Gospel Principles - dissolution or destruction of the early church?

[telnetd]

What change in teaching was the church trying to convey in replacing this word in Gospel
Principles (chapter 16)?

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (1997)

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (current).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

What change in teaching was the church trying to convey in replacing this word in Gospel
Principles (chapter 16)?

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (1997)

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (current).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

Do you ever edit your wording as you are writing what you post here?  Is everything you change a "change in teaching"?

Not every word change is a "change in teaching".  Most often it's just a better way to say what they were originally trying to convey.

[teddyaware]

27 minutes ago, telnetd said:

What change in teaching was the church trying to convey in replacing this word in Gospel
Principles (chapter 16)?

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (1997)

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (current).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

The word destruction strongly suggests that any remnant of the meridian Church of Christ’s mortal membership, as well as men holding Apostolic Melchizedek Priesthood authority, had been totally extinguished from the face of the earth as a consequence of the great apostasy. But this is untrue. The fact is that as long as the three Nephites and the Apostle John remained on the earth — all still technically living as mortals — it means four actual authorized living apostolic priesthood representatives of the meridian Church continued to exist on the earth in spite of the general apostasy.

In fact, because he was still technically mortal, the Apostle John was was able to confer his Apostolic Priesthood authority upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in a direct line of succession from a living member of the the Meridian Church of Christ to living members of the latter-day Church of Christ, and do so without missing a beat.

For these reasons the word dissolution is more appropriate because the keys of the apostleship can survive, and in this case did survive, the temporary dissolution of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In the event of cataclysmic loss of life, all that’s required for the proper Church organization to be reconstituted is for one remaining holder of the apostolic priesthood keys to take the initiative, under God, to call new apostles to form a new Quorum of the Twelve, and he can do it without the need for new authorized heavenly messengers needing to be resent to newly confer authority. The same can be said of the first Quorum of the Seventy, for they form a quorum of priesthood authority equal to that of the Quorum of the Twelve in the event that the Quorum of the Twelve needs to be reconstituted if there are no surviving members. The Lord is an organizational genius!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

What change in teaching was the church trying to convey in replacing this word in Gospel
Principles (chapter 16)?

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (1997)

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was 
complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (current).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

What change is conveyed to you?

[Calm]

It may have been altered from “destruction” to “dissolution” as the first implies a more active work to destroy something, more intentional.  Dissolution is a better descriptor as the process was likely less intentional as many thought they were doing good or at least the best they could in a complicated situation.  I would say it was something closer to a fading away into partial uninhabited ruins attached to a rambling mansion due to the lack of proper maintenance and some neglect of important structures rather than the fall of an undersieged fortress.

[Pyreaux]

Both are trying to convey the final moment of the original church's Apostacy. Describing it as "Destruction" could have unintended sudden, violent, absolute and clear overtones, it could be taken to mean that the surviving ordained Bishops all suddenly and personally became apostate or some force violently overthrew the church. "Dissolution" conveys a more fundamental issue, the Bishops with only authority over the cities they were assigned to, once John the Revelator abandoned them, means there was no head authority left to keep doctrine straight for the whole church, that these divisions in doctrine leads to the loss of church cohesion. Only revelation by a divine authority can keep the church together, not punching Arius in the face.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Pyreaux

[juliann]

If you want a more realistic and scholarly approach get the book Ancient Christians: An Introduction for LDS.  We have a big problem with the idea of a "great apostasy." It is time to give the early Christians more credit for their sacrifices in maintaining what they did. 

[Hamilton Porter]

Dissolution sounds much more accurate. It was gradual.

With both definitions, church go bye bye.

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

If you want a more realistic and scholarly approach get the book Ancient Christians: An Introduction for LDS.  We have a big problem with the idea of a "great apostasy." It is time to give the early Christians more credit for their sacrifices in maintaining what they did. 

I am reading a chapter a week in this excellent book, and am recommending it to my LDS family members.

 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

With both definitions, church go bye bye.

That’s a problem I have with either description.  The church itself never went bye bye, we only claim the authority of the priesthood did.

Edited March 20, 2023 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Dissolution sounds much more accurate. It was gradual.

With both definitions, church go bye bye.

That's how apostasy happens.  Step by step, one change at a time.  So slowly nobody notices it until the change is the new normal.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

That’s a problem I have with either description.  The church itself never went bye bye, we only claim the authority of the priesthood did.

It's interesting the Church teaches it this way, that the priesthood authority was lost.  But they never explain what led to priesthood being lost.

Did they stop ordaining successors?  Did God just stop acknowledging the ordinations without telling them? Did all the faithful believers become wicked? (Of course not).

What actions or occurrences exactly removed priesthood authority from the early Christian Church?  Perhaps we don't want to say.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What actions or occurrences exactly removed priesthood authority from the early Christian Church?  Perhaps we don't want to say.

Apostles dying all at once, lack of adequate transportation.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

If you want a more realistic and scholarly approach get the book Ancient Christians: An Introduction for LDS.  We have a big problem with the idea of a "great apostasy." It is time to give the early Christians more credit for their sacrifices in maintaining what they did. 

Yes, it really hurts Catholics, and is destructive in all public relations areas.

It definitely does not help the missionary program.

[InCognitus]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's how apostasy happens.  Step by step, one change at a time.  So slowly nobody notices it until the change is the new normal.

It's interesting the Church teaches it this way, that the priesthood authority was lost.  But they never explain what led to priesthood being lost.

Did they stop ordaining successors?  Did God just stop acknowledging the ordinations without telling them? Did all the faithful believers become wicked? (Of course not).

What actions or occurrences exactly removed priesthood authority from the early Christian Church?  Perhaps we don't want to say.

It's all about the keys.  Nobody around had the keys.  John, the apostle, had keys but the church was taken into the "wilderness" for a period of time (Revelation 12:6, 14, D&C 33:5, 86:3). 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It's all about the keys.  Nobody around had the keys.  John, the apostle, had keys but the church was taken into the "wilderness" for a period of time (Revelation 12:6, 14, D&C 33:5, 86:3). 

Doesn't answer the question.

If the last Apostle never passed on the keys, never called more Apostles, the question remains why?  What reason did the Apostle or even God have for allowing the faithful members of the Church to lose access to the sealing keys?  Not to mention all the other priesthood holders alive at the time.

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Doesn't answer the question.

If the last Apostle never passed on the keys, never called more Apostles, the question remains why?  What reason did the Apostle or even God have for allowing the faithful members of the Church to lose access to the sealing keys?  Not to mention all the other priesthood holders alive at the time.

The passages in Revelation about the "woman" fleeing into the wilderness explain why: 

Quote

13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(Revelation 12:13–17)

But what reason would God allow this?  I can think of two possible reasons.   

First, he doesn't normally directly interfere with man's agency.  Just look at how things play out for Israel in the Old Testament.  They went through cycles of apostasy.  God sent prophets to try to straighten them out from time to time, and sometimes they responded and other times they did not.  The land of Israel had to be conquered a couple of times to knock some sense into them.  But God also prepared a way for the temple to be rebuilt and things could get back in order in preparation for the coming of Christ.  And then they killed their Messiah.  Obviously there were still some good people in these time periods.  But I think the reason that God "allowed" that to happen should be obvious:  He doesn't force people to do what he wants them to do, and I think this same principle applies to the period following the death of the apostles.  And God sometimes uses even the bad choices of people for his purposes.

Second, preventing the first century church from falling into apostasy isn't important to the big picture.  The seeds were planted and the Christians of the second century onward preserved the scriptures and spread the message of Christ throughout the world.  Those seeds made it possible for the restored gospel to take hold quickly some 1700 years later.  The big picture is about the sealing keys (as you mention).  It only makes sense when there is a period of time when temples can be established and work can be performed for the dead and the entire human family can be linked to the family of God.  We're living in the time when it is possible for that to happen.

[LoudmouthMormon]

 

On 3/18/2023 at 12:37 PM, telnetd said:

What change in teaching was the church trying to convey in replacing this word in Gospel Principles (chapter 16)?

My first reaction: Someone showed this chapter to a Catholic they liked, and noted the Catholic's "oh really" expression included a eyebrow raised so violently it put a dent in the ceiling.  News of the encounter got around to the people who publish the book, and they made a change.

 

23 hours ago, juliann said:

We have a big problem with the idea of a "great apostasy." It is time to give the early Christians more credit for their sacrifices in maintaining what they did. 

Way ahead of you.  When I was teaching this class and this lesson a decade ago, I'd always include a blurb about how much we owe the Catholics for preserving the bible as well as they did.  "Next time you see one, go give 'em a hug and thank them."

 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 3/19/2023 at 12:27 PM, juliann said:

If you want a more realistic and scholarly approach get the book Ancient Christians: An Introduction for LDS.  We have a big problem with the idea of a "great apostasy." It is time to give the early Christians more credit for their sacrifices in maintaining what they did. 

I was reading Mark Ellison's chapter yesterday, and he dared to make the suggestions I've attached.

Stepping wrongly happens so quickly in discussions of this sort. Implications that somebody is "apostate" and that somebody else "isn't Christian" can go right to the heart and can hurt deeply. I like that Mark Ellison's piece identifies early Christian practices that might be valuable for Latter-day Saints; there is truth in the notion that practices are doctrine.

 

 

[smac97]

On 3/18/2023 at 12:37 PM, telnetd said:

What change in teaching was the church trying to convey in replacing this word in Gospel Principles (chapter 16)?

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (1997)

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the 
Great Apostasy (current).

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

Destroy vs Dissolve - What's the difference?

Quote

In transitive terms the difference between destroy and dissolve is that destroy is to put down or euthanize while dissolve is to break the continuity of; to disconnect; to loosen; to undo; to separate.

In intransitive terms the difference between destroy and dissolve is that destroy is to cause destruction while dissolve is to resolve itself as by dissolution.

Destroy

English

Verb

• To damage beyond use or repair.

  The earthquake destroyed several apartment complexes.

• To cause destruction.

  ''Hooligans destroy unprovoked

• To neutralize, undo a property or condition.

  ''Smoking destroys the natural subtlety of the palate

• To put down or euthanize.

  Destroying a rabid dog is required by law.

• (colloquial) To defeat soundly.
• (computing) To remove data.

  The memory leak happened because we forgot to destroy the temporary lists.

 

Dissolve

English

(dissolution)

Verb

(dissolv)

• To terminate a union of multiple members actively, as by disbanding

  ''The ruling party or coalition sometimes dissolves parliament early when the polls are favorable, hoping to reconvene with a larger majority

• To destroy, make disappear

d

I think it's more nuance than anything else.  "Destroy" may have connotations of concerted and calculated and targeted effort, whereas "dissolve" is more clinical and objective.

I think the Primitive Church was "dissolved" when the Apostles died or were killed and the Quorum ceased meeting together, such that they were no longer appointing new members of the quorum.  

The original Twelve were: Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot (Matthew 10:2-4).

The Bible declares the disposition of Judas, whose place in the quorum was taken when Matthias was ordained. 

We also know that James was killed (Acts 12:2).  

We also know that Paul described himself as an apostle.  "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." (Romans 11:13.)

Others called "apostles" in the New Testament include Barnabas (Acts 14:14 - "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people...") and James the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19 - "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother").

Some argue that Romans 16:7 designates Andronicus and Junia as apostles ("Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.").  Daniel Peterson has written on this and apparently concludes against this being a reference to Andronicus and Junia holding the priesthood office of "apostle."  DCP's article also notes that "Apostle" did not acquire its more restrictive definition until some time after the New Testament:

Quote

“Apostolos” was a fairly common Greek term in antiquity, denoting somebody who has been “sent,” and who is, therefore, a “messenger” or an “emissary.” It hadn’t yet assumed the more restrictive definition of later Christian and particularly Latter-day Saint usage.

Furthermore, it was often used quite broadly in ancient Christianity to refer to missionaries (a term that, like “emissary,” comes from the Latin “missio,” which also means “sending”). It’s in this sense, probably, that it’s used to refer to Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:6-9), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 2:6; compare 1:1), who (unlike Matthias, at Acts 1:15-26) never seem to be included among the Twelve. Eastern Christian tradition calls all of the Seventy “apostles.”

So Paul may simply be saying that Andronicus and Junia were well-regarded among Christian missionaries.

But what, exactly, does Paul mean when he identifies Junia and Andronicus as “of note among the apostles”? Is he actually calling them apostles? (No ancient tradition identifies them as members of the Twelve.) Or is he simply explaining that the apostles think highly of them or, at least, know them well?

On this last point, a helpful discussion is “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7” published in 2001 by Michael Burer and Daniel Wallace in the Cambridge University Press journal “New Testament Studies.” Carefully analyzing the Greek of the passage, this article concludes that it “is more naturally taken with an exclusive force rather than an inclusive one.”

In other words, Paul’s words should be understood as saying that Junia was “well known to the apostles rather than outstanding among them.”

This 2015 thread on this board surmised that as many as 25 "apostles" are listed in the NT. 

We don't really know the particulars as to the dissolution of the Church arising from the loss of apostolic authority through the deaths and non-replacement of the apostles, except that it did happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The passages in Revelation about the "woman" fleeing into the wilderness explain why: 

But what reason would God allow this?  I can think of two possible reasons.   

First, he doesn't normally directly interfere with man's agency.  Just look at how things play out for Israel in the Old Testament.  They went through cycles of apostasy.  God sent prophets to try to straighten them out from time to time, and sometimes they responded and other times they did not.  The land of Israel had to be conquered a couple of times to knock some sense into them.  But God also prepared a way for the temple to be rebuilt and things could get back in order in preparation for the coming of Christ.  And then they killed their Messiah.  Obviously there were still some good people in these time periods.  But I think the reason that God "allowed" that to happen should be obvious:  He doesn't force people to do what he wants them to do, and I think this same principle applies to the period following the death of the apostles.  And God sometimes uses even the bad choices of people for his purposes.

Second, preventing the first century church from falling into apostasy isn't important to the big picture.  The seeds were planted and the Christians of the second century onward preserved the scriptures and spread the message of Christ throughout the world.  Those seeds made it possible for the restored gospel to take hold quickly some 1700 years later.  The big picture is about the sealing keys (as you mention).  It only makes sense when there is a period of time when temples can be established and work can be performed for the dead and the entire human family can be linked to the family of God.  We're living in the time when it is possible for that to happen.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated.

The priesthood is directly connected to the ordinances.  They changed the ordinances so they lost the priesthood.

“If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.” Joseph Smith

They lost priesthood because they changed ordinances.  Simple as that.

[Hamilton Porter]

I find it interesting that the apostasy of truth is so damn easy to prove. It's easy to show how non-Biblical concepts crept into the Church, because we have Biblical scholarship. The apostasy of authority is tougher.

[InCognitus]

43 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I find it interesting that the apostasy of truth is so damn easy to prove. It's easy to show how non-Biblical concepts crept into the Church, because we have Biblical scholarship. 

But that's really the sola scriptura approach compounded with the debate between scholars, which doesn't prove anything since everyone disagrees on how to interpret the Bible and the historical data.  A lot of people say Latter-day Saints have non-Biblical concepts too.  We all view the data through our individual biases.  

But I understand your point, because I find that the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the most in harmony with the entire Bible than any other faith I've encountered, and it best explains the historical data.  But I'd never call that "proof", but it is convincing to me.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

“If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.” Joseph Smith

I'm not sure I understand.  I mean, someone could come along and perform a baptism exactly like we we teach it must be performed but that doesn't mean that the person has the priesthood authority to do so.  An unchanged ordinance is not proof of priesthood, so why would a changed ordinance automatically be proof of no priesthood?

Also, it seems to contradict JS's own actions.  An ordinance was changed under his tenure (the sacrament) but he did not see it affecting his priesthood authority.  He also gave BY permission to alter the temple endowment as the spirit directed, still without it impacting his or BY's priesthood authority. 

Is there more context to that quote that would clarify?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I understand.  I mean, someone could come along and perform a baptism exactly like we we teach it must be performed but that doesn't mean that the person has the priesthood authority to do so.  An unchanged ordinance is not proof of priesthood, so why would a changed ordinance automatically be proof of no priesthood?

Also, it seems to contradict JS's own actions.  An ordinance was changed under his tenure (the sacrament) but he did not see it affecting his priesthood authority.  He also gave BY permission to alter the temple endowment as the spirit directed, still without it impacting his or BY's priesthood authority. 

Is there more context to that quote that would clarify?

As I'm always told you're confusing presentation with the ordinance.

Brigham's changes were presentation.  Joseph's changes were presentation.

But we've had this discussion ad nauseam.

Each order of priesthood has signs and ordinances attached.  Change ordination, change baptism, change the bestowal of signs and tokens of the priesthood, change the offices of the priesthood, and its unavoidable - you no longer have the same priesthood.  That's what happened to the Early Christian Church.  Not just a random end to the Apostleship.

Edited March 21, 2023 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I was reading Mark Ellison's chapter yesterday, and he dared to make the suggestions I've attached.

Stepping wrongly happens so quickly in discussions of this sort. Implications that somebody is "apostate" and that somebody else "isn't Christian" can go right to the heart and can hurt deeply. I like that Mark Ellison's piece identifies early Christian practices that might be valuable for Latter-day Saints; there is truth in the notion that practices are doctrine.

 

It is to our detriment that we have been so unwilling to get past what is basically a bumpersticker piece of theology. Another thing the book points out, which those here should know, is that a lot of our theology has come from conservative Protestant theology/scholarship. We are slowly getting rid of folklore, this should be next.