Jump to content

New Book about the Apostasy. Any thoughts or comments?


Recommended Posts

I thought Navidad and other non LDS Christians might like this as well as the LDS members on here, but just started listening and hoping I won't regret sharing. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I thought Navidad and other non LDS Christians might like this as well as the LDS members on here, but just started listening and hoping I won't regret sharing. 

 

Thanks for sharing this. 

The Latter-day Saint in the black shirt is effectively babysitting his cohosts. The fellow in the ballcap is misinformed; that's not uncommon, but his recklessness with facts and arguments isn't helping the conversation. That fellow also doesn't seem to be listening to his guests.

Kwaku was quiet, but his "recalled brownie" analogy is unfortunate and unsupportable, as is his identitarian argument that colonialism/racism/nationalism/anything Europeans did = apostasy. 

The Pentecostal guests were trying very hard to be patient. They pretty much succeeded, although a Pentecostal theory of apostolic succession isn't taken seriously by any historians or theologians of which I am aware. Usually, Pentecostals claim that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the manifestation of charisms is all the demonstration of authority that is needed. I've heard of some Protestant groups trying to link up with apostolic succession through the Anglican communion, but most Protestants consider those arguments anomalous because Protestants are usually premised on variations of the apostasy theory and therefore they put forward notions such as sola scriptura and the invisible church that don't require continuing authority through the laying on of hands.

This conversation would have been more productive if the Latter-day Saint in the black shirt had interviewed the Pentecostal guests, and without his cohosts. That fellow in the black shirt seems capable of interfaith/interreligious dialogue, and would be better off without the other two. 

Edited by Saint Bonaventure
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for sharing this. 

The Latter-day Saint in the black shirt is effectively babysitting his cohosts. The fellow in the ballcap is misinformed; that's not uncommon, but his recklessness with facts and arguments isn't helping the conversation. That fellow also doesn't seem to be listening to his guests.

Kwaku was quiet, but his "recalled brownie" analogy is unfortunate and unsupportable, as is his identitarian argument that colonialism/racism/nationalism/anything Europeans did = apostasy. 

The Pentecostal guests were trying very hard to be patient. They pretty much succeeded, although a Pentecostal theory of apostolic succession isn't taken seriously by any historians or theologians of which I am aware. Usually, Pentecostals claim that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the manifestation of charisms is all the demonstration of authority that is needed. I've heard of some Protestant groups trying to link up with apostolic succession through the Anglican communion, but most Protestants consider those arguments anomalous because Protestants are usually premised on variations of the apostasy theory and therefore they put forward notions such as sola scriptura and the invisible church that don't require continuing authority through the laying on of hands.

This conversation would have been more productive if the Latter-day Saint in the black shirt had interviewed the Pentecostal guests, and without his cohosts. That fellow in the black shirt seems capable of interfaith/interreligious dialogue, and would be better off without the other two. 

Yes, that's Brad and he is the most levelheaded it seems. Thanks for this input, it means so much being a born in the covenant LDS all my life. I love learning of other faith perspectives.

Link to comment

Thanks for sharing the video. My complaint with the Pentecostals is at least two of the three acted like first year seminary (graduate school) students who had learned and could parrot a whole lot of neat new stuff. Does the use of the word "neat"reveal my age? I had an African Grey parrot for 30 years. I know parroting when I hear it. Also, the Pentecostals provided no insight into any knowledge of the LDS church history and doctrine. Apparently they didn't have any.

No one in the conversation got right down into defining the great apostasy and the possible impact/implications of the same for Christianity. The historical and evolving development of thinking about the LDS concept of the apostasy within their own writings was never mentioned. That is a fertile field for discussion, just as would be a good discussion about the developing concept of the LDS perspectives over time on the non-LDS Christian world.

The concept of the almost immediate wealth of apostasies within the LDS church from 1833 on through the 1930s was never discussed (anyone remember the 1837-1838 schism?). The original Christian church that "had apostatized" was restored by a new church that itself, immediately began to experience apostasies and that as of now has somewhere between 40 and 200 branches of its own. How many of the apostles of the early LDS church were disfellowshipped or excommunicated? Why did Jedediah Grant take on the task of reforming or restoring (either word fits) a church that just 25 years earlier had done this amazing work of restoring the original church to its original mission and purpose? Why? Because every church (organization or institution) in the world is composed of humans. Every human who has ever lived is imperfect. The Saints of the 1850s were imperfect. The Saints of the 300s, the 500s, the 800s, the 1000s, the 1200s, the 1400s, the 1700s, the 1900s, and the 2000s (so far)  were imperfect. Have you all read Grant's sermons? Wow - thunder and brimstone worthy of the most vociferous Fundamentalist preacher. Perhaps his reformation (restoration) was necessary? It certainly was a reaction on the part of church leaders to some sort of falling short.  If so it once again points out the fallibility, weakness, and humanity that we all share. There is no "only" when it comes to humanity's infirmities, including of course my own.

Now, my pointing that out as a conundrum on the LDS side is not a criticism. It is one more way of saying what I firmly believe as a faithful non-member ---- the LDS church is no different from any other Christian group or organization in the manifestation of Christianity, its unity, its cohesiveness, its living out the gospel in the real world. etc. Apostatizing it not something from which the LDS church is or ever has been exempt. It has splintered into a bunch of sects, each claiming to be the true restorers, the true prophets, to have the true authority, etc etc etc. In that sense I see no difference between the LDS church and the non-LDS church. The 1920s and 30s were also a turbulent time in the church as it dealt with the apostatizing of many because of the plural marriage conflicts and resulting debates over authority. I am sure the Hydes, Strangs, Godbes, Cowderys, Laws, Whitmers, Mclellins, Wooleys, the Mussers, the Allreds, the Johnsons (from Lyman and Benjamin and beyond), even Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr were all good and faithful people. They each apostatized, along with many others from the very church that was built on eliminating the total, great, or partial apostasy (depending on who you are talking to). Humans are fallible, sinful, proud, needy, and capable of wonderful things. It is people who apostatize, not churches. The LDS church stands strong today in spite of its own divisions, appendages, and needs for reformation. So does the Catholic church, the Baptist church, the Mennonite church, and the Pentecostals! Each has had its own challenges, and needs for reforming on occasion.

Now, having said that, I would be remiss if I did not also say what I have said on here 1,000 times (perhaps some exaggeration) over the last five years. While I don't see, feel, intuit, or intellectually acknowledge that the LDS church is anything more than the rest of Christianity, I also would affirm that it is nothing less. There clearly are LDS folks I know who are among the most Godly folks I know. I will debate any non-LDS Christian who says the LDS folks are not or cannot be Christian. I will debate any LDS Christian who says the LDS folks are the only true and living people with whom God is well-pleased.

We are each one individually going to be held accountable before the judgment seat. No church leader is going to be standing beside us attesting to Christ of our faithfulness to his or her church. As I wrap this up, I confess I don't know what my destiny will be. Like all humans, I am all too human. I must rely on the righteousness of Christ to declare me worthy - not to make me worthy. Thanks for reading my reaction to the video. I would enjoy interacting with those guys some time! I am not sure what they would do with the concept of a faithful non-member! Take care all.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for sharing the video. My complaint with the Pentecostals is at least two of the three acted like first year seminary (graduate school) students who had learned and could parrot a whole lot of neat new stuff. Does the use of the word "neat"reveal my age? I had an African Grey parrot for 30 years. I know parroting when I hear it. Also, the Pentecostals provided no insight into any knowledge of the LDS church history and doctrine. Apparently they didn't have any.

No one in the conversation got right down into defining the great apostasy and the possible impact/implications of the same for Christianity. The historical and evolving development of thinking about the LDS concept of the apostasy within their own writings was never mentioned. That is a fertile field for discussion, just as would be a good discussion about the developing concept of the LDS perspectives over time on the non-LDS Christian world.

The concept of the almost immediate wealth of apostasies within the LDS church from 1833 on through the 1930s was never discussed (anyone remember the 1837-1838 schism?). The original Christian church that "had apostatized" was restored by a new church that itself, immediately began to experience apostasies and that as of now has somewhere between 40 and 200 branches of its own. How many of the apostles of the early LDS church were disfellowshipped or excommunicated? Why did Jedediah Grant take on the task of reforming or restoring (either word fits) a church that just 25 years earlier had done this amazing work of restoring the original church to its original mission and purpose? Why? Because every church (organization or institution) in the world is composed of humans. Every human who has ever lived is imperfect. The Saints of the 1850s were imperfect. The Saints of the 300s, the 500s, the 800s, the 1000s, the 1200s, the 1400s, the 1700s, the 1900s, and the 2000s (so far)  were imperfect. Have you all read Grant's sermons? Wow - thunder and brimstone worthy of the most vociferous Fundamentalist preacher. Perhaps his reformation (restoration) was necessary? It certainly was a reaction on the part of church leaders to some sort of falling short.  If so it once again points out the fallibility, weakness, and humanity that we all share. There is no "only" when it comes to humanity's infirmities, including of course my own.

Now, my pointing that out as a conundrum on the LDS side is not a criticism. It is one more way of saying what I firmly believe as a faithful non-member ---- the LDS church is no different from any other Christian group or organization in the manifestation of Christianity, its unity, its cohesiveness, its living out the gospel in the real world. etc. Apostatizing it not something from which the LDS church is or ever has been exempt. It has splintered into a bunch of sects, each claiming to be the true restorers, the true prophets, to have the true authority, etc etc etc. In that sense I see no difference between the LDS church and the non-LDS church. The 1920s and 30s were also a turbulent time in the church as it dealt with the apostatizing of many because of the plural marriage conflicts and resulting debates over authority. I am sure the Hydes, Strangs, Godbes, Cowderys, Laws, Whitmers, Mclellins, Wooleys, the Mussers, the Allreds, the Johnsons (from Lyman and Benjamin and beyond), even Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr were all good and faithful people. They each apostatized, along with many others from the very church that was built on eliminating the total, great, or partial apostasy (depending on who you are talking to). Humans are fallible, sinful, proud, needy, and capable of wonderful things. It is people who apostatize, not churches. The LDS church stands strong today in spite of its own divisions, appendages, and needs for reformation. So does the Catholic church, the Baptist church, the Mennonite church, and the Pentecostals! Each has had its own challenges, and needs for reforming on occasion.

Now, having said that, I would be remiss if I did not also say what I have said on here 1,000 times (perhaps some exaggeration) over the last five years. While I don't see, feel, intuit, or intellectually acknowledge that the LDS church is anything more than the rest of Christianity, I also would affirm that it is nothing less. There clearly are LDS folks I know who are among the most Godly folks I know. I will debate any non-LDS Christian who says the LDS folks are not or cannot be Christian. I will debate any LDS Christian who says the LDS folks are the only true and living people with whom God is well-pleased.

We are each one individually going to be held accountable before the judgment seat. No church leader is going to be standing beside us attesting to Christ of our faithfulness to his or her church. As I wrap this up, I confess I don't know what my destiny will be. Like all humans, I am all too human. I must rely on the righteousness of Christ to declare me worthy - not to make me worthy. Thanks for reading my reaction to the video. I would enjoy interacting with those guys some time! I am not sure what they would do with the concept of a faithful non-member! Take care all.

I agree, well said. ❤️ Btw, I think the Midnight Mormons are going to have a part two with the Pentecostal young men. Their guests had to hurry to help with a funeral and the time was very short. I'm looking forward to hearing more from them, and maybe they'll do some further research with the LDS views. 

ETA: Navidad I would love for that interview with the three on Midnight Mormons. I think they would come away changed! For the better! Any way we can make that happen? If that's what you meant in the last part of your post? 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Navidad said:

The concept of the almost immediate wealth of apostasies within the LDS church from 1833 on through the 1930s was never discussed (anyone remember the 1837-1838 schism?). The original Christian church that "had apostatized" was restored by a new church that itself, immediately began to experience apostasies and that as of now has somewhere between 40 and 200 branches of its own. How many of the apostles of the early LDS church were disfellowshipped or excommunicated? Why did Jedediah Grant take on the task of reforming or restoring (either word fits) a church that just 25 years earlier had done this amazing work of restoring the original church to its original mission and purpose? Why? Because every church (organization or institution) in the world is composed of humans. Every human who has ever lived is imperfect. The Saints of the 1850s were imperfect. The Saints of the 300s, the 500s, the 800s, the 1000s, the 1200s, the 1400s, the 1700s, the 1900s, and the 2000s (so far)  were imperfect. Have you all read Grant's sermons? Wow - thunder and brimstone worthy of the most vociferous Fundamentalist preacher. Perhaps his reformation (restoration) was necessary? It certainly was a reaction on the part of church leaders to some sort of falling short.  If so it once again points out the fallibility, weakness, and humanity that we all share. There is no "only" when it comes to humanity's infirmities, including of course my own.

Now, my pointing that out as a conundrum on the LDS side is not a criticism. It is one more way of saying what I firmly believe as a faithful non-member ---- the LDS church is no different from any other Christian group or organization in the manifestation of Christianity, its unity, its cohesiveness, its living out the gospel in the real world. etc. Apostatizing it not something from which the LDS church is or ever has been exempt. It has splintered into a bunch of sects, each claiming to be the true restorers, the true prophets, to have the true authority, etc etc etc. In that sense I see no difference between the LDS church and the non-LDS church. The 1920s and 30s were also a turbulent time in the church as it dealt with the apostatizing of many because of the plural marriage conflicts and resulting debates over authority. I am sure the Hydes, Strangs, Godbes, Cowderys, Laws, Whitmers, Mclellins, Wooleys, the Mussers, the Allreds, the Johnsons (from Lyman and Benjamin and beyond), even Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr were all good and faithful people. They each apostatized, along with many others from the very church that was built on eliminating the total, great, or partial apostasy (depending on who you are talking to). Humans are fallible, sinful, proud, needy, and capable of wonderful things. It is people who apostatize, not churches. The LDS church stands strong today in spite of its own divisions, appendages, and needs for reformation. So does the Catholic church, the Baptist church, the Mennonite church, and the Pentecostals! Each has had its own challenges, and needs for reforming on occasion.

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point of "the great apostasy" if you think the existence of splinter groups to be evidence of apostasy of the main core group.  In the first century Christian church, there were those who would "walk no more" with Jesus (John 6:66), early schisms of those of "Apollos" or "Cephas" (etc.) - (1 Cor 1:11-13), those after Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), those after Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), those after Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), those after Philetus (2 Tim 2:17), those after Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), and of course the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15).  No doubt there were more than those mentioned in scripture.  But the apostles were there to guide and direct the church in that period of time, and they warned against the perils of following after those apostate groups.

In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he was quite surprised to learn that the saints at Galatia were "so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel", and that they were perverting the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:6-9).  If Paul had not been there to correct them, how would they know if they were in apostasy, or not?  Would they have considered themselves to be the real Christians?  Or how else could they possibly know?

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul tried to put down the idea that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ would happen "soon".  He told the saints to not be "soon shaken in mind, or be troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand".  And one of the two reasons he gave for the second coming not happening "soon" is that there must be an apostasia ("falling away" in the KJV) first.  What kind of apostasy did he have in mind?  Individual apostasy from the church, like all of the examples of that I cited above?  How exactly would it make sense for Paul to ease the "shaken in mind" or those "troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand", if he was referring to individual apostasy that was already happening all around them?  He had to have something much bigger or different in mind, would he not?

Apostatizing from the church is different than apostasy of the church itself, to where the church ceased to exist in its original form.  This doesn't mean that people ceased to be Christians.  This doesn't mean there were no longer any sincere individuals who tried to serve God and follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of their ability.  But the core organized central authority was different.  There were no longer any apostles or prophets to lead, direct, and correct the Church.  There was strife over the office of bishop (as Clement of Rome reports).  And Eusebius, in his Church History (Book III, chapter 32:7-8), quoted St. Hegesippus as saying:

Quote

7. In addition to these things the same man [Hegesippus], while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.

8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the 'knowledge which is falsely so-called.'

Ephesians 4:11-14 describes this (in the absence of the divinely appointed leadership) as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".

But God did continue to direct some individuals during the time of the "great apostasy".  Some of those individuals helped bring about reform that led to changes that prepared the way for the restoration of the gospel. And good comes from all sincere Christians throughout the world, on whatever path God is leading them.   

Link to comment

InCog, that was a very well presented argument. I hope to offer a rebuttal in the next few days that point to one ecclesiastical organization to which neither the Scriptures, nor the history you cited necessarily apply. In the meantime I applaud your credible consideration of the situation in the early church.

Rory

Link to comment
9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

InCog, that was a very well presented argument. I hope to offer a rebuttal in the next few days that point to one ecclesiastical organization to which neither the Scriptures, nor the history you cited necessarily apply. In the meantime I applaud your credible consideration of the situation in the early church.

Rory

I agree that @InCognitus did a great job researching all those quotes, but at least the scriptures he quoted just pop out at us everytime we read the Epistles cover to cover.  We do that as a church every 4 years or so in Sunday school and so get those reminders at the very least every 4 years.  I think the tendency to just see quotes from the side you are on can be very deceiving, but it is a tendency we all have, perhaps more when we are self- studying, rather than having full, systematic classes chapter by chapter and discussions about each.

Hoping all is well with you!

Mark

Link to comment
21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But God did continue to direct some individuals during the time of the "great apostasy".  Some of those individuals helped bring about reform that led to changes that prepared the way for the restoration of the gospel. And good comes from all sincere Christians throughout the world, on whatever path God is leading them.   

I daresay He may even have directed some leaders. I like Daniel Peterson's reflections in this regard:

Quote

Elder V. Dallas Merrill, an emeritus member of the Seventy, had been a pioneer in building a relationship between leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and high-ranking Catholic leaders, and specifically with Cardinal Cassidy. He had brought us to visit with the cardinal. As we stood there talking, Elder Merrill turned to me and, referring to the high-ranking prelates with whom we had been meeting, asked, “Well, what are we as Latter-day Saints to make of these men?”

The answer came clearly and immediately into my mind, and I responded that I felt that we should honor and respect them as true successors, in a very real sense, to the leaders of the earliest Christian community in Rome. While, from the Latter-day Saint perspective, genuine priesthood authority had long since been lost, and many doctrines had become garbled, they had kept the flame of basic Christianity alive, often through great tribulation and at great cost. They had preserved and disseminated the scriptures. They had sent missionaries throughout the world. They had served and sought to imitate the Savior.

Yes, there had been periods when the popes and others in high leadership positions had sometimes been corrupt, greedy, power hungry, and tyrannical. The “Renaissance papacy” offers several especially terrible specimens. . . . But such fascinatingly lurid and salacious stories shouldn’t mislead us. The vast majority of those who have led and served the Roman Catholic Church have historically been, within their human limitations, good and sincere and faithful men. And, overwhelmingly, they still are.

. . .

We owe an enormous debt to those who have cherished the news of Jesus Christ and have spread it throughout the world. And this debt is not confined to the early apostles and disciples, who paid so high a price. Rodney Stark has argued that early Christianity spread so rapidly partly because of the reputation for love and caring that the early Saints — many of them women — earned during times of plague and death, when the pagans, even the foremost pagan physicians, often fled in terror to save their own lives. And that tradition has continued, carried on by (among others) generation after generation of medical missionaries and virtually anonymous nuns.

We are deeply indebted to the scholars and monks who preserved and copied and translated the gospels and the rest of the Bible. We cannot repay what we owe to the faithful compilers of the Hebrew Bible, to St. Jerome and his Latin Vulgate, to the translators of the Greek Septuagint, to Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, to John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, to the almost forgotten translators of the King James Bible, and to their counterparts for languages around the world. . . .

The ground on which most of us live and where our food is grown was cleared of rocks, trees, and stumps by millions of hardworking people whose names we’ve forgotten. Our cities, big and small, feature innumerable large buildings erected by generations of construction workers to whom we’ve probably never given the slightest thought.

We owe a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. “For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon … God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?” The Book of Mormon’s Amulek wisely counsels us that we should “humble ourselves even to the dust, and worship God, in whatsoever place we may be in, in spirit and in truth; and that we live in thanksgiving daily, for the many mercies and blessings which he doth bestow upon us.”

It is never inappropriate for us to remember the debt that we have to God, “in whom we live, and move, and have our being,” but also to the men and women in our church — and beyond our church — who’ve preceded us and who’ve done so much to make what we have possible.

— Daniel C. Peterson, "It Took a Village to Prepare for the Restoration," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 23 (2017): vii-xiv.

I found this a very moving tribute, and so different from something else I happened across the other day from the pen of Elder McConkie: "[A]n accursed Constantine gave to the world a Black Millennium, a millennium of blood and horror in which men believed the approved creeds of the day or died amid flaming fagots. For more than a thousand years, from the fore part of the fourth century to the end of the fifteenth, the world lay in darkness. It was a black and abysmal night; the stench of spiritual death poisoned the nostrils of men; and the jaws of hell gaped wide open to welcome the sensual sinners who loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. In our more enlightened day, it is difficult to conceive of the depths to which government and religion and morality, both private and public, sank in what men universally describe as the dark ages" (Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985], 668–669).

I'm glad we've largely moved past that sort of rhetoric. And I expect Elder McConkie is too.

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I daresay He may even have directed some leaders.

I definitely agree.  And that's a good quote from Daniel C. Peterson.

23 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I'm glad we've largely moved past that sort of rhetoric. And I expect Elder McConkie is too.

Amen to that!

Link to comment
On 11/7/2022 at 6:56 PM, Tacenda said:

I agree, well said. ❤️ Btw, I think the Midnight Mormons are going to have a part two with the Pentecostal young men. Their guests had to hurry to help with a funeral and the time was very short. I'm looking forward to hearing more from them, and maybe they'll do some further research with the LDS views. 

ETA: Navidad I would love for that interview with the three on Midnight Mormons. I think they would come away changed! For the better! Any way we can make that happen? If that's what you meant in the last part of your post? 

I don't know where they are based, but I would be happy to dialogue with them any time. I enjoy the give and take, but I think perhaps my perspectives might be different than they might most often hear. Take care.

Link to comment
On 11/7/2022 at 10:02 PM, InCognitus said:

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point of "the great apostasy" if you think the existence of splinter groups to be evidence of apostasy of the main core group.  In the first century Christian church, there were those who would "walk no more" with Jesus (John 6:66), early schisms of those of "Apollos" or "Cephas" (etc.) - (1 Cor 1:11-13), those after Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), those after Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), those after Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), those after Philetus (2 Tim 2:17), those after Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), and of course the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15).  No doubt there were more than those mentioned in scripture.  But the apostles were there to guide and direct the church in that period of time, and they warned against the perils of following after those apostate groups.

In Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he was quite surprised to learn that the saints at Galatia were "so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel", and that they were perverting the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:6-9).  If Paul had not been there to correct them, how would they know if they were in apostasy, or not?  Would they have considered themselves to be the real Christians?  Or how else could they possibly know?

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul tried to put down the idea that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ would happen "soon".  He told the saints to not be "soon shaken in mind, or be troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand".  And one of the two reasons he gave for the second coming not happening "soon" is that there must be an apostasia ("falling away" in the KJV) first.  What kind of apostasy did he have in mind?  Individual apostasy from the church, like all of the examples of that I cited above?  How exactly would it make sense for Paul to ease the "shaken in mind" or those "troubled" that the "day of Christ is at hand", if he was referring to individual apostasy that was already happening all around them?  He had to have something much bigger or different in mind, would he not?

Apostatizing from the church is different than apostasy of the church itself, to where the church ceased to exist in its original form.  This doesn't mean that people ceased to be Christians.  This doesn't mean there were no longer any sincere individuals who tried to serve God and follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of their ability.  But the core organized central authority was different.  There were no longer any apostles or prophets to lead, direct, and correct the Church.  There was strife over the office of bishop (as Clement of Rome reports).  And Eusebius, in his Church History (Book III, chapter 32:7-8), quoted St. Hegesippus as saying:

Ephesians 4:11-14 describes this (in the absence of the divinely appointed leadership) as being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".

But God did continue to direct some individuals during the time of the "great apostasy".  Some of those individuals helped bring about reform that led to changes that prepared the way for the restoration of the gospel. And good comes from all sincere Christians throughout the world, on whatever path God is leading them.   

Good afternoon my friend. Sorry for not replying to your post yesterday. I was traveling in the states. On my trip, I did stop by and pick up my mail and got the new book on the apostasy. It looks like a quick read. I will begin that tomorrow.

I appreciate your response. I find your first statement to me to be interesting. I am "missing the point of the great apostasy." I didn't know there was a point to it, except that its existence and a subsequent restoration of the true faith has the point of increasing the uniqueness of the LDS church. That might be the "point." 

I think we have different understandings of the word apostasy and how it applies. That is ok. The root word apostasia is only used twice in the NT. The first reference in Acts 21 it refers to Jews leaving Moses as a result of Christian teaching. That only leaves one time - the verse in II Thess. where the word is even used in the NT. In both cases it refers to individuals who walk away - turn away from. In II Thess. it applies to an individual influencing others, doesn't it? Not an entire group or church.  Verses 10-12 have confounded scholars for years. For every individual pope, bishop, lay Catholic who walked away in two thousand years, there were thousands who remained faithful.

I don't want to belabor the point. I think too much of you and of the LDS church. I think the whole LDS apostasy concept is a confirming device. I actually don't know the first time it was used in LDS history or who used it. Maybe the new book will tell me. But it caught on and expanded to a meaning that implied that the entire world-wide Christian church apostatized (with the exception of a few faithful). It got to the point where God removed his "priesthood" from the earth. Wow! That is quite an expansion!

The middle ages is painted as "dark" as are most current non-LDS Christians painted as creedal. Recent medievalists have thoroughly eviscerated the negative image of the "dark" ages. I believe the "church triumphant" worldwide (of which the LDS is an important part) is doing well. One cannot normalize the apostasy of individuals and even of groups as reflecting an apostasy of the entire community of Christ world-wide. As long as there are true prophets, there will be false prophets against which that truth is measured. So it has been and so it will be.

You mention Apollos - I think there is very good evidence in the text that he wrote the Book of Hebrews. Or maybe it was Priscilla? Neither would surprise me a bit.

BTW, I don't believe the word apostasy was used in the Book of Mormon, am I wrong? Some read it into certain texts, but I don't remember it in the text itself. I believe the few times that Joseph Smith used a form of the word apostatize, he used it to refer to individuals in the church, am I wrong? So individuals within the LDS church apostatized, agreed? Individuals within the world-wide Christian church have apostatized, agreed?

I am not sure how the word became so much broader in its utilization in the LDS Church? It would be fun to study the use of the word over the 190 some years of the church. Certainly in Kirtland and in those early years it was used to refer to individuals, as my post mentioned. Am I wrong? I am not sure how it came to be applied to the church over the first two thousand years. That certainly was an expansion of the use of the word over time. Take care and best wishes. Tonight I will begin reading the book. I hope it tells me more.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't know where they are based, but I would be happy to dialogue with them any time. I enjoy the give and take, but I think perhaps my perspectives might be different than they might most often hear. Take care.

I just listened to a bit of their newest podcast, and they are awful really, you have too much class IMO. Midnight Mormons is their podcast as you probably gathered and their last one, is insane. All Cardon and even Kwaku do is objectify women and the way they talk to the mother on the latest one is awful, they give Mormons or Latter-day Saints a bad name worse than any anti out there. 

Link to comment
On 11/7/2022 at 6:37 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for sharing this. 

The Latter-day Saint in the black shirt is effectively babysitting his cohosts. The fellow in the ballcap is misinformed; that's not uncommon, but his recklessness with facts and arguments isn't helping the conversation. That fellow also doesn't seem to be listening to his guests.

Kwaku was quiet, but his "recalled brownie" analogy is unfortunate and unsupportable, as is his identitarian argument that colonialism/racism/nationalism/anything Europeans did = apostasy. 

The Pentecostal guests were trying very hard to be patient. They pretty much succeeded, although a Pentecostal theory of apostolic succession isn't taken seriously by any historians or theologians of which I am aware. Usually, Pentecostals claim that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the manifestation of charisms is all the demonstration of authority that is needed. I've heard of some Protestant groups trying to link up with apostolic succession through the Anglican communion, but most Protestants consider those arguments anomalous because Protestants are usually premised on variations of the apostasy theory and therefore they put forward notions such as sola scriptura and the invisible church that don't require continuing authority through the laying on of hands.

This conversation would have been more productive if the Latter-day Saint in the black shirt had interviewed the Pentecostal guests, and without his cohosts. That fellow in the black shirt seems capable of interfaith/interreligious dialogue, and would be better off without the other two. 

I'm embarrassed I shared their podcast now. Listened to some recent stuff, and they have no business representing the LDS church or beliefs.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just listened to a bit of their newest podcast, and they are awful really, you have too much class IMO. Midnight Mormons is their podcast as you probably gathered and their last one, is insane. All Cardon and even Kwaku do is objectify women and the way they talk to the mother on the latest one is awful, they give Mormons or Latter-day Saints a bad name worse than any anti out there. 

Ok . . . I certainly trust you. I haven't seen but one or two of their podcasts. Perhaps they aren't really serious?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok . . . I certainly trust you. I haven't seen but one or two of their podcasts. Perhaps they aren't really serious?

They went off the rails on the latest one, and the one before it. I bet both are taken down before 24 hours because they're that bad. I think most would agree on this board. I don't know what's going on or I'm just now seeing how bad it's getting.

Link to comment

I have one question for you all that I don't think has yet been covered. Is the non-LDS Christian church (corporate - world-wide) still in apostasy according to LDS teachings? The LDS church created a new church whose purpose was to restore (not sure what that means) the original church because of widespread apostasy. What about all the billions of people since 1830 who have remained, and still remain (like myself and others on this forum) in a non-LDS church affiliation? Are our collective church and all our individual churches still in apostasy? Not sure I have ever heard that discussed. Anything official from the LDS church on that issue? 

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
20 hours ago, Navidad said:

The middle ages is painted as "dark" as are most current non-LDS Christians painted as creedal. Recent medievalists have thoroughly eviscerated the negative image of the "dark" ages.

Yes, this! There was a flourishing of thought and culture in the Middle Ages. All one has to do is visit a cathedral or read Dante.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think the whole LDS apostasy concept is a confirming device. I actually don't know the first time it was used in LDS history or who used it.

Um...in the sacred grove...by Jesus:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”


If I were looking to trace the origins of the "whole LDS apostasy concept," that seems like a pretty good candidate.

Or is there some other "apostasy concept" not relating to all of the other sects being wrong that you are trying to hunt down?

 

Link to comment
On 11/3/2022 at 12:33 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

The idea of apostasy seems so backward to me. Why would God not choose to work through as many religions, cultures, and time periods with equal validity as possible? If you were in God’s shoes, would you seriously limit yourself to such limited populations and time periods as the doctrine of the great apostasy suggests if your end goal is the eternal life of man? It makes zero sense to me.

God can "work" through various groups but in the perspective of God, there is only one version of the truth.  God's house is one of order.  God however looks at the very long game and that includes things that go on the spirit world.  Many see death to the end when the final buzzer goes off and salvation or damnation is determined.   Temple work and the things that go on in the spirit world suggest otherwise.  The game is still going on just in a different setting.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...