Why did The Great Apostasy happen and similarities between Mormonism & Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestantism

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/13/2025 at 12:56 PM, Pyreaux said:

No ongoing or new revelations, they even deny any possibility of it as doctrine.

Hey, we proclaimed an infallible dogma in 1950. Our doctrine allows for it. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/13/2025 at 12:56 PM, Pyreaux said:

That is the Philosopher's god, not the God the Bible describes. The Bible has a God who loved, was jealous, he forgave, became wroth, etc. If he is a God that does not change in himself, and is impassable, how can we possibly engage with Him? With an impassible God, no appeal could be made to Him, for He has no sympathy in our struggle, He is not glad about our success, neither disappointed in our failure. How could a prayer change His mind or actions?

Straw man, because this obviously isn’t what we believe about God. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/15/2025 at 9:09 AM, JVW said:

I'm curious about whether Catholics regard the canon as closed with the Bible. Is the pope regarded like how a prophet is and are his words regarded as scripture? Does the Catholic church have additional text that they regard as being the word of God besides the Bible?

The "canon" is closed, meaning the Bible is the only scripture. But we don't just rely on the Bible. We also have Tradition (the deposit of faith handed down to us) and the Magisterium (the bishops in communion with the pope).

The language gets tricky, because we say "revelation" has ended with Christ (our definition of revelation is different than your definition), but that doesn't mean that doctrines and dogmas can't be proclaimed, explained, etc. The history of the Catholic Church is full of this -- that's what ecumenical councils are. And ecumenical councils are the Magisterium. The Pope can also declare infallible dogma. The last time this was done was 1950 (yours was 1978, right?). Here are the words of Pope Pius XII in 1950: "We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." So yeah, that's pretty much adding to the canon if not adding to the Bible.

I mean, think about Catholicism. We have lots of stuff that is not found in the Bible, thanks to Tradition and the Magisterium. We also have so much history of visitations, manifestations, apparitions. The heavens are definitely not closed.

The pope's words aren't regarded as scripture, but neither are your prophets, right? Inspired, worth listening to and pondering, etc., but not additional scripture (same with the pope). We have tons of writings that could be considered scripture-adjacent, such as the writings of the Saints. VERY worth reading and studying. Some of these Saints have written down what Jesus or Mary have told them, some famously so.

So, if we get past semantic confusion, we believe very similarly when it comes to "revelation" and the role of "prophets" (in quotes because I'm using your terms, not ours).

[Pyreaux]

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Straw man, because this obviously isn’t what we believe about God. 

Sorry, I will yield to your say so. I'm not often in a position where I would tell someone what they believe. For the sake of understanding you, may permit a little push back.

My understanding is the idea that God does not change is required, that God is, as Saint Anselm put it, “A being than which no greater can be conceived” meaning, God possesses every perfection of being. Any change presupposes some imperfection (otherwise, change would not be necessary), a being having every possible perfection cannot be subject to change. Furthermore, change is relative to time, and God exists outside of time. Therefore, a timeless and perfect God is changeless. Divine Impassibility dictates a God unable to suffer or experience emotion, God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. It was an uncharitable characterization of an Impassible God.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, we proclaimed an infallible dogma in 1950. Our doctrine allows for it. 

And you don't have a closed canon doctrine, either. I think I meant to exclude you guys when I wrote that. Excuse me. If you don't mind, could you perhaps have the time to explain the reason for no new inscripturation, that is if such would be allowed in Catholicism?

[Kevin Christensen]

By me the best study of the Apostasy is Early Christians in Disarray, edited by Noel Reynolds.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/26/

The authors show various key changes early on, including the decline of covenant understanding towards the notion of an ordinance performed by an intermediary.

And for a particularly enlightening look at the disarray, I remain mind boggled by the picture in Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Hugh Nibley.  Basically he shows that when the General Authorities (the Apostles) were killed, the way that the scattered local authorities (the Bishops) ended up settling the question of "Who is in charge?" devolved to the Gospel of Bigness.  The Biggest Church, the local leaders with the loudest cheers from the crowds. Not revelation.

As to the differences between Joseph Smith and other reformers, I found that there are 28 distinct tests for discerning True and False Prophets.  For me, they narrow the field of claimants very quickly.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/prophettestsfv5.pdf

Kevin Barney wrote a very good essay looking at the difference between Alexander Campbell's attempt to restore a Primitive Christianity via Enlightenment Rationalism versus Joseph Smith as a revelatory restorer.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-1999/a-tale-of-two-restorations

And Barry Bickmore provides a close look at how Joseph Smith went about Restoring the Ancient Church.

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/study-early-christianity-vindicates-restoration

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Edited April 21 by Kevin Christensen

[InCognitus]

On 4/15/2025 at 10:57 PM, 3DOP said:

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Engagement-Latter-day-Saints/dp/158617925X

A new work about Catholic and LDS interaction!

I am going to order this book, and so I haven't read it yet.  But I did find this discussion (below) about the book in this podcast by Robert Boylan and Blake Ostler:

I listened to the entire podcast.  The book sounds very disappointing.  I expected it to be an actual "engagement with Latter-day Saints" as the title suggests, but from what Robert and Blake say about it, Beckwith and Sherlock don't engage Latter-day Saint arguments on any of the things discussed in the book at all.  

Blake Ostler doesn't hold back on his thoughts about it.  To quote Blake (after discussing creation ex-nihilo) from the 51:42 mark:

"Why don't they acknowledge what Latter-day Saints have said about it?  Why don't they deal with the arguments?  This is inexcusable.  It not merely violates the principle of charity, this is, how do I say this, this is.... poor scholarship....  Now I like both of these men.  I don't want to... offend them, but I want want them to know what they've delivered to us is not a fair assessment of Latter-day Saints and Latter-Day Saint thought.  And their book is a sham, because it's written for a Catholic audience to convince them not to engage with us.  That's the purpose.  It's not an engagement, it's a disengagement.  Don't pay attention [to Latter-day Saints]!"

[Chum]

On 4/21/2025 at 12:25 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

the question of "Who is in charge?" devolved to the Gospel of Bigness.  The Biggest Church, the local leaders with the loudest cheers from the crowds. Not revelation.

To this limited point I contend that every group thought they were correct; the group that persisted is the one that held out the longest.  Was there a different dynamic that could have been in play? How would have it played out?

[Chum]

In the few primitive centuries immediately after Christ
in politically unstable (and sometimes dangerous) lands,
without a stable supply of significant resources (I assume):
Trying to establish and maintain a hierarchy as complex as the Church seems like a super tall order.  

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I am going to order this book, and so I haven't read it yet.  But I did find this discussion (below) about the book in this podcast by Robert Boylan and Blake Ostler:

I listened to the entire podcast.  The book sounds very disappointing.  I expected it to be an actual "engagement with Latter-day Saints" as the title suggests, but from what Robert and Blake say about it, Beckwith and Sherlock don't engage Latter-day Saint arguments on any of the things discussed in the book at all.  

Blake Ostler doesn't hold back on his thoughts about it.  To quote Blake (after discussing creation ex-nihilo) from the 51:42 mark:

"Why don't they acknowledge what Latter-day Saints have said about it?  Why don't they deal with the arguments?  This is inexcusable.  It not merely violates the principle of charity, this is, how do I say this, this is.... poor scholarship....  Now I like both of these men.  I don't want to... offend them, but I want want them to know what they've delivered to us is not a fair assessment of Latter-day Saints and Latter-Day Saint thought.  And their book is a sham, because it's written for a Catholic audience to convince them not to engage with us.  That's the purpose.  It's not an engagement, it's a disengagement.  Don't pay attention [to Latter-day Saints]!"

Incog, hi.

I am about half way through the book. I am sorry that the respected Ostler finds it neither charitable nor scholarly. Why buy the book? Another way to say not charitable is malicious. Another way to say not scholarly is stupid. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I still think it is an attempt to explain Catholicism to LDS and to explain LDS thought to Catholics. I HAVE FOR TWO DECADES THOUGHT THAT CATHOLICS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT LDS BELIEVE. I AM NOT CHANGING THE CAPS. DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THEM. THICK AND SHAKY FINGERS ON MY PHONE. MY APOLOGIES.

If the book is a disservice to our LDS friends, I think it will still be helpful to thoughtful and charitable Catholics to appreciate what we agree and disagree about. Maybe Ostler and Boylan, or somebody else that is LDS should try to write a charitable and scholarly work engaging Catholic thought? Our wills are to defend where we are, all of us. If at first we fail to put forth the strongest arguments against our faiths, let us appreciate those who at least try. I am very very sorry that the efforts of the editors are perceived to come from lack of charity...and in the highest circles of LDS academia. I do not think that charge, which is terribly serious, is warranted.  Garbage? If LDS scholars think so. Back to the drawing board. But please, not uncharitable. 

Please see below. And far below too. It is harder than ever to figure out how to type and write in these days. I tried to bring it up. 

Peace to men of good will. Like the Angels sang on the eve of the birth of the Holy One. No group or sect has a monopoly on good will. Believing in that, I hopefully pray for unity among us all. Lack of charity means not good will, but the appearance of it when it is really malice, or ill will.

"Love, and do what you will."

---St. Augustine

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

It appears that I have one more week of work for the rest of my life, and hope to be able to contribute more here. Maybe I can leave a more full review a little later. Keep us in your prayers please. Cut the struggling apostates a break! Heh. God bless.

A wonderful second Sunday after Easter to you Incog, and all my friends here. It is DIVINE Mercy Sunday in the new Roman rite calendar. THOSE STUPID CAPS... Ergh. MERCY...WE ALL NEED THAT. WE ARE BROTHERS (and sisters) IN THAT RESPECT AND IN OTHER WAYS!

Rory.

Edited April 27 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am about half way through the book. I am sorry that the respected Ostler finds it neither charitable nor scholarly. Why buy the book? Another way to say not charitable is malicious. Another way to say not scholarly is stupid. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I still think it is an attempt to explain Catholicism to LDS and to explain LDS thought to Catholics.

I agree that Ostler's comments were quite harsh, and I am going to reserve my own judgement until I read the book. 

But I think the harshness of his comments in what I quoted is somewhat taken out of the context of what led him to make the comments.  Ostler and other scholars have written about all of the topics that are covered in the book, but (according to Ostler) the book doesn't engage any of that scholarship or deal with anything that doesn't support a Catholic point of view.  So from his point of view it is not a scholarly work.  And the book portrays itself as an "engagement with Latter-day Saints", so in that sense (again, according to Ostler) the book doesn't do what the title says (which is why he used the word "sham").

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It appears that I have one more week of work for the rest of my life, and hope to be able to contribute more here.

I'm not quite to that point in my life yet (and based on how busy my work continues to be I'm not sure if that day will ever come), but family needs and the desire to spend more time studying the gospel and related topics makes me long for that day on a regular basis.  So I envy you.

I look forward to you having more time to participate here!  I respect and always want to know your point of view.  God bless you in your efforts!

[OGHoosier]

19 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

But I think the harshness of his comments in what I quoted is somewhat taken out of the context of what led him to make the comments.  Ostler and other scholars have written about all of the topics that are covered in the book, but (according to Ostler) the book doesn't engage any of that scholarship or deal with anything that doesn't support a Catholic point of view.

It should be added that Blake Ostler, whom I deeply respect, is himself the author of an outsized portion of the extant work on LDS philosophical theology. His Exploring Mormon Thought series (volume 5 approaching completion!) is the biggest systematic theological work on Latter-day Saint doctrine there is - frankly it's unparalleled in the history of our faith. There are other Latter-day Saint philosophers, of course (David Paulsen, James McLachlan, Jim Faulconer, Joseph Lawal and Adam Miller come to mind, among others) and philosophers outside our faith tradition have engaged with it (Emerson Green) and criticized it (Kelli Potter, for instance), but Ostler's work is frankly indispensable as far as LDS philosophical theology goes. If Ostler feels his work has been misrepresented, improperly engaged with, or handwaved, then (a) that explains his ire, and (b) is pretty telling about the quality of the work. 

I'll note that, back in the early 2000s, Ostler himself described his interactions with Francis Beckwith and his co-authors of The New Mormon Challenge as follows:

Quote

 

In all of my a dealings with these good men, I have been impressed by their charity and kindness. My assessment is that they are genuinely good people and I like them. In addition, the authors are in fact among the finest Evangelical scholars. It is refreshing to deal with Evanglicals who engage the presumption of the rule of charity. That is, rather than attack a caricature of Mormonism, these authors have made an informed and good-faith attempt to present our arguments and beliefs in their strongest form. They present their best take on Mormonism and then honestly assess problems that arise given these beliefs. Thus, their arguments are worthy of both respect and considered response.

Source: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/reviews_of_the_new-mormon-challenge

 Ostler's cared about these sorts of things for a long time, and has been capable of seeing his critics favorably in the past. This leads me to take him seriously when he talks about A Catholic Engagement with Latter-day Saints. 

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

It should be added that Blake Ostler, whom I deeply respect, is himself the author of an outsized portion of the extant work on LDS philosophical theology. His Exploring Mormon Thought series (volume 5 approaching completion!) is the biggest systematic theological work on Latter-day Saint doctrine there is - frankly it's unparalleled in the history of our faith. There are other Latter-day Saint philosophers, of course (David Paulsen, James McLachlan, Jim Faulconer, Joseph Lawal and Adam Miller come to mind, among others) and philosophers outside our faith tradition have engaged with it (Emerson Green) and criticized it (Kelli Potter, for instance), but Ostler's work is frankly indispensable as far as LDS philosophical theology goes. If Ostler feels his work has been misrepresented, improperly engaged with, or handwaved, then (a) that explains his ire, and (b) is pretty telling about the quality of the work. 

I'll note that, back in the early 2000s, Ostler himself described his interactions with Francis Beckwith and his co-authors of The New Mormon Challenge as follows:

 Ostler's cared about these sorts of things for a long time, and has been capable of seeing his critics favorably in the past. This leads me to take him seriously when he talks about A Catholic Engagement with Latter-day Saints. 

Thank you for posting this and documenting Blake Ostler's prior experiences with Francis Beckwith.  I was familiar with their prior experiences with The New Mormon Challenge. That's also why I looked forward to seeing Beckwith "engage" similar topics from a Catholic point of view in this new book, but it appears that I will be disappointed.  There was a good engagement with Latter-day Saints on these (or similar) topics previously, so why not now?

And Blake Ostler explains the same things that you posted in the video I linked above, which is why I said his comments (that I took out of the context of the video), seem quite harsh taken out of context.  But what Blake said about the scholarship and charity of those men previously also explains his total disappointment and reaction to the current book. 

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

It should be added that Blake Ostler, whom I deeply respect, is himself the author of an outsized portion of the extant work on LDS philosophical theology. His Exploring Mormon Thought series (volume 5 approaching completion!) is the biggest systematic theological work on Latter-day Saint doctrine there is - frankly it's unparalleled in the history of our faith. There are other Latter-day Saint philosophers, of course (David Paulsen, James McLachlan, Jim Faulconer, Joseph Lawal and Adam Miller come to mind, among others) and philosophers outside our faith tradition have engaged with it (Emerson Green) and criticized it (Kelli Potter, for instance), but Ostler's work is frankly indispensable as far as LDS philosophical theology goes. If Ostler feels his work has been misrepresented, improperly engaged with, or handwaved, then (a) that explains his ire, and (b) is pretty telling about the quality of the work. 

I'll note that, back in the early 2000s, Ostler himself described his interactions with Francis Beckwith and his co-authors of The New Mormon Challenge as follows:

 Ostler's cared about these sorts of things for a long time, and has been capable of seeing his critics favorably in the past. This leads me to take him seriously when he talks about A Catholic Engagement with Latter-day Saints. 

Ostler’s work is quite a step above the typical LDS viewpoint though (I have the first three books of his series).  Is the Beckwith and Sherlock book meant to engage with the ideas/understandings of the more typical lay member or with the underlying philosophy most of us Saints ignore?

Edited April 27 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ostler’s work is quite a step above the typical LDS viewpoint though (I have the first three books of his series).  Is the Beckwith and Sherlock book meant to engage with the more typical lay member or with the underlying philosophy most of us Saints ignore?

That's a fair question, but if you look at Ostler's conception of the "spirit of charity" it basically equates to steelmanning, ie taking the other side's argument in its strongest form. I think even if you stipulate that Beckwith and Sherlock were intending to engage with "folk theology", that is by definition failing to steelman. I suppose it would not be very objectionable if their book was simply setting forth what Latter-day Saints believe, but it clearly isn't - argumentation is definitely part of this engagement, and I would join Ostler in thinking it's dishonest to argue against "folk theology" without properly engaging with more elaborate scholarly presentations.

Edit: now, of course, maybe they did so and Ostler simply disagrees. I'll have to take a look for myself. But imo Blake Ostler has built up a pretty big reserve of trust insofar as fair philosophical argumentation goes. I'll still give it a look but my expectations going in are not high.

Edited April 27 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

That's a fair question, but if you look at Ostler's conception of the "spirit of charity" it basically equates to steelmanning, ie taking the other side's argument in its strongest form. I think even if you stipulate that Beckwith and Sherlock were intending to engage with "folk theology", that is by definition failing to steelman. I suppose it would not be very objectionable if their book was simply setting forth what Latter-day Saints believe, but it clearly isn't - argumentation is definitely part of this engagement, and I would join Ostler in thinking it's dishonest to argue against "folk theology" without properly engaging with more elaborate scholarly presentations.

Edit: now, of course, maybe they did so and Ostler simply disagrees. I'll have to take a look for myself. But imo Blake Ostler has built up a pretty big reserve of trust insofar as fair philosophical argumentation goes. I'll still give it a look but my expectations going in are not high.

I just watched the very beginning of the video and they say the book is going back to BH Robert’s and older material if I understood them correctly….which isn’t something typical lay members would be referencing in my experience.

[InCognitus]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ostler’s work is quite a step above the typical LDS viewpoint though

That is certainly true from the philosophical and theological standpoint, since the vast majority of LDS members don't do philosophy or theology (I'm not even sure the vast majority of Catholics do philosophy or theology, and that's also true of Evangelical Protestants).  But Ostler backs up what he says with very good reasoning using the revelations and source texts, and his reasoning is logical and can be followed and documented from the sources (in my opinion).

Edited April 27 by InCognitus

[3DOP]

Hey all...I have not finished the book yet. But upon reflection today, I think I must acknowledge some imperfections in the Catholic work I have brought to our attention, that is criticised by Blake Ostler. 

I am afraid, that now, 3/4 of the way through the essays, I see flaws and mistakes regarding Catholic principles on the rules of "engagement" with those with whom we disagree.

I cannot dismiss any of the essays I have read as erroneous, except maybe one so far. But I do not see this as a breakthrough effort to try to appreciate the good and the true things that our LDS fellows are pursuing.

I fear that to use a political expression, the work is more "undiplomatic", and less respectful than I had hoped. I would still stop short of calling the whole work "uncharitable". It is difficult and dangerous for us to judge our neighbors motives. And I appreciate InCognitus' comments on Ostler's reaction. So I believe in Ostler's good will. 

Oh how the devil wants us to not believe in the good will of those who disagree with us.

3DOP

 

 

 

 

 

[InCognitus]

46 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I would still stop short of calling the whole work "uncharitable". It is difficult and dangerous for us to judge our neighbors motives.

That comment from Ostler is based on his prior association and exchanges with both Francis Beckwith and Richard Sherlock.  Ostler knows that both of them are familiar with the Latter-day Saint scholarship on the topics covered in the book.  So for the two of them to ignore those arguments and pretend they don't exist (for the sake of this new book) has to be intentional.  What else could it be?

[InCognitus]

@3DOP

As was mentioned above, one big reason that there should be a greater expectation of scholarship from a book from Francis J. Beckwith is because of his prior interaction with LDS scholars while he was an Evangelical Christian.

I'm sure you've been around long enough to remember an article published by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen in the Trinity Journal, in 1998 (pp 179-205):   

"Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?"

I bring this up because the article acknowledges Francis J. Beckwith in a footnote at the conclusion of the article:  "Our thanks to Drs. Clinton E. Arnold, Francis J. Beckwith, and Craig L. Blomberg for their encouragement to publish this paper."  (See page 21 of the linked PDF).  So Beckwith was fully aware of that paper and even encouraged it to be published.

The Trinity Journal article is partly what led to the publication of the book, The New Mormon Challenge a few years later in 2002.

But the article begins by outlining five "myths" that are perpetuated about Mormons and Mormonism in Evangelical circles.  I won't quote those five myths here (see pages 1 and 2 of the pdf), but it's what Mosser and Owen say in response to those five myths that are relevant to Ostler's reaction to the new book:

Quote

     In response to these myths, we assert five conclusions concerning Mormon scholarship.

     First, there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."3   Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neoorthodox, liberal, and cultural. The largest and most influential of the four categories is traditional Mormon scholars. The Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

     Second, Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex. 

     Third, currently there are (as far as we are aware) no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.4  A survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism reveals that none interacts with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

     Fourth, at the academic level evangelicals are needlessly losing the debate with the Mormons. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.5  Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues.

     Finally, most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers, and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

Note what I highlighted in red above.

As part of their conclusion, Mosser and Owen say:  "The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will needlessly lose the battle without ever knowing it." (page 19).

Francis Beckwith knows that there is a need to respond to contemporary "Mormon" scholarship, and he's even aware of that scholarship (he participated in the exchange in The New Mormon Challenge).  But he doesn't even acknowledge contemporary Mormon scholarship in this current book (apparently).  So I totally see why Blake Ostler says what he says about the new book.