et al. ¨records¨ you seem to be referring to for the LDS Church are little more than assumptions. It is unclear that they are any more than naked ¨claims¨. The ¨record¨ part of their history has quite a bit to question the value of ¨record¨ over assumption.

[Joshua Valentine]

I think it is a very good question to ask how the LDS Church authorities and membership would respond to a President that has gone off the tracks (without medical excuse) given the issue of apostasy being easily claimed against any who try to question the leadership in any effective (public/beyond your own head) way.

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The first is Wilford Woodruff's oft repeated quote which suggests God would take the prophet away before allowing it

I am pretty sure this was just a policy statement, that had he lived a few years longer would have been reversed.

Edited April 25, 2019 by CA Steve

[filovirus]

Can the church be led astray? Possibly.

Was the church led astray in the time of David, when he was on his naughty path? It doesn't appear to have been led astray.

What about when Solomon allowed other cultures to infiltrate the area?

We know that Peter and Paul disagreed on things. Was it led astray then?

I think God puts in enough checks and balances so that it won't happen.

The "Great Apostasy" was foretold. God has not foretold to my knowledge of another one happening. Of course I am biased because I am a member of what I consider "His" church.

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am pretty sure this was just a policy statement, that had he lived a few years longer would have been reversed.

Best thing I’ve read on here in months.

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Fair enough. The issue was whether the Catholic Churches hold a direct lineage back to Christ, and I addressed what I feel are the very arguable points In that regard against the proposition.

It seems to me this line of discussion depends upon Bishops being given the same authority as apostles which just isn't clear. I don't think anyone is disputing the apostles set the Bishop of Rome apart. But it doesn't follow that the Bishop of Rome was an apostle. The argument Nibley gives is that the apostles knew the apostasy was coming and simply didn't pass everything along. Certainly there were no shortages of groups claiming inner teachings - most of the gnostic sects claimed that. Some of that argument depends upon the controversial Secret Gospel of Mark. Margaret Barker has also written on this.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

In fact I do not agree about the tradition or policy of making the senior-most apostle the next president. There is no scriptural requirement that a new President even be an apostle - he only need be a high priest who is chosen by the body of the Church. This has been recognized for his counselors, but for some reason the tradition of Presidential succession has proven too strong to recognize it for the president himself.

While I think emeritus status for enfeebled apostles would be a very good thing I'm not sure I'd say this is just a tradition. At the President's death then the president of the quorum of apostles has the keys. The whole Brigham Young succession crisis depends upon that. The more interesting tradition is seniority of the apostles which was mainly done by Brigham Young in 1861 but I don't think claimed any revelation on the subject. The more controversial acts of Brigham was setting apart other apostles - sometimes unbeknownst to the other apostles. This then affects succession as we see with John Willard. It was largely due to not wanting Willard to succeed him that Lorenzo Snow changed Brigham's ordering of seniority to entrance in the quorum and not ordination to be an apostle. (Since Willard wasn't in the quorum despite being set apart as an apostle) The vote for this change was unanimous among quorum members.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me this line of discussion depends upon Bishops being given the same authority as apostles which just isn't clear. I don't think anyone is disputing the apostles set the Bishop of Rome apart. But it doesn't follow that the Bishop of Rome was an apostle. The argument Nibley gives is that the apostles knew the apostasy was coming and simply didn't pass everything along. Certainly there were no shortages of groups claiming inner teachings - most of the gnostic sects claimed that. Some of that argument depends upon the controversial Secret Gospel of Mark. Margaret Barker has also written on this.

I´m going to try to make it eventually all the way through this essay, but it is REALLY difficult when Nibley´s use of scripture to support his premises is so awful! How am I supposed to get through 25 pages of argument and notes when the first sentence of the second paragraph of the first premise´s section is filled with blatantly misused scripture? I am interested in the claim that the apostles and leaders indicated that the institutional church was meant to be short-lived, but my expectations/hopes for good interpretation of statements is harmed by these misuses of scripture statements.

But just this bold part is concerning: Why would believing that a Great Apostasy was unavoidable justify not passing everything on? The two points don´t meet. I will see what he has to say to justify this conclusion, but if such bewildering logic is required to be imposed on the apostles in order to bring about this LDS-friendly conclusion, it does not bode well for the strength of his arguments.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think anyone is disputing the apostles set the Bishop of Rome apart. But it doesn't follow that the Bishop of Rome was an apostle.

First, I have a question as to what it means to set the Bishop of Rome apart. Catholics would absolutely agree that he was set apart from the other bishops -- hence the papacy. I have a feeling you might mean something different..?

Secondly, Catholics do not claim he was an apostle. He was a bishop. The apostles were sent out to baptize and organize the Church. Apostle means one who is sent. Their role was unique. They could personally witness of Christ and organize churches, led by bishops who received their keys, wherever they went. This they did and thus was born Christianity.

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I´m going to try to make it eventually all the way through this essay, but it is REALLY difficult when Nibley´s use of scripture to support his premises is so awful! How am I supposed to get through 25 pages of argument and notes when the first sentence of the second paragraph of the first premise´s section is filled with blatantly misused scripture? I am interested in the claim that the apostles and leaders indicated that the institutional church was meant to be short-lived, but my expectations/hopes for good interpretation of statements is harmed by these misuses of scripture statements.

But just this bold part is concerning: Why would believing that a Great Apostasy was unavoidable justify not passing everything on? The two points don´t meet. I will see what he has to say to justify this conclusion, but if such bewildering logic is required to be imposed on the apostles in order to bring about this LDS-friendly conclusion, it does not bode well for the strength of his arguments.

I'm amused by the other articles grouped together with Nibley's. In that journal, we have articles on B-lysin, dancing in Utah, teenagers in the 1960s, diamonds, and oh yeah, the great apostasy  

I know it is a collection from a wide range of journals, but it is still amusing.

[TOmNossor]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's a discussion on the gay marriage policy thread that touches on issues of apostasy. I thought I'd bring it to a wider audience because it is of interest to me. This thread isn't about the gay marriage policy, so take that topic over there. Thanks!

Here are some questions I have. Answer any you'd like  

I've heard that the LDS church will not be allowed to go into apostasy. Why? Why would the original church be allowed to but not the restored church?

What would constitute apostasy in the LDS church? Any specific examples would be great.

How would you know the LDS church has gone into apostasy? Of course, the president wouldn't tell you; he would tell you the opposite.

How can the president be removed? There was mention in the other thread that God would kill him before he went into apostasy. There was also mention that he can be removed. What is the procedure for removing the president?

If God would kill the president before he led the church astray, doesn't that mean de facto that he is infallible?

Add any other questions/answers you'd like related to the topic. Thanks!

It used to bother me a little that as a LDS I was taught this was the LAST dispensation and unlike all the previous dispensations it would not end before the second coming of Christ.  I know enough of the history that two things are clear and taught in almost ANY time in history.  1. Christ will return in our lifetime,  2. We (Catholics, ...) have staying power.
Anyway, this article uses a section in the Book of Mormon and a few different scholarly perspectives to form an argument about today that enables the church to continue without tipping (my word) out of existence.  It is complex, but I am no longer much troubled by the idea that this is the "last dispensation."
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
Charity, TOm

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

First, I have a question as to what it means to set the Bishop of Rome apart. Catholics would absolutely agree that he was set apart from the other bishops -- hence the papacy. I have a feeling you might mean something different..?

Secondly, Catholics do not claim he was an apostle. He was a bishop. The apostles were sent out to baptize and organize the Church. Apostle means one who is sent. Their role was unique. They could personally witness of Christ and organize churches, led by bishops who received their keys, wherever they went. This they did and thus was born Christianity.

Setting apart is similar to ordain for Saints, it means to set apart, bless someone to receive a calling.  I have been set apart as a teacher, for example.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1992/02/i-have-a-question/what-exactly-does-it-mean-when-we-are-set-apart-for-a-church-calling?lang=eng

Edited April 26, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Setting apart is similar to ordain for Saints, it means to set apart, bless someone to receive a calling.  I have been set apart as a teacher, for example.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1992/02/i-have-a-question/what-exactly-does-it-mean-when-we-are-set-apart-for-a-church-calling?lang=eng

Thanks, that was an informative article. Nice that it was short, too  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

First, I have a question as to what it means to set the Bishop of Rome apart. Catholics would absolutely agree that he was set apart from the other bishops -- hence the papacy. I have a feeling you might mean something different..?

Secondly, Catholics do not claim he was an apostle. He was a bishop. The apostles were sent out to baptize and organize the Church. Apostle means one who is sent. Their role was unique. They could personally witness of Christ and organize churches, led by bishops who received their keys, wherever they went. This they did and thus was born Christianity.

More or less that's the question. So I recognize that the whole idea of the papacy depends upon that. But what is the earliest evidence for the Bishop of Rome having those duties rather than the leaders in Jerusalem?  So when did leadership transition from Peter and James to the Bishop of Rome? The skeptic can just say the Jerusalem council disappeared and the Bishop in Rome took it upon himself to take a leadership position.

I'm not here arguing about what each side believes. However for both sides there's a significant gap in evidence.

So the issue is really the place of James and the Council of Jerusalem and how it fits into Catholic conceptions of leadership. I should note Mormons don't really have a lot of dogma here - surprisingly so. Although I do think the figure of James is just so interesting for Mormons yet surprisingly little has been written about him despite it relating to so much. As you might know, Eusebius has the council fleeing to Pella during the siege in 70 AD but then returning to Jerusalem until the Bar Kokhba revolt and complete destruction of Jerusalem. (To create the new Roman city of Aelia Capitolina) So what happened to the council in 130 AD? 

James, Jesus' brother, appears to have replaced James the son of Zebedee around 44 AD and become part of what Mormons would call the First Presidency. (Although Paul calls it the three pillars -  Gal 2:9) We can't say this Jerusalem Council was the same as Bishop as James the righteous was Bishop of Jerusalem prior to joining the Council when the other James died. So what's the connection between the Roman Bishop and the Jerusalem Council who clearly were the leaders up until the Bar Kokhba revolt?

This also ties into that secret inner teachings that Clement talks about. "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnōsin) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one." (Clement, Stromata book 6 quoted in Eusebius book 1:1)

• Then there was JAMES who was known as the brother of the Lord. For he too was called Joseph's son, and Joseph Christ's father, though in fact the Virgin was his betrothed, and before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, as the inspired Gospel narrative tells us. This James, as the, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous' because of his outstanding virtue, was the first (as the records tell us) to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church.... Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus, 'Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.... James the Righteous, John, and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy...'

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

...........................

I've heard that the LDS church will not be allowed to go into apostasy. Why? Why would the original church be allowed to but not the restored church?

............................

This is the last dispensation.  There will be no more restorations (Islam made a similar claim), and the Saints of the Last Days are supposed to be preparing to receive the Lord at his Second Coming.  The Jews have nearly finished the final gathering to the Holy Land, and must soon rebuild their temple and begin the old sacrificial rites again.

We are approaching the eschaton.  Everything will be rolled up with a clap of thunder, and then the Millennium will begin.  There are plenty of extraneous details which accompany all that, but nuff said here and now.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me this line of discussion depends upon Bishops being given the same authority as apostles which just isn't clear. I don't think anyone is disputing the apostles set the Bishop of Rome apart. But it doesn't follow that the Bishop of Rome was an apostle.

Yep. Nor does it follow that the Bishop of Rome was THE apostle. The RCC argument seems to be that Peter (and Paul) died there so that somehow vested keys in the Bishop of Rome. Of course the Greek Orthodox Church disagrees.  At the time all this went down there was a bishop of Jerusalem too where our Lord died, so why didn't this vest His keys with the Bishop of Jerusalem? (Yeah, I know the scripture about the Church being built on the rock of Peter, but I don't think the Church understands that rock). At the time of the Nicene Council there is no denying the were lots of bishops of the Churches of all the different cities. There is just no scripture giving any of these authority over the whole Church. They did what bishops did - judge their local flocks. How that became the recipient of all God's revelations is certainly a matter of dispute even among Catholic Churches.    

Quote

While I think emeritus status for enfeebled apostles would be a very good thing I'm not sure I'd say this is just a tradition. At the President's death then the president of the quorum of apostles has the keys. The whole Brigham Young succession crisis depends upon that.

According to what scripture? And if I follow your BY succession argument, I don't agree. I think I know enough Church history to know that BY was chosen by the body of the Church as the next President over Sidney Rigdon or anyone else. Am I somehow wrong about that? He didn't accept that at first because he wanted to try to honor Joseph's wishes according to him, but at that point he had fulfilled the scriptural requirement to be President. I  don't believe it had anything to do with him being the head of the quorum of the twelve. There is no automatic passing of the keys to the president of the quorum of the twelve as far as I am concerned. That is just tradition. I believe the quorum of the Presidency continues on in equal authority to the quorum of the twelve until a new President is selected by the body of the Church per scripture. Until that time it does not appear from scripture that anyone is authorized to exercise all the keys. If I am wrong, show me per scripture - not some voting of the council about what they are going to do. 

Quote

The more interesting tradition is seniority of the apostles which was mainly done by Brigham Young in 1861 but I don't think claimed any revelation on the subject. The more controversial acts of Brigham was setting apart other apostles - sometimes unbeknownst to the other apostles. This then affects succession as we see with John Willard. It was largely due to not wanting Willard to succeed him that Lorenzo Snow changed Brigham's ordering of seniority to entrance in the quorum and not ordination to be an apostle. (Since Willard wasn't in the quorum despite being set apart as an apostle) The vote for this change was unanimous among quorum members.

This just shows that the Church is not immune to politics. That the quorum members voted on who they are going to accept has seniority is almost offputting to me. I thought the President was to be selected by revelation and the body of the Church? - not by some committee vote. I suppose the argument can be made that the vote of the quorum was the revelation, but to me that is just a stretch. I don't think God has ever chosen prophets by seniority(until maybe now). While the system does seem to avoid squabbling, maybe it is best if the body of the Church does the real deciding, and that is accepted as the revelation of the Lord. But what do I know? I am just a peon.  Another possibility is that the quorum take a vote on the presidential nominee and offer that to the Church, but instead we live with this senior-most rule. Oh well. It just seems far removed from the dictates of D&C. That is my input which will be ignored in the interest of not rocking the boat of the brethren.

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Of course going into total apostasy isn't the same as not having errors. 

A partial apostasy vs a total one?

Sounds about right.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Where did Christ appoint the presiding bishopric? Where did Christ appoint patriarchs? For that matter, where did Christ appoint bishops and deacons (and teachers and elders and high priests)? And why do you have 15 apostles when Christ only had 12?

I think trying to lay the organizational structure of the LDS church alongside the original church and saying they are the same is quite problematic. So seeing some structural differences between the Catholic church and what is in the Bible shouldn't be a problem, either.

It was the apostles, with the authority of Christ, that created the structure of the original church. They passed on the apostolic keys to the bishops. Obviously this is the Catholic view, but it isn't irrational or incoherent.

And just to be clear, cardinals are an administrative appointment, meaning it is not another type of priesthood. In Catholicism, you have deacon, priest, and bishop.

Deacons can be married in the RCC. Priests can be married in Eastern Catholic Churches. The celibacy of the priesthood is not doctrine, but tradition. Hard and fast and not going to change, but it is not dogma.

By the way, do you have any married deacons in your ward?  

ETA: just to clarify, the Catholic Church is composed of 24 particular churches. The largest is the Latin Church (which what almost everyone thinks about when they hear Catholic). The other 23 are Eastern Catholic Churches. It is in the eastern churches were priests can be married. They are still Catholic, because they have apostolic keys and believe in the primacy of the pope, but they are not part of the Latin church. Eastern Orthodoxy also holds apostolic keys -- their sacraments are valid -- but they do not subscribe to the primacy of the pope, hence they are not Catholic. They also allow for married clergy.

When I was a missionary our line about the apostasy was that the primitive church started out united, but eventually apostatized and broke out into many factions with different doctrines. The historical truth of course is precisely the reverse - the Christians were factionalized from the beginning, with many diverse views and no central authority. Only over the course of hundreds of years did they develop unity of doctrine and central authority. (Of course eventually they factionalized again, which is inevitable).

Edited April 26, 2019 by Gray

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

When I was a missionary our line about the apostasy was that the primitive church started out united, but eventually apostatized and broke out into many factions with different doctrines. The historical truth of course is precisely the reverse - the Christians were factionalized from the beginning, with many diverse views and no central authority. Only over the course of hundreds of years did they develop unity of doctrine and central authority. (Of course eventually they factionalized again, which is inevitable).

Well, I somewhat disagree with this. The Acts shows there was central authority. Paul seemed to recognize a presidency if you will in what he called the three pillars. Yet, many Christians have moved to make their interpretations of Paul more authoritative. The apostles decided several things for the Church as a body 1) whether it was necessary to be circumcised under the new covenant. 2) whether Jewish dietary laws applied to Christians. 3) some other matters of doctrine, succession, etc. (they picked at least some apostles by lot). To characterize this as "no central authority" is simply not accurate. It was only after the apostles were apparently killed off in the 7 years war, (or being spread far and wide without choosing successors) that the lack of central authority becomes apparent with only the bishops left to try to organize the Church.  I don't characterize this as apostasy at this point, but the Church went through 300 years of intense persecution by the Romans who outlawed their religion, and so records of exactly what happened to the Church do not seem to survive, but the next thing we know we see a bunch of bishops gathering to decide matters for the whole Church. It seems to be just assumed by people like Snowflake that they had the authority to do this, when there is really no scriptural precedent for it, so we get things like Peter died there so that bishop has supremacy. I believe that is where/when apostasy crept in. I do recognize that before that there were differences of belief about the nature of the godhead and other matters, and that with the lack of central authority which had come into being, differences of opinion had spread. It is clear to me that during this period, contrary to what the orthodox churches would lead us to believe, there was no doctrine of the trinity - not even the alleged father of Latin orthodoxy, Tertullian, really supports a trinitarian doctrine - he just is known for coining the word. He actually wrote that there was a time when the Son was not - forbid!! - notice he is not "sainted" by the Church. So yes, the second and third centuries of the Church were characterized by a number of opinions about the nature of the Godhead - some were monarchists, some were Unitarian (or Arian) in belief, etc. The Catholic attempt to isolate Arius as some isolated believer is belied by the existence of whole councils which popped up to reinstate him as a bishop, etc. I believe this lack of unity is exactly why the Nicene Council was convened - to impose some kind of centralized doctrine on the Church - which is what happened. Indeed, after Constantine it was made mandatory for the creeds to be read in the state churches of the empire. So yes, unity if you will call it that was achieved again, by oppressing the other councils which popped up (notice the Catholic churches speak of only the ecumenical councils - as if there were no others - try to read about them online, ha). When unity is imposed, it seems to always be the case that it won't last - and we see that it didn't - as we see that the question of who got to be the unifying factor almost immediately came into play because there were no "apostles" anymore - just thousands of bishops. Did Yeshua know this would happen? 

John 9:4
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

Exactly at what point an apostasy occurred is debatable, but it is clear that by the 4rth century different Church structures had come into being. It is also clear that a somewhat centralized doctrine was imposed for a brief time under the coercion of Roman law. This is "orthodox truth." My 20,000 cents....

Edited April 26, 2019 by RevTestament

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The RCC argument seems to be that Peter (and Paul) died there so that somehow vested keys in the Bishop of Rome.

It's not because he died there. It's because the episcopate of Rome was founded by Peter who gave the Bishop the apostolic keys he received from Christ.

Now, you obviously disagree that this happened. I just wanted to clarify the Catholic argument doesn't rest on Peter's location of death.