Sergg

Truth... Whatever that word may convey, it certainly does not -just by virtue of its long use- relate to a fixed meaning. I myself like very much Heidegger's notion of truth as aletheia. But again, many thinkers have thought profoundly on this, Agustin, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas, Lacan, Derrida, De Man, Deleuze, etc... I for one also hold fast to Ortega y Gasset's notion of truth. I do not subscribe to definite definitions of things, but at least to some big aspects. I suggest you all to read more on it and think about it.

I mean, looking at it from your angle T, it could reasonably (now that I look at it) be that 'light' and 'no man' refer to different aspects of the same epiphany and not essentially the whole* of the epiphany(which I hold it to be, and in which case a real contradiction arises), but that one instance -again- says that the men SAW a* light in the scene(as well as an indiscernible 'noise')but not the individual within the such light('no man', this is, the FIGURE of the Christ that appeared ONLY to Paul). Sure, now thinking of it, -even if I dont think the whole of the issue is resolved, and I want it to be a contradiction there, I accept it, lol- it could reasonably be acknowleged the strong(now stronger) possibility that it is just different aspects of the same epiphany and not negations of the assertions.

Wow, that is a great and responsible point. And I have looked it up in my Greek Version of the New Testment. Indeed, the word used for 'listened' or 'heard' is in both cases different (not only in its 'case' but alltogether another word, which might* strongly suggest T's point). But we ought to remember that this contradictions consists of TWO parts, P and Q and their respective negations. While now we have 'saved' the ambiguous 'heard' from contradiction in both cases, the fact is, that after ALSO looking for the words employed in the use of 'SAW' and 'SEE' (regarding the LIGHT in one instance, and a 'MAN'-Christ in the other) are the SAME word. Thus, while one verb (the action of hearing the epiphany) is saved from contradiction for they indeed HEARD but did'nt UNDERSTAND (and each version only ALLUDES to one or the other), still, whatever was it that they SAW, they SAW and didnt SEE at the same circumstances. And I regard the use of "light" in one instance to be a direct(if different) allusion to the epiphany itself of the 'Man(Christ)'. For even if we were to say that exactly the SAME as before occurs regarding the SIGHT of the seen(say, that one instance refers to they SEEING a blur or manifestation, the other saying that they although having seen this did not get to see CLEARLY the 'man' in it) we would have to draw the weird conclusion based on no difference in verbs. So, the thing remains, now even more clearly, that some forced use is at play. That something escapes us in our reading of these accounts, or(and?) that a partly-contradictory tension resides within it.

I stress this because a semantical turn can also be made on my favor: "paul was 'actually' speaking of the same things and simply contradicted himself". How? Why? Because just as you say, If I were Paul, I could get mistaken and actually narrate differently what happened at some time. Here, I could say "they saw no man but heard a voice" and later "saw a light but heard no man" and refer differently to the same things.

And that is a great guess at the problem; indeed a reasonable (as i mentioned above) route to explore. Its called a semantic* argument to rescue the such statements from contradiction. Thing is, after the analysis done, you would need more than the mere guess, and actual textual or hermeneutical proof, that suggests strongly your point.

1)Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing(A) a voice(A.1), but seeing no(B ) man(B.1 ). 2)Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed (A) the light(A.1), and were afraid; but they heard not (B ) the voice of him(B.1) that spake to me. Following this illustration (or trying to...), we can find various contradictions or at least several tensions*. There is, however, still left to decide whether both sentences are alluding to the same circumstances(or objects). We have two basic structures: Verbal: 1) P ("A": they heard x) and Q ("B": they saw no x) 2) P ("A": they saw x) and Q ("B": they heard no x) objective: 1) P("A.1": they 'x' a voice) and Q ("B.1": they 'x' no man) 2) P("A.1": they 'x' a light) and Q ("B.1": they 'x' no voice) Now, in its verbal structure, we have the same usage of verbs: 'saw' and 'heard'. In the siuch structure a contradiction in terms occurs. But in its objective structure, -though I personally claim there is not- a particular ambivalence in what actually is a 'light' in one instance and a 'man' in the other, or a 'voice' in one and a 'nothing' in the other, makes plausible that the (formal) verbal structure is not contradicting itself for it (reasonably) depends on the meaning of the latter. So this leaves us with defining what is Paul refering to when he speaks of 'man(Jesus)' and 'light(x?)' -which he verbally contradicts, and 'voice(of Jesus)' and 'nothing(x?)' which he again verbally counterposits. My bet is that he is speaking of the same thing, that whatever role 'man(Jesus)' played in the first instance, 'light(Epiphany -hence, Jesus!)' plays in the second -which obviously after verbal contradiction results also in objective contradiction. And whatever role 'voice(of Jesus!)' plays in the second instance is also the one portrayed in the first one in 'voice(of 'no man' -but the only man-epiphany there was Jesus! So its Him implied)' , which also, after verbally contradicting themselves , result in objective contradiction. Now, some scholars take them to be contradictions, others dont. Some lds scholars at Fairlds.org, acknowledge it as a contradiction to illustrate Joseph's Smith plausible(and justified) loss of memory(contradiction) in various of his different 'first visions'. But it doesnt matter, we can analize it by our lights. Does it actually contradict or not? I have tried to suggest that it does, trying to sketch its structures and positing probable semantic usage. I expect to see any 'attack' on this, rise to the same effort of illustration.

Well T, scholars(even evalgelical ones) on Paul acknowledge it as a contradiction... So, even without the such 'highly regarded' consent of the scholars, I find it also as contradictory to say that in the SAME event, T1, a and non-a occurred: 1st Account: "At T1 A and B occurred (A=people saw a light, B=People heard no sound) 2nd Account: "At T1 ALSO happened non-A and non-B (non-A= People saw nothing, but B=People heard a sound) Does'nt that sound contradictory?

One contradiction regarding creation, is that fowl is created in Gen.1 from WATER, and in Gen.2 from the EARTH. An interesting twist on it, is that the Pearl of Great Price reproduces this tension, and that includes even another: in the two books that comprise the PoGP, one posits Adam naming the animals ALONE, and Eve created later, and the other posits Adam and Eve created, and naming the animals. Chicken or egg?.... There are many tensions that are reproduced or reinterpreted by posterior writers or prophets precisely because originally they (such tensions) respond to a mythological consciousness and not a historical consciousness, and reflect the borrowing from other traditions and the heterogeneity of such sources (Gen.1 = egyptian, Gen.2 =babylonian, and so on). Posterior writers of more refined and 'historical' mentalities took the myths at the core of judaism to mean either allegorically or factually, historical events that took place.

What a religious text says, and what its actual praxis is, are two diferent things. It is a fact that jews built a Temple (waaaaaayyyyyy before christ) near Egypt in Alexandria: google it. So you should be rather asking the jews how is it possible that they (knowing that verse better than you*) make sense of their historical change in practices.

Misunderstanding is the root to all 'harm' in both your cases. I was clear*, that the gods DO consider themselves to be what they are: Gods, but that precisely because THEY are the ONLY gods, they are 'atheists' (say, under the dictionary definition: does not believe in God as the origin of the world,etc.) in that they do not consider what transcend them (the 'Laws' that some* here believe in -not I) as the result of another Intelligence, but that no other intelligence exists apart from the Gods themselves. In that sense, The gods are atheists in regard to those components of the universe that are not dependent on them (the 'Laws'). Again, I do not think this is the outcome of any theology, or mormon theology. I have been more than clear (in fact, ad nauseam), that it is only the ironical(but REAL) results from the beliefs that some members here share. End of all my participation regarding this thread.

Again, I do not subscribe to those premises on which the whole logical irony was built. It was intended to be read by those who subscribe to it, to let them see**** what logical conclusions could**** be derived from them****. Of course, I didnt expect that you would take it to be directed at you, and that you would (in a way I dont understand) take them to be what I**** believe. It was not a joke* in the sense of a common joke. It was an intellectual irony, which I have translated as 'joke' for the sake of remaining, you know, down to earth. But in fact it was a serious matter. Just presented colorfully, as a comment*** not an argument****(you do know the diference...). So it is not offensive in any way (for lets be honest and serious now, the God of the Bible -independently of what you as mormon may want* to believe, represents Himself as the ONLY God, so He, in regard to what co-exists around Him, is an atheist, for He himself does not believe in any Laws or Gods that made Him or his cosmos), it could be offensive though (but again, you would -like me- take it as childish) to call the God of theh Bible 'one among many', that 'once was a man', to other christians. So do not get sensitive over something that was a matter to give thinking to(plain 'jokes' are meaningless in the end, my comment was not) and part of what others may believe(as Tom, Justice or Vanhin), and you should just keep up to it, disregard it, prove it wrong, or not. But unless the manner**** of presenting some topic is*** unrespectful, whatever the content, if intellectual, must be regarded seriously and you must learn to live with it. Just as I live with your ideas.

At least somebody sees the point others tried to make. Now, what is of importance, is that this belief in 'Laws' saves God's acts from becoming 'arbitrary', but arise other questions: his ontological status, his epistemological status, and his moral status. What possible 'position' can he hold that prevents Him from being completely arbitrary; What possible conditions and status is he in in terms of knowledge -if he ignores the origin of such Laws-; What moral status does he enjoy, if he's ultimately constrained by compliance to laws. And many more.

But who's posts have you been reading? What I said, was that given the premises, the GODS themselves would be rightly defined as ATHEISTS. Not us! In such irony is that the joke (a rather profound one...) strives. Again, if you do not understand it, keep to yourself whatever value-judgements you might have on my person. It would not be of importance at all. The very value of ironic, funny and random comments(that can often be profound) is that they just 'flash', and if people get them, they become iconic, if not, no harm.

Lets go easy on this: D&C 88: 22, 22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. What is the meaning of this for you all? Think on it, but while you do, take into consideration the other 'granted' points of 'nonofficial' doctrine in mormon communities: that Elohim Himself progressed through complying to laws(say, was exalted through 'gospel' acceptance as 'we' will). Then it follows that whatever 'law' thi sverse refers to(which is, as verse 13 says, that law -light- that governs all things, 'even the power of god') cannot be one of Elohim's creations(for it is anterior to Him). What would beg the question as to -then- by which Laws did previous Gods became gods, and so on. We will end up with Laws that are ultimately previous to individual gods. Just as we end up with RAW unorganized "intelligences" that are precious to their actual organization as 'individuals' -which again, begs the question... So, -apart from faith- how can it be solved? It is a sort of 'chicken or the egg' question.

Well, I was refering to the only posts and members who (Tom and Vanhin*) have quoted D&C in regard to this notion of 'Laws' celestial. I thought you were following the thread. Then again... Well, of course it is stretched, lol. That's the point of a logical joke. But it must be acknowledged though, that if the premises are taken at face-value (as those who regard the "celestial Primordial-to-the-gods Laws" theory to be true may do) the conclusions (if ironic) remain valid. But of course, either you do not subscribe to the premises and the "Primordial-to-the-gods-Laws" theory, or you do but are unwilling (after glimpsing at consequences...) to accept the joke.

Not at all. :) What I am saying (in a funny way), follows from the premises of some members that defended the notion of a god(or gods) who follows LAWS. "Laws" that were instituted (as D&C beautifully and clearly says) in the midst of the Throne of God or the Heavens BEFORE He came to be exalted. If such a description (as unavoidable from a reading of the such verse od D&C) is to be taken at face-value, then it follows that the reasoning involved (in taking it as true) is thus: a) there is the 'Godhead' b) there are laws that according to Scripture produce, guide, constitute or SUSTAIN(that's the word) the power or exaltation or divinity of the Godhead(or its members, or other infinite Godheads and their members, -its irrelevant) ________________________ c) it follows that such Laws are evidently prior and constitutive of the power of the gods, and thus, THEY explain the FACT that a 'cosmos-order' (if Heavenly*) exists and that gods inhabit it -and honor it, for the sake of 'remaining' and 'not ceasing' to be 'gods'- as Scripture says. But if this reasoning of some members (and the verses read) is so (and I am just pulling consequences here -not making any value-judgements), then, it reminds me of the procedure that atheists have undergone to reach their conclusions regarding (not 'heavenly' eternal 'order' as these members) but this present 'order'(earth). In the following manner: a) Oh! How beautiful this earth! It seems to me that the earth exists, b) Oh, it also seems that Laws precede the conditions of physical reality and sustain earth, ________________________________ c)it seems that Laws (of nature -but, let us remember, they are mathematical* anyways) are sufficient to explain the FACT that the earth and the cosmos exists. So, taking up again our first 'sillogism', if it were the Gods talking among them (as we here), given the premises of the first sillogism(that Laws are prior to gods), it would procede as thus: a) [Gods talking]: Oh, how true that we we exist! For we have been tested on earth, been born of Celestial Parents before that, and been exalted now. b) But we must remember that we were exalted, not so much by the laws of our Fathers, but by the Laws that allowed our Fathers before that (and so on...) be exalted. So it is these Laws to which we Gods(all) must comply. They are most sacred, just as we are(through compliance with THEM). ____________________________________________________ c) It follows that whatever this (eternal)cosmos that we inhabit and rule (and are*; for intelligences are so eternal), is, is governed and sustained by these Laws, and no other Intelligence Most Sublime than they, suffice or are needed; for none of our Fathers from eternity down have created these*(for, they might have created those of orders 'bellow', but not these that allowed their very being to exist). So we must conclude that no other-sort-of-God is needed for these. There are no Gods other than us (creatures ruled by Laws prior to them), and thus our Cosmos(the real* one, the heavenly and misterious, and eternal) is without "Cause". For, drawing from the saying of our friend, Elohim, to Abraham, (That everywhere there is an Intelligence, there is another superior, and another superior to both, etc.) can only be circular, for any 'more Intelligent Intelligence' in any case will have drawned its superiority by compliance to Laws that are not subject to scrutiny by any of them that subscribe to it. Hence, we must confess ourselves atheists of any divinity that created these Laws that in turn created us. Only Laws exist, then we exist, and only humans are bound to theism.

The only sincere and non-circular question (though its answer will* be circular), out of all the development of this topic is: whence the 'Laws'? How did the Laws came to exist or to operate without an Intelligence to put them in motion? Or if we were taking Hume at face-value, Ifwe content ourselves with the 'fact' of "Laws' that constitute the very gods(and hence also their work: us) why do not settle with the "laws' of nature while explaining the consitution of this universe? Do you see where I am heading? The typical protestant would say: 'laws' of nature(or any other kind) are unsound and useless by themselves: they also need a creator. But mormons agree with gratuitous acceptance of selfsufficient laws (as well as the scientific-minded atheist), only that such Laws are of celestial order, and account for the Gods as well. So, if we were the gods, we would actually be ATHEISTS, lol.

tsk,tsk,tsk: following your logic from the start of the topic, it would be the LAWS that make possible both the chiken or the egg, lol. For 'before' the very Gods there were the..."Laws"...and so, before and after men also.

For such lds members as Tom and others, there would not exist true miracles, but illusions and 'tricks' or 'bendings' of the laws that a Supreme Intelligence perpetrates (if out of 'love') to astonish (for whatever reason) lower 'intelligences', or 'men'.

For an arab, the problem is that those already living at 'covenant-lands' -by the time the israelites came to do the 'Lord's justice'-, didnt enter into any covenant at all as to have broken it, to begin with. At least -of course- as long as Lds scriptures go. So, as long as to Scripture or 'sacred history' of any christian or jewish-related religion or sect, those people Joshua killed broke a covenant that they did not enter into.

Because the Vulgate version, though of latter times than the greek copies we have from the first two centuries, was shortly elaborated and meanwhile with a richness of references and the careful idiosincracies of those scribes at the times of the greek fathers. So its standing, though obviously no way higher than the copies in Koine greek, is more of an 'artsy' thing, the fact that it represented a far-stretching step in translating its contents to a latinized mentality and culture. And often, from its usage of terms, we derive our modern-languages usage of most 'western' christian consciousness(vocabulary, concepts, etc.). All in all its a very great work. Just as Luther's translation to german remains to this day, -mostly for its historical and cultural profound echoes-, very much a work of art and worthy of attention.

Hum.... Maybe the fact that the Pearl of Great Price in both Moses and Abraham posits it, or that Christ in the gospels said that he 'saw' Satan fall from Heaven as a lightning, or that the epistle of Jude describes his battle and Michael's over Moses body; or that the ancient hebrew names with the same title, several beings, as the case of the Elohim. The fact that Job equates 'stars' with 'angels'(or christians do such equation); or the fact that lds theology and authorities hold it so (a most important criteria); or that the WHOLE LDS tradition has so believed it. But even if you insist, "Except for the -as yet answered- cases of the PoGP, all other references only suggest he existed in the preexistence, or in a celestial or spiritual order. Now, that doesnt make him an angel", the fact is that tradition (both in and out of Lds theology) does believe that, be it what he was, he was there premortally, and 'fell', or underwent some change in status. Now, even if he is not officially declared in Scripture as an Angel of this or that Rank or place, it would be very little to ask of you what do we then make of him: If not an angel, what other Scripturally available sort of beings were there before Earth was created? It does no harm to its concept whatever 'title-dispute' you may have on it; what does, however, problematize it, is the anacronical positing of a such belief in Occidental Mythology as universal or obvious. We ought to remember that mythologically speaking, is Assyria and later Babylon the civilizations who produce and distribute the concepts of daemons(be them goood, as in angels, or bad, as in demons, or messiahs) among Near East cultures. Now, none of that makes it truer. But then again, it is you who subscribe to many of such references as authoritative in so many unquestionable areas (as in Lds authorities and the Temple). It would be interesting to learn how you come to terms with it.

Not only this but Christ is also called in Revelation the 'Morning Star' , so if serious exegesis should be made in terms of it, it would all come down to Christ borrowing a terrible epithet. It is true that, historically(this is, of course, aside of all Lds past or actual teachings), the title 'morning star' as used in Isaiah(that* Isaiah, for there are at least two within the text, just as in Jeremiah, or the whole Torah) is ONLY to be grasped (as the rest that follows from such verse) as refering to the such King. Nobody in jewish tradition EVER interpreted it in terms of a Satan. The rabinical notion of a Satan came at least 600 years after the writing of such text. And yes, furthermore , when it came to be taken as meaning the existence of a 'being' that represented such concept of Evil, it was also taken as allegorical*. Only christians truly exploited to their interests such verses of the jewish tradition, just as it introduced never-imagined-nor-permitted interpretations for other texts of Isaiah that historically refered to , say, Solomon (Is.6&7), but ended being the most messianic representative verses of all ever used by christian gospel-construction. And I mean, mostly, the early communities, not only later 'corrupted' trends. So, one problem (that you seem to posit), opens up the pandora's box for other -related- problems that are even of deeper meaning if taken to be allegorical(this is, the very messianic origin of the founder of what later came to be christianity)... interesting

Distinct possibilities have been contemplated by such people as J.Smith, Brigham Young, Fielding Smith, or theologically, Ostler. We could take the route of 'thinking according to famous authors' or authorities of the Church, or, according to our (or possible) interpretations of scripture, or, according to 'private revelation'(a criteria common to many here), or 'according to' mere thinking it through. But all overlapped does no good to any progress. I remember discussing these things back then with a Seventy(friend of mine) and a Temple worker. One could deliniate , at least, the possible problems that each possible position encounters, for example: a) The theory of Elohim All-for-All-eternity: If it follows that only Elohim as an individual, is the one allowed and actually endowed with the power of creating worlds 'everlasting' and sending children there, and that only one Christ was required to the atonement of all his creations, there is a conflict with: a.1.the fact that the very D&C that one person quoted here in support of this, later on is specific regarding th eambiguity of the use 'God'; saying Smith did not fully know if it refered to 'many' or 'one', and hence, the identification of God of everlasting worlds from eternity to eternity as Elohim the individual, falls short of the very text it was taken out from; further teachings of Smith and Young themselves, regarding the God(S) that were anterior to Elohim and will be posterior to him are unavoidable, especially because Young states that we will 'send' children to spiritual worlds (he even mentions we* will be the 'Adam adn Eve' of such), and so on. It alo, and most importantly obliviates the diference of a sutile diferentiation needed here: a.2. Elohim through his Christ saves all his creations: this theory, has it that Elohim only needs ONE christ to actually SAVE all his worlds (according to the theory, all world there are, were or will be). But this is some lucky situation then, for out of all eternal creations(both of before and after), ONLY US GOT THE CHANCE of having THE saviour of ALL possible worlds DYING and being born HERE. We are, then, at the very 'meridian of times' but not only the 'historical' ones, but of ETERNITY itself! Now, how narcisistic would that be of us to think? a.2.The GODS through THEIR Christ save all worlds and creations: this theory, has it that it was not Elohim, but all Gods before and after, whom BENEFIT and actually NEED of this Christ to save ALL CREATIONS previous or future. But again, it would be very lucky that its US who get the chance. What would enter into conflict, for even Elohim, exalted by having been noble and believed the 'eternal gospel of christ' (a Christ yet to be engendered and exalted by Him...) would have to had believed by faith, and by faith in a yet spiritually begotten Cosmic Child; what would make more of Christ than all the gods together; a thing most far from Smith's teachings. a.3. That Gods everlastingly exist succidingly and that Each has a Plan of Salvation for their creations, within which, there are Christs that redeem ALL of their private works; this theory, has it that Each Elohim and Mother send a Christ to save all their worlds. Or a variation of this theory is, that each Elohim and Mother send ONE Christ to EACH world of theirs. Conflict is, with the Scriptural basis of the nEED for ONE Christ for ALL creations; indeed ONE Christ that actually CREATED by command of God all THERE IS(or ig going to be). a.3. Most important problem with ALL theories as such above: they AVOID teh real question, that of the origin and extent of Evil. For, as the BoM clearly states, and the PoGP, it is EVIL that produces the possibility of the very plan of salvation, of moral judgement and the concept of TESTING(for which, after all, all earths were initially created). For, in all such theories, there is a plausible explanation for Christ's succesful expiation: "He reaches ALL worlds, even if he only died in THIS one". But how does LUCIFER, or EVIL reach each world as to possibilitate the actual TEST and Salvation of the Gospel? For where there was no reach of evil, and no sin, no REDEEMER was EVER needed... a.4. ANother fundamental question: If this is so, or if nothing of this is so, another preocupation arises, also conflicting with possible scriptural answeres: If evil is necessary for a world to experience(in order to be Saved), then, how was it, that BEFORE taking 'votes' into account in such Great Council, Elohim pretended testing us, if no such Lucifer had as yet become the embodiment of such possibility? It is not enough that 'Elohim knew', for it would make an acceptance out of Elohim's procedence with the whole thing knowing in advance what he knew. It would place Lucifer as an Accomplice, a Contributor(but lawfully one) to the plan of salvation, and not a 'needed' but 'not asked to' contributor, as nowadays is taken to be. The very same situation as that of Judas; but profoundly worse and more difficult, for Explaining Lucifer's role in Elohim's all knowing plans, is to actually give ultimate sense to all His thoughts are, as they pertain the history of the(or this, or all) world(s). So there go some obstacles, and some past considerations (incomplete, of course) of many people regarding this. More could be said, and even most profoundly paradoxical, but we would have all to hold this conversation IN the Temple; for surely there are that most interesting and evident things come to fore.

Which 'Temple'? The only Temple that the early christians knew and visited was the jewish Temple at Jerusalem(destroyed by 70 a.c.e.). From there-on early cultic practice among early christians (as that of the circle-prayer, 'initiation to secrets', doctrines, group-sex, ritual, etc. depending on the exact and particular sect) took place underground or at private houses. Christians never built a temple throught their whole history, in the lds sense of a 'Temple'. Chapels, Churches, Cathedrals, they have been the only sorts of near-to-jewish-or-lds-buildings that christians have ever built. Lds Temples derive their meaning from jewish and Near East archaic cultic practices. Christianity in general holds such usage as foreign. Particularly for its 'secrecy'. Also, the position of Stake President was an invention of the mormon culture. It was a reference to the 'stakes' of 'Sion', and a 'holder' or 'keeper' for them, taken from Old Testament usage. No such thing ever existed neither in jewish or christian culture. But a new and deeply related topic arises: how could Lds doctrine proclaim that early apostles practiced baptism for the dead, if the early christians did not have after 70a.c.e. a Temple? Well, it may be said, that just as Smith and the early mormons practiced baptism for the dead in a river before the final sanction in D&C and the command to build a proper 'House', it so happened that such margin was allowed to early temple-deprived-christians. But such thesis would only amount to actually not-adressing the real issue at stake: when, during such 'obscure' and 'horrible' apostasy (and by what criteria) did a practice like such come to 'Proper End'? And by 'proper end' I mean a Divine End, as that which culminated Smith's practices in the such river. For it is much easy to teach to converts such doctrine of the Great Apostasy, but harder to actually put names, dates, events, and facts behind it. Mostly with Temple-issues. I remember a great work, that of Nibley, Temple and Cosmos. ....That was real scholarship.... We live at sundry times, in terms of intellectual production...Nowadays, more is affirmed than reckoned-with...