Better understanding the Great Apostasy

[Faded]

When we mention the Great Apostasy in the Church, it is generally very well understood what we're talking about. A time period ranging from approximately 200 AD to 1822 AD. The longest period of time in human history that God did not have prophets, seers, apostles and other authorized servants on the earth.

I have always gone out of my way to study other religions and especially the history of religion. I certainly have every confidence that the Great Apostasy did happen. The evidence of it is written all over the pages of history and one needs no further affirmation than the complete lack of true prophets in the world.

At one point, I remember a nonmember voiced a concern that I had always struggled with. "How can you believe that God would just abandon mankind for almost 2000 years?" It was a good enough question and I didn't have a solid answer. "Mankind wasn't ready" fell a bit short of really answering the question. "Nobody prayed with faith" was nonsense of course. The underlying thing was, for the Great Apostasy to last as long as it did, there had to be a purpose of God tied into it. I just couldn't see what it was for the longest time, and I just took it on faith that there was a good reason for it.

Here's the reasoning that has gradually pieced itself together. The Great Apostasy was unique from any previous falling away in several ways:

1.) God's people, the Christians, did not abandon their faith in God and Christ. They did not turn to the gods of the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, etc.

2.) A surprising amount of truth was preserved.

3.) In the subsequent centuries, that corrupted and imperfect Christianity would eventually spread to every corner of the world.

One of the greatest obstacles that has faced every prior dispensation -- mankind so thoroughly abandoned God that when His gospel was reintroduced to the world later on, it was unfamiliar and very strange. Perhaps function of the Great Apostasy was to change all that. In our dispensation, we benefit from the fact that the basics are already known and accepted by many many people throughout the world. Even the rise of Islam made for a world that was better prepared for the fullness of the gospel because it abandoned the pantheons of false gods across the nations in favor of one God, Allah. It says that he is the God of the Old Testament and contains many true teachings of the Gospel.

No dispensation since Adam saw a world better prepared to receive the teachings of the fullness of the everlasting gospel. At no time in the history of the world have there been more people who believe in the Atonement of Christ and that pray to the true God in faith. It was into that climate that Joseph Smith was used by God to restore the true Church and Kingdom of God on the earth.

Thoughts?

Edited January 21, 2009 by Faded

[Dove]

Faded,

Thank you for bringing this question up, as this is exactly the argument my very inactive sister will bring up when voicing her reason for not believing in the great apostasy at all, nor in the restoration.....

You certainly seem to have studied and have been educated on this topic~ (I for one have not been,) I do have some very basic and simplistic thoughts. Hopefully what I have to say will at least become fodder for further discussion. Feel free to correct what is said in ignorance though, LOL.....

Maybe it's as simple as what I was taught years ago, that mankind, as a whole, was not ready for a fullness of the gospel during those earlier times. That the people who populated the earth would have rejected the gospel. However, I do recall passages in the Book of Mormon that say He has spoken to "all the nations of the earth...and they shall write it....."(2 Nephi 29:7-13). Which leads me to believe that mankind, as a whole, has had the gospel given to them at some point, and it has been recorded, but has been lost. Maybe everbody had been given a chance in the annals of history, and all have fallen into their own apostasy?

IMHO, I don't believe that God did "abandon" mankind, that we all are accorded blessings according to our choices and desires, much of which was determined in the pre-existence. I am soo grateful to be born in a time where the gospel is here and that I have been able to reap the benefits of the priesthood and its ordinances. I definately believe that the gospel was restored in a promised land.....and that yeah, sadly the earth was veiled in "darkness" for quite some time. More because of our choices than the desires of our Heavenly Parent.......

I am also very grateful for the great truths of other religions, they really do have a lot to offer in their teachings. The thirteenth article of faith comes to mind.

Best of wishes with your thread :-)

Dove

[Guest ceeboo]

When we mention the Great Apostasy in the Church, it is generally very well understood what we're talking about. A time period ranging from approximately 200 AD to 1822 AD. The longest period of time in human history that God did not have prophets, seers, apostles and other authorized servants on the earth.

I have always gone out of my way to study other religions and especially the history of religion. I certainly have every confidence that the Great Apostasy did happen. The evidence of it is written all over the pages of history and one needs no further affirmation than the complete lack of true prophets in the world.

At one point, I remember a nonmember voiced a concern that I had always struggled with. "How can you believe that God would just abandon mankind for almost 2000 years?" It was a good enough question and I didn't have a solid answer. "Mankind wasn't ready" fell a bit short of really answering the question. "Nobody prayed with faith" was nonsense of course. The underlying thing was, for the Great Apostasy to last as long as it did, there had to be a purpose of God tied into it. I just couldn't see what it was for the longest time, and I just took it on faith that there was a good reason for it.

Here's the reasoning that has gradually pieced itself together. The Great Apostasy was unique from any previous falling away in several ways:

1.) God's people, the Christians, did not abandon their faith in God and Christ. They did not turn to the gods of the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, etc.

2.) A surprising amount of truth was preserved.

3.) In the subsequent centuries, that corrupted and imperfect Christianity would eventually spread to every corner of the world.

One of the greatest obstacles that has faced every prior dispensation -- mankind so thoroughly abandoned God that when His gospel was reintroduced to the world later on, it was unfamiliar and very strange. Perhaps function of the Great Apostasy was to change all that. In our dispensation, we benefit from the fact that the basics are already known and accepted by many many people throughout the world. Even the rise of Islam made for a world that was better prepared for the fullness of the gospel because it abandoned the pantheons of false gods across the nations in favor of one God, Allah. It says that he is the God of the Old Testament and contains many true teachings of the Gospel.

No dispensation since Adam saw a world better prepared to receive the teachings of the fullness of the everlasting gospel. At no time in the history of the world have there been more people who believe in the Atonement of Christ and that pray to the true God in faith. It was into that climate that Joseph Smith was used by God to restore the true Church and Kingdom of God on the earth.

Thoughts?

Hello Faded, :)

As a non LDS member of this forum, I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your offering of the " Great Apostasy" and commend you for the manner you chose to deliver it.

Obviously I would disagree but in no way does that diminish the contribution you have made :).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us all!!!!:) :)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Faded]

Hello Faded, :)

As a non LDS member of this forum, I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your offering of the " Great Apostasy" and commend you for the manner you chose to deliver it.

Obviously I would disagree but in no way does that diminish the contribution you have made :).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us all!!!!:) :)

Peace,

Ceeboo

It is a rare thing that we find much good will from other denominations, but I think it is critical for us to see them for what the really are. The member of this forum who are not Latter Day Saints are well behaved and polite insofar as I have seen. It saddens me that you are the rare exceptions to the general rule amongst our fellow Christians. It can be hoped that more of them will follow your good example.

One beginning point for me along this way of thinking was when I was a missionary in Oklahoma -- a land filled with Baptists, Evangelical Christians and all manner of other faiths. My companion and I were on our way back from attending a Pentacostal church service. Most missionaries and members tend to create a lot of "Mormon Myths" to account for the Spiritual Gifts and apparent miracles that occur in other faiths. But that companion was a wiser man and his explanation resonated with me. "They pray with faith and their prayers are heard." It was so obviously true.

The war of words that has existed since the day that Joseph Smith's first vision came into public knowledge has left a very bad taste for other Christian faiths. They were instrumental in driving the early Latter Day Saints from state to state and played an important role in assassinating Joseph Smith. So it's understandable that there is a certain amount of contempt for other religions. To this day, I can post on any Christian forum and be told that a.) I'm not a Christian, b.) I'm going to hell for believing what I believe, c.) a lot of self-righteous overly pious, so called Christians will assault and berate every aspect of what I believe in. Virtually every "Christian" denomination has gone out of it's way to attack and demonize us and belittle our faith in Christ. What you end up with is a mutually hostile, "Us vs Them" mentality and a whole lot of Mormons wondering how most Christian religions can call themselves Christians.

Overcoming that mindset was not my intent when I was trying to understand the Apostasy, but it does directly result in greater respect and goodwill for all the other Christian denominations. Especially when you foster the view that the beginning of the end of the Great Apostasy was the Protestant Reformation -- the light before the dawn essentially. Even the entire rule of the Catholic Church and their contemporaries worked to spread the truth to the whole world.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Faded

[Traveler]

The great apostasy has more to do with institutions than with individual people. There never has been a time when a person could not consider becoming part of something to benefit his fellow man and society of man or to seek a course that would serve individual pleasures and desires.

In essence we are seeing how apostasy takes hold of society and forces itself into institutions with the current changes and views of marriage over the last 100 years.

I would also point out that apostasy is the norm. Even among the covenant people of G-d with prophets the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Noah, Nephi, Alma and others and apostles the likes of Peter, James , John, Thomas, Matthias and Paul, we seldom see a generation pass without a major intrusion of apostasy in the majority of the covenant populace. The very idea that man has become so enlightened and advanced that a divine institution based in the appointment of living apostles and prophets is no longer desired or sought is in its self proof of apostasy.

The Traveler

Edited January 21, 2009 by Traveler

[Guest Godless]

Hello Faded, :)

As a non LDS member of this forum, I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your offering of the " Great Apostasy" and commend you for the manner you chose to deliver it.

Obviously I would disagree but in no way does that diminish the contribution you have made :).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us all!!!!:) :)

Peace,

Ceeboo

What he said. :)

[Faded]

I would also point out that apostasy is the norm. Even among the covenant people of G-d with prophets the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Noah, Nephi, Alma and others and apostles the likes of Peter, James , John, Thomas, Matthias and Paul, we seldom see a generation pass without a major intrusion of apostasy in the majority of the covenant populace. The very idea that man has become so enlightened and advanced that a divine institution based in the appointment of living apostles and prophets is no longer desired or sought is in its self proof of apostasy.

The Traveler

I would say that the non-LDS religions and denominations logic is at least understandable, though misguided. It runs something like this:

Fact 1: There are no living Apostles and Prophets around anymore and there haven't been for many centuries.

Fact 2: There is no additional scripture being written and there hasn't been for those same many centuries.

Conclusions: This is the way God intended it, the scriptural record is closed to any further additions and we have all the light we need.

Obviously, we do not agree with their conclusions here. The holes and flaws with this conclusion are many, but they don't really need to be ennumerated here.

The more important point is that the many Christian denominations out there have been instrumental in spreading the word about God and Christ. The last 1000 years mark a significant change in the world. There is virtually no person alive that hasn't heard of Christ, Christianity and the Judeo-Christian God. That is an extremely significant change in this world and their accomplishments should be celebrated and commended.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I used to think that it was due to the Donation of Constantine and the later admiration and sucking up to Aristotle that made up the Great Apostasy. Then I noticed how many of Jesus's apostles had Greek names and now think that it might have been a lot earlier.

[Sergg]

I used to think that it was due to the Donation of Constantine and the later admiration and sucking up to Aristotle that made up the Great Apostasy. Then I noticed how many of Jesus's apostles had Greek names and now think that it might have been a lot earlier.

I do not believe in such Great Apostasy, because, after careful consideration of early forms of christianity -or later developments-, it results that no actual orthodoxy existed in its 'own right' first of all. The interpretation and experience of Christ's teachings, were diverse from the very early stages in his own disciples. The very new testament, and the exegetical fights therein -among the very apostles-, is a topic in itself. The developments of the 2nd and 3rd centuries , new heresies, early fathers, greek fathers, latin fathers, up to Nicea and the Milan Edict, show how diverse the representation of Christ was. Only if one already privileges a surviving(or presently overdeveolped) sect or Church, does one find its 'traces back to original apodicticity'. The truth is that texts such as The Closing of the Western Mind (Freeman), When Jesus became god (Rubenstein), or Aristotle's children (Rubenstein also), The orthodox corruption of Scripture, or a reading of the early fathers, shows, not necessarily that a "once clear doctrine" was 'lost', but that many doctrines simultaneously coexisted, and one cannot, again, unless already believing one of them to be true, 'find' an Ariadne's thread through all time past down to its 'origin'. Christ, as historical person, remains a sillhouette and his actual teachings lost. Only what those who heard and listened, and fought and survived, and later on came to be either loosers(heresies pursued) or winners (a powerful empire), remain.

Also, the middle ages have been wrongly associated with lowliness, dirt, obscurity, absense of arts , science and inspiration. Jacques LeGoff, a middle-ages historian, among many others (or just see History Channel's documentaries...) have rescued the clear and profound progress and work that was going on through such 'dark' ages; in arquitecture, philosophy, theology, tradition, society, science. Neither Luther, or Leonardo, or Erasmo, or Kepler would have done what they did if not already being on th eshoulders of giants -even if, silent giants. Medieval mentality and subjectivity was not as that of the modern and the enlightment. It was, as Tillich puts it, a communal identity. As Crussi puts it, a 'magical' consciousness. As LeGoff puts it, an 'organical intellectualism', instead of our tales of romantic heroes, revolutions, identity, copy right, and democracy.

The first to represent the middle ages as dark, were those of the Enlightment period, with its liberal hatred of religious-state-goverment. A mythology for progress.

The 19 century was not the only one which saw the advent of new 'prophets'; nor was mormonism the only attempt at it within it.

The decline of the voices and presences of the gods of almost all Near Eastern cultures and empires(more powerful and great than Israel or Rome) had been fading and prepared the way for Christ-characters, magic, oracles and later on, the absense of prophets. It was a cultural phenomenon that clearly starts in 2400 b.c. and goes through climax at 100 a.c., up to this day where the voices of no gods(other than metaohorical calls for revelation and authority) are 'heard'. (see The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of th ebicameral mind, Jaynes).

Edited January 21, 2009 by Sergg

[Justice]

I think the truth was restored the very day it would have survived.

If you look at the history of the Church, you see it very narrowly escaped several times, but the one major time was at the death of the prophet Joseph Smith. I believe if it had been restored any earlier it would have fell away again before the end time.

I think the day and hour was long anticipated. It took many years of long preparation.

I believe it is so because God is merciful, and had He presented it to people who were not ready it would have brought greater condemnation on them.

I always look for the mercy in what God does, because I have learned it is there even if we cant see it.

[nimrod]

The prophets said there would be an apostasy. It happened. The length is something that we all may wonder about. However, it should not be a stumbling block. There are many things I don't understand fully. (parting of the red sea, Noah, etc) If there were easy answers to these things then would this life really be a test? I don't discourage the discussion of such however. Pondering these things is how we learn. But it is wise to develop a firm foundation......then trivial questions will remain interesting but still trivial.

The Church fell away. The Church was Restored. The Book of Mormon (and a thousand other things) along with the Holy Ghost strengthen my foundation and testimony in the Restoration.

Those alive during the "dark ages" were not blessed to have a prophet. Others throughout history were not as well. Many far reaching areas of the world still know nothing of prophets or apostles.....or Jesus for that matter. Does this mean we should throw Christianity out the window? For that matter, under that argument, we must throw out all religions. The only thing left would be Atheism. I've lived long enough and experienced enough in this life to conclude that Atheism is an unreasonable conclusion.

Indeed...... "Praise to the Man who Communed with Jehovah!" The long famine has ended......... never to return.

Edited January 21, 2009 by nimrod

[prisonchaplain]

I'll confess that we Protestants (especially we Pentecostals) will lambast LDS for this doctrine on the one hand, and on the other, believe that God did little between the Apostolic Age and the late nineteenth century (when renewed interest in signs and wonders led to a resurrection of prayers for divine healing, and a seeking after the gifts of the Spirit). I, for one, see great treasure in the preserving work of the Catholic Church--for who can deny the tremendous theological and educational work it produced over it's 1900+ years? Likewise, I do not discount the gift ancient Judaism provided for us. I still consult rabbis for some Old Testament questions I have.

History is tremendously important. And, like my LDS friends, I believe my own church has sifted the best of Christian history, and produced excellent teaching and practices.

[Traveler]

I would say that the non-LDS religions and denominations logic is at least understandable, though misguided. It runs something like this:

Fact 1: There are no living Apostles and Prophets around anymore and there haven't been for many centuries.

Fact 2: There is no additional scripture being written and there hasn't been for those same many centuries.

Conclusions: This is the way God intended it, the scriptural record is closed to any further additions and we have all the light we need.

Obviously, we do not agree with their conclusions here. The holes and flaws with this conclusion are many, but they don't really need to be ennumerated here.

The more important point is that the many Christian denominations out there have been instrumental in spreading the word about God and Christ. The last 1000 years mark a significant change in the world. There is virtually no person alive that hasn't heard of Christ, Christianity and the Judeo-Christian God. That is an extremely significant change in this world and their accomplishments should be celebrated and commended.

You have a most interesting view. The facts and conclusion you draw form in essence the reason the Pharisees and their tradition, they claimed to transcend 2000 years to Abraham, was opposed to Christ. Yet had it not been for the Pharisees and their tradition we would not have the Bible as we know it today.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I do not believe in such Great Apostasy, because, after careful consideration of early forms of christianity -or later developments-, it results that no actual orthodoxy existed in its 'own right' first of all. The interpretation and experience of Christ's teachings, were diverse from the very early stages in his own disciples. The very new testament, and the exegetical fights therein -among the very apostles-, is a topic in itself.

......

I believe your conclusion is flawed.

First off the teachings of Jesus were universal but hardly diverse. He targeted specifically the Jews and there is a great deal of documentation that indicates that he refused on several occasions to diversify his teachings to target any other group. However, he did indicate to his apostles that they would be the ones to take his gospel or “orthodoxy” to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. I submit that the “exegetical fights” as you call them among the apostles were nothing more than the expression of the “gospel of Christ” which is the “orthodoxy” of Jesus by the various apostles to the particular kith or kin to which the apostle was assigned.

Perhaps the most exaggerated “exegetical fights” among the apostles is epitomized in the writings of the apostle Paul that shepherded the gospel of Christ or “orthodoxy” in the transaction from a Jewish based view to a “Gentile” based view. All of which took place in cultures of antiquity.

The greatest surprise to me in your postings is you complete inability to see a need for apostles and prophets to shepherd the gospel of Christ or the “orthodoxy” of Christ through that vast changes in views as ancient societies evolved to modern societies. The fact that a gospel of Christ or orthodoxy of Christ is unrecognizable to you is the essence of proof that indeed there was and is still a Great Apostasy.

The Traveler

[Justice]

I do not believe in such Great Apostasy, because, after careful consideration of early forms of christianity -or later developments-, it results that no actual orthodoxy existed in its 'own right' first of all.

I've been thinking about this comment, and I'm still looking for the logic.

All that we're seeing is that some of the early Christians, even Apostles, were converted Jews. Others were not Jews before they were converted. Since Jesus was a Jew, and God's people were Jews, they mistakenly thought any converts needed to be converted to both.

First Gentile, then Jew, then Christian.

Heck, we even get it today, nearly 2,000 years later. Christians still haven't put to rest the issue of "works verse faith." The answer was clear then, and is clear now, to anyone who has ears to hear.

The Law of Works was in reference to the Law of Moses (circumcised).

The Law of Faith was in reference to belief in Christ (uncircumcised if a Gentile when converted).

NONE of the Apostles ever taught you did not need to work to be Christian.

Romans 3:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Gentile, then Christian.

Jew, then Christian.

All are Christian.

Period.

It's all a bunch of ado about nothing. Anyone that wants to complicate it beyond these words in Romans deserves to be confused IMO.

Most generally when the Apostles taught about works they were speaking about the works of the Law of Moses.

Hence: we are not saved by works, or we are not saved by the law.

Hence: we are saved through faith in Christ.

It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that we do not have to show good works to show we love Jesus Christ. Now, we agree that these works do not earn anyone salvation. That was accomplished by Jesus Christ. But, He said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. The reason we follow Christ and do His works is not to earn salvation, but to show our love and devotion to Him... and frankly, because it's what He taught us to do and we know it's the right thing to do. In fact, one devoid of these good works is a hypocrite if he claims to believe in Christ.

(I can show you all the New Testament scriptures to support all these statements)

Let's not forget He said that He will judge us by our works.

Of course there was orthodoxy. They just needed to teach people a new way... the way of Christ. It was not easy for all. Not all could accept it. But, the New Testament clearly teaches that there was orthodoxy. You can't draw the conclusion that there was none just because some had trouble accepting it.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Justice

[Hemidakota]

The prophets said there would be an apostasy. It happened. The length is something that we all may wonder about. However, it should not be a stumbling block. There are many things I don't understand fully. (parting of the red sea, Noah, etc) If there were easy answers to these things then would this life really be a test? I don't discourage the discussion of such however. Pondering these things is how we learn. But it is wise to develop a firm foundation......then trivial questions will remain interesting but still trivial.

The Church fell away. The Church was Restored. The Book of Mormon (and a thousand other things) along with the Holy Ghost strengthen my foundation and testimony in the Restoration.

Those alive during the "dark ages" were not blessed to have a prophet. Others throughout history were not as well. Many far reaching areas of the world still know nothing of prophets or apostles.....or Jesus for that matter. Does this mean we should throw Christianity out the window? For that matter, under that argument, we must throw out all religions. The only thing left would be Atheism. I've lived long enough and experienced enough in this life to conclude that Atheism is an unreasonable conclusion.

Indeed...... "Praise to the Man who Communed with Jehovah!" The long famine has ended......... never to return.

How would argue the fact against Islam [no prophet and the Apostacy]? Remember, before you lift the first finger to the keyboard, Moses received the priesthood outside the normal realm of 12-Tribe of Israel.

[Sergg]

I believe your conclusion is flawed.

First off the teachings of Jesus were universal but hardly diverse. He targeted specifically the Jews and there is a great deal of documentation that indicates that he refused on several occasions to diversify his teachings to target any other group. However, he did indicate to his apostles that they would be the ones to take his gospel or “orthodoxy” to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. I submit that the “exegetical fights” as you call them among the apostles were nothing more than the expression of the “gospel of Christ” which is the “orthodoxy” of Jesus by the various apostles to the particular kith or kin to which the apostle was assigned.

Perhaps the most exaggerated “exegetical fights” among the apostles is epitomized in the writings of the apostle Paul that shepherded the gospel of Christ or “orthodoxy” in the transaction from a Jewish based view to a “Gentile” based view. All of which took place in cultures of antiquity.

The greatest surprise to me in your postings is you complete inability to see a need for apostles and prophets to shepherd the gospel of Christ or the “orthodoxy” of Christ through that vast changes in views as ancient societies evolved to modern societies. The fact that a gospel of Christ or orthodoxy of Christ is unrecognizable to you is the essence of proof that indeed there was and is still a Great Apostasy.

The Traveler

1) I do not have an inability to 'see' a 'need' of prophets; I just do not have to accept such criteria (ultimately non hermeneutical), for I do not believe in 'G-d' nor his 'prophets'. I just see, and study this as a historical development, as nothing else. Hence my presupositions differ from yours. Mine stick around historiographical and hermeneutical criteria, yours around authority, revelation, and truth. The heterogeneity of my presupositions regarding yours does not constitute an 'inability', least of all a 'complete' inability to look seriously at this historical problem.

2) The teachings of a man that did not write anything at all, and whose teachings as early as his own time were seriously obscure(even to the apostles about whom Scripture much often repeats 'and they did not understand the meaning of this...') and further more between the last part of the 1st and 2nd centuries, many unreconcilable forms of christianity, with no more external (to the text) criteria than the internal fights over power, cannot, responsibly be called 'universal'. Please.

3) If indeed you think such things as that there exists documentation that proves your LDS teaching, bring it forth , or write a scholarly book. I'll be glad to read it, as I have been so glad to read many others in such respect.

4) As long as you speak of 'orthodoxy' as a proxy term of mine that can only be true of "Christ's truth" taken to the gentiles, and so forth, I can only tell you, that I wont go in there: you are not doing history anymore(which I am doing), you are doing mass-doctrine, in favour of the 'truth' of your Church. Therefore, my conclusions are not wrong because they are historically incorrect, but theologically wrong because they contradict your doctrinal standpoint. But I never intended(nor do) to enter a discussion on 'which' doctrine or christian point of view concerning this period is the 'true' one, for I do not believe in Christ nor a Church. I only care for the interesting and serious considerations of historical plausibility. And your doctrinal claim, in its content, is historically false. Though its spirit, is historically right.

There is no original -documented- 'christian' doctrine, innocent, pure, and later 'corrupted'. But early corruptions that later became even more corrupted. I have already given some of my bibliography. It speaks better than I. I cannot undergo here what took such books to communicate. It would not be responsible.

There was a 'falling away' from an original experience. The thing is that it was right there while Christ was already alive.

[Sergg]

I've been thinking about this comment, and I'm still looking for the logic.

All that we're seeing is that some of the early Christians, even Apostles, were converted Jews. Others were not Jews before they were converted. Since Jesus was a Jew, and God's people were Jews, they mistakenly thought any converts needed to be converted to both.

First Gentile, then Jew, then Christian.

Heck, we even get it today, nearly 2,000 years later. Christians still haven't put to rest the issue of "works verse faith." The answer was clear then, and is clear now, to anyone who has ears to hear.

The Law of Works was in reference to the Law of Moses (circumcised).

The Law of Faith was in reference to belief in Christ (uncircumcised if a Gentile when converted).

NONE of the Apostles ever taught you did not need to work to be Christian.

Romans 3:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Gentile, then Christian.

Jew, then Christian.

All are Christian.

Period.

It's all a bunch of ado about nothing. Anyone that wants to complicate it beyond these words in Romans deserves to be confused IMO.

Most generally when the Apostles taught about works they were speaking about the works of the Law of Moses.

Hence: we are not saved by works, or we are not saved by the law.

Hence: we are saved through faith in Christ.

It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that we do not have to show good works to show we love Jesus Christ. Now, we agree that these works do not earn anyone salvation. That was accomplished by Jesus Christ. But, He said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. The reason we follow Christ and do His works is not to earn salvation, but to show our love and devotion to Him... and frankly, because it's what He taught us to do and we know it's the right thing to do. In fact, one devoid of these good works is a hypocrite if he claims to believe in Christ.

(I can show you all the New Testament scriptures to support all these statements)

Let's not forget He said that He will judge us by our works.

Of course there was orthodoxy. They just needed to teach people a new way... the way of Christ. It was not easy for all. Not all could accept it. But, the New Testament clearly teaches that there was orthodoxy. You can't draw the conclusion that there was none just because some had trouble accepting it.

I win nothing by arguing with you about who's got 'new testament doctrine' more right. That's a fight that you, along with your church, have been entertaining with the rest of the christiandom. If you see it won by your side it is because you already take it for granted. Remember it was not by mere study but by spirit that 'witness' came to you of these things. Now, I am not operating on such dimension. For hermeneutical purposes, 'revelation' or 'witness of spirit' cannot take a role as historical criteria. it would be compromising and irresponsible. And I am neither.

Now, though even most serious and famous comentators on Paul's work disagree (or agree) over the possibility of a complete coherence of teachings and concepts in his work, we will take notice of New testament discordance. Peter already warns members of Paul's obscure and complicated way of teaching. Paul's core teachings, like for example, Romans 2, borrow from contemporary philosophical ethical thesis such as those of Stoicism. The theology of Paul is not from judaism. Nor was Paul's gospel 'the gospel', for insesantly he insists on preaching 'this gospel', 'his gospel', the 'gospel as delivered unto him' by a grace that older apostles did not entertain, because already at his time, and among the very bishops(see Acts, and the epistles of John) communities believed different 'gospels'. In fact, the most prominent exegetical proof that most of the early christian communities(let us not forget that there was not 'a' Church, but a system of varying communities, separate both in time and cultures) already believed at the start diverted theologies(for, accept it, even Paul's was still on the making) is that most letters of Paul are precisely attacks, reminders, and corrections because of some 'heresy' or 'bad work' entertained by the community in question.

The work of Nibley is admirable regarding this. Of all lds authors I know, he has been the most scholarly and objective. Knowing that is time that vindicates truth and not animosity. Mass-doctrine is suited for the convert. Historians, evidently, cannot be satisfied at that. If that were so, we would not have excavated Greece, or Israel, or Irak, to see if there was a flood, or residues of a 'Solomon's Temple', etc. We would have stoped at 'bearing witness to spirit' and write books based on that. Middle ages, again. But to do the contrary, is precisely to leave aside such conceptions(even if we hold them dear) in order to see things for what they are. And although 'things as what they are' is but objectivist illusion, a prudent detachment from preconceptions have always resulted in positive results. Again, the modality of truth is evidence (I am not only saying 'positive' evidence, but even in the sense of 'inner' consonance or witness as you takek it to be), and animosity binds it to a fall.

So, lets not confuse, that what i represent, over here, is the interest for historical, and hermeneutical excercise. Not that of 'truth-search' for the most compelling interpretation of christianity within the frame of the problem itself.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Sergg

[Traveler]

1) I do not have an inability to 'see' a 'need' of prophets; I just do not have to accept such criteria (ultimately non hermeneutical), for I do not believe in 'G-d' nor his 'prophets'. I just see, and study this as a historical development, as nothing else. Hence my presupositions differ from yours. Mine stick around historiographical and hermeneutical criteria, yours around authority, revelation, and truth. The heterogeneity of my presupositions regarding yours does not constitute an 'inability', least of all a 'complete' inability to look seriously at this historical problem.

2) The teachings of a man that did not write anything at all, and whose teachings as early as his own time were seriously obscure(even to the apostles about whom Scripture much often repeats 'and they did not understand the meaning of this...') and further more between the last part of the 1st and 2nd centuries, many unreconcilable forms of christianity, with no more external (to the text) criteria than the internal fights over power, cannot, responsibly be called 'universal'. Please.

3) If indeed you think such things as that there exists documentation that proves your LDS teaching, bring it forth , or write a scholarly book. I'll be glad to read it, as I have been so glad to read many others in such respect.

4) As long as you speak of 'orthodoxy' as a proxy term of mine that can only be true of "Christ's truth" taken to the gentiles, and so forth, I can only tell you, that I wont go in there: you are not doing history anymore(which I am doing), you are doing mass-doctrine, in favour of the 'truth' of your Church. Therefore, my conclusions are not wrong because they are historically incorrect, but theologically wrong because they contradict your doctrinal standpoint. But I never intended(nor do) to enter a discussion on 'which' doctrine or christian point of view concerning this period is the 'true' one, for I do not believe in Christ nor a Church. I only care for the interesting and serious considerations of historical plausibility. And your doctrinal claim, in its content, is historically false. Though its spirit, is historically right.

There is no original -documented- 'christian' doctrine, innocent, pure, and later 'corrupted'. But early corruptions that later became even more corrupted. I have already given some of my bibliography. It speaks better than I. I cannot undergo here what took such books to communicate. It would not be responsible.

There was a 'falling away' from an original experience. The thing is that it was right there while Christ was already alive.

Again I question your “historical” perspective. Since you do not believe that anything is divinely inspired I am quite confused that you think you have a dog to tout in this “apostasy” show.

However, I would submit that history does document change in the religious landscape of the Middle East beginning in the year 74 AD. Starting in 74 AD here was an extraordinary effort taking place in history to corrupt Jewish and Christian religious documents and alter the landscape concerning both forms of what was considered Jewish based ideology at the time. This is documented in the works of Josephus as well as the need to hide the Dead Sea Scrolls. Within 150 years of 74 AD we see efforts as far away as China that Jewish and Christian religious documents were being hidden to derail efforts there to destroy the text (the cave of the 1000 Buddha’s). We also have the destruction of the sacred text at the Alexandrian, Babylon and Persian libraries. Even the Koran documents a belief that Biblical texts had been corrupted as well as all the Jewish and Christian institutions.

Anyway I find your responses interesting that you do not believe there was any social or political movement to change Jewish and Christian traditions during this time period that, contrary to your opinion, are so well documented in history.

The Traveler

Edited January 23, 2009 by Traveler

[Sergg]

Again I question your “historical” perspective. Since you do not believe that anything is divinely inspired I am quite confused that you think you have a dog to tout in this “apostasy” show.

However, I would submit that history does document change in the religious landscape of the Middle East beginning in the year 74 AD. Starting in 74 AD here was an extraordinary effort taking place in history to corrupt Jewish and Christian religious documents and alter the landscape concerning both forms of what was considered Jewish based ideology at the time. This is documented in the works of Josephus as well as the need to hide the Dead Sea Scrolls. Within 150 years of 74 AD we see efforts as far away as China that Jewish and Christian religious documents were being hidden to derail efforts there to destroy the text (the cave of the 1000 Buddha’s). We also have the destruction of the sacred text at the Alexandrian, Babylon and Persian libraries. Even the Koran documents a belief that Biblical texts had been corrupted as well as all the Jewish and Christian institutions.

Anyway I find your responses interesting that you do not believe there was any social or political movement to change Jewish and Christian traditions during this time period that, contrary to your opinion, are so well documented in history.

The Traveler

Whose posts have you been reading? I stated clearly that such fundamental changes did happen. But again, they were originally multiple changes (directions, communities behind them, etc.) and not 'a catholic change', as many mormon missionaries devoid of history proclaim. Between 40 a.c.e. and 325 a.c.e. there occur a lot of political, scriptural, and philosophical changes within and outside of christendom. And I suggested books that actually (as any serious book on it) goes on exploring it clearly. But what neither I, nor many authors subscribe to (even Nibley!) was that there -as documents shed light- existed One True Theology of Christ that lasted (say what? 20-50 years according to the particular christian historical whim) little and suddenly a mass of bad, 'built-in-agenda-scribes' tainted with what later on became Catholicism took Scripture to alter it, and only it did all damage. That all first and second century 'heresies' (long before any catholicism) were diverted and misreadings of Christ and that -although they did damage-, it was the even larger Church of Catholicism that ultimately threw a shadow to the world of truth that lasted two millenia (of course, with 'G-d' having a purpose on it).

Now, that this occurs, does not mean that the changes were bad or 'false' in themselves. As you wouldnt call the Veda writters a misreading and heresy of the Upanishads. You would only call them that if you already -and aside of all historical consideration-, subscribed to one of them (as you do with lds theology). I recognize the changes; I do not recognize(how could I?) your description of it being a "going farther away from a christian Truth, that resembles 'almost certainly' nowadays mormon doctrine".

To that, I cannot subscribe.

And yes, I -or any other, can study a topic historically , or philosophically, or theologically, even if we do not subscribe to it. For we wouldnt be making claims on it from within(as a believer does) but from without. As such, it becomes even clearer. For , each time we find a 'hole' or a 'gap', we dont have to fill it with 'obscurity' or 'purpose'. We just underline the gap 'till another more bright and with more resources figures it out.

Its called discipline and intellectual honesty. To be unready to always have a response for every difficulty.

But I insist, I do not want to be dragged to your conversation. Yours goes around the 'question' of whether it*(the process) can be identified with the epic that corresponds to your Church's doctrine. That, is of no interest to me, but the fun and documentation of history.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Sergg

[livy111us]

Isaiah 5:2-6 tells us that why there needed to be an apostasy.

The Lord is speaking in these verses in a parable, the vineyard being Israel. He says after He has done all he can to help the vineyard flourish by continually caring for it, it still brings forth wild grapes. So, He has only one choice, and that answer is found in verse 5-6: " And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."

[Traveler]

Whose posts have you been reading? I stated clearly that such fundamental changes did happen. But again, they were originally multiple changes (directions, communities behind them, etc.) and not 'a catholic change', as many mormon missionaries devoid of history proclaim. Between 40 a.c.e. and 325 a.c.e. there occur a lot of political, scriptural, and philosophical changes within and outside of christendom. And I suggested books that actually (as any serious book on it) goes on exploring it clearly. But what neither I, nor many authors subscribe to (even Nibley!) was that there -as documents shed light- existed One True Theology of Christ that lasted (say what? 20-50 years according to the particular christian historical whim) little and suddenly a mass of bad, 'built-in-agenda-scribes' tainted with what later on became Catholicism took Scripture to alter it, and only it did all damage. That all first and second century 'heresies' (long before any catholicism) were diverted and misreadings of Christ and that -although they did damage-, it was the even larger Church of Catholicism that ultimately threw a shadow to the world of truth that lasted two millenia (of course, with 'G-d' having a purpose on it).

Now, that this occurs, does not mean that the changes were bad or 'false' in themselves. As you wouldnt call the Veda writters a misreading and heresy of the Upanishads. You would only call them that if you already -and aside of all historical consideration-, subscribed to one of them (as you do with lds theology). I recognize the changes; I do not recognize(how could I?) your description of it being a "going farther away from a christian Truth, that resembles 'almost certainly' nowadays mormon doctrine".

To that, I cannot subscribe.

And yes, I -or any other, can study a topic historically , or philosophically, or theologically, even if we do not subscribe to it. For we wouldnt be making claims on it from within(as a believer does) but from without. As such, it becomes even clearer. For , each time we find a 'hole' or a 'gap', we dont have to fill it with 'obscurity' or 'purpose'. We just underline the gap 'till another more bright and with more resources figures it out.

Its called discipline and intellectual honesty. To be unready to always have a response for every difficulty.

But I insist, I do not want to be dragged to your conversation. Yours goes around the 'question' of whether it*(the process) can be identified with the epic that corresponds to your Church's doctrine. That, is of no interest to me, but the fun and documentation of history.

I would grant to you that individuals and institutions have had influences that have altered “Christian” thought over the last 2000 years. What appears to me that you have missed in history is that the evolution of thought after say 800 AD appears (at least to me) to be more enlightened and beneficial to human society than what took place between 40 AD and 400 AD. For example the complete and utter destruction of the Alexandrian library appears to me to be one of the most devastatingly negative events of human history. And most of the enlightened and beneficial turn of things after 800 AD appear (at least to me) to be efforts to reengage thinking and behavior based on the remnants of understanding of what was considered the enlightened teachings of Christ dating back to pre 74 AD.

The view of LDS concerning the Great Apostasy is that there was something that began about 40 AD (or shortly before) and reached a climax around 400 AD. Also; that this Great Apostasy was not an isolated event unique to a limited geographical area but was global in scope. Interesting this time frame corresponds to the decline in the “Classic Era” in the Americas.

It is also interesting to me (concerning history) that all of the advances in our more recent society up to around 1830 were all previously known in ancient history. For example the knowledge of math and physics such as wave lengths of light and calculations of the movements of celestial bodies was as well known or better known in 2200 BC in ancient Egypt and 400 BC among the Mayan. Why did human society take a 2000+ year sabbatical in advancing human knowledge?

The Traveler

Edited January 24, 2009 by Traveler

[Sergg]

I would grant to you that individuals and institutions have had influences that have altered “Christian” thought over the last 2000 years. What appears to me that you have missed in history is that the evolution of thought after say 800 AD appears (at least to me) to be more enlightened and beneficial to human society than what took place between 40 AD and 400 AD. For example the complete and utter destruction of the Alexandrian library appears to me to be one of the most devastatingly negative events of human history. And most of the enlightened and beneficial turn of things after 800 AD appear (at least to me) to be efforts to reengage thinking and behavior based on the remnants of understanding of what was considered the enlightened teachings of Christ dating back to pre 74 AD.

The view of LDS concerning the Great Apostasy is that there was something that began about 40 AD (or shortly before) and reached a climax around 400 AD. Also; that this Great Apostasy was not an isolated event unique to a limited geographical area but was global in scope. Interesting this time frame corresponds to the decline in the “Classic Era” in the Americas.

It is also interesting to me (concerning history) that all of the advances in our more recent society up to around 1830 were all previously known in ancient history. For example the knowledge of math and physics such as wave lengths of light and calculations of the movements of celestial bodies was as well known or better known in 2200 BC in ancient Egypt and 400 BC among the Mayan. Why did human society take a 2000+ year sabbatical in advancing human knowledge?

The Traveler

Well that's not for a historian to answer, but for a preacher with a peculiar view of history.

As long as I can extend judgement without irresponsibly committing to either mormonism or antimormonism, I can acknowledge changes in historical, theological, and political Europe from 100 a.c.e. and 1500 a.c.e. But I cannot reasonably adscribe a CAUSE or PURPOSE to this. History encloses no purpose. And periods of great 'turning-back' happen throughout all historical development since the upper paleolithic. Two similar periods occured during the Mesolithic and Neolithic era. But again, you pretend that those cultures either didnt existed or were not part of our 35,000-years-ago residence on earth: for you believe (or am I wrong?) in creation at 4000a.e.c.(so it can add to a whole 7 dispensation periods of 1000years each- at least, thats your 'Church manuals' theology).

And no, neither Egypt nor the Mayas ( coming rather lately in mesoamerican development, you may have meant the Toltects or if we streatch it a bit, the Incas) did not know such things as 'wave lenthes of light'. What ancient cultures did know, remains in the most obscure by the paradoxical absense of documentation but simultaneous presence of great archeological works. What does remain, speaks of great observance of the skies, especially in the Inca tradition. Great meassurings of calendar-purposes(as in the Maya), great advances in engineering(Romans), great thought(Greeks), great coming-to-politics(Sumer), etc. But most of these episodes did not coincide as to make it a 'stable development of mankind suddenly interrupted by a most 'spoken-about' disposition of a G-d'. The only series of great transformations that coincided in time were those described by Armstrong in The Great Transformation among others of lesser repercusion.

Nobody took a sabbatical at knowledge. Mostly because knowledge is a social phenomenon, and varies. But second and most importantly because bewteen , say, 200a.c.e. and 500 a.c.e., I dont know if you know, but the whole of Roman Empire was going through invasions that actually resulted in its decadence and fall. And meanwhile, at such politcial times of peril, WHY whould have ANY empire turn itself to 'right thinking'? We might as well mention how the Mayas(so romantically believed by mormons) at various times out of nothing and suddenly stopped every development,m dispersed and abandones and burned their own cities, going back to tribal experience, just to a 100 years later come back again together and build a brillian Empire again! This also happens in Sumer. The fact is, that between 100 and 500 a.e.c. there was a political disturbance in Europe, that resulted in the dispersion of a great Empire. A thing to take into notice, when judging the 'desire for truth' of people needing to survive. A similar thing also happens 1500 b.c.e. with the Thera explosion; one that itself eliminates civilizations and rearranges evrything in the Mediterranean circumsference. It actually starts the nomadic movements with which will also join the hebrews.

And, at any rate, your Church manuals and doctrine(and most reknowned apostle-writers) do not think that the great Apostasy lasted between 40a.c.e. and 800 a.c.e., but almost two thousand years, from 100 a.c.e. to 1822a.c.e. Joseph Smith believed that not only the upper classic period(300-800) but the whole medieval era(500-1400), the renascense(1300-1600), the Reformation(1500), the Enlightment(1600-1800) ALL with their coming into truths, were part of an Apostasy. And with that I most certainly disagree. For none of those periods were periods of 'absence of progress', but to the contrary.

But on no historical basis do we seriously agree on human 'historical development' being uniform, sublime, 'ever-reaching-new-knowledge', 'progressive', up to such christian 'predicted' 'Apostasy'. To reach that conclusion we would have to already agree on believing Lds theology, or any other external and faith-required criteria as to guide(lets not say 'cloud', for although almost always it becomes that, sometimes it actually sheds light) our judgement while doing research.

Now, just accept the fact that between us two, only you have taken that second step; and the fact that I do not, doesnt mean that I 'miss' things, but that you see more things there where neither i nor anyone that hasnt taken the second step does.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Sergg

[Maya]

I think we also have to remember the work that is done in the Temples for the dead. As this work is done everyone will at the end have the same possibility to choose weather they lived during the dark days or Jesus time or now. I dont think it really matters/mattered then, as no one had the real gospel anyway. However it is a lot different today, as today we have the gospel here and at least someone will get the chanse to hear it. I stil think that even those that dont want to hear it and dont get babtised will get a chanse later unless they fight against Holy Spirit. ONLY those that KNOWing that LDS is right FIGHT against it, they dont get a chanse to choose later.

Maybe it that if the JC Church would have survived without apostasy had not been good for us. God sends us here to learn. We all have different things we need to learn. Some of us needed to learn to live in the world without gospel some again needed the gospel in their world. Some of us are here today, so we could learn to choose to see differences and to learn to make right choises.

God dont play favorites! I think it may even be so that we are sent to the most difficult situations in this world to try us to teach us. How many of us wish to have been born in a good LDS family and how many of us including myself finds themselves alone in the world and often making the same mistakes as the parents did. I dont believe God plays favorites I dont believe that LDS familymembers are together because they were so good in the early exictence. They are together, as there is something they need to learn. Fex to stand on their own feet, to find their own faith and not conviently hang on the parents one, as whenn the days get worse like today... it wont hold!

But I do believe some of us are driven together according to a promise made a long time a go somewher else. Like I am sure I seen the cliffs where my husband was living his childhood, before I ever sat my foot there. I am sure I seen certain people before... they just feel so known.. like I always had known them. And I believe we were given tasks before entering here. And I believe we are beeing blessed according. You ever had a feeling there is someone, somewhere out there, you have promised to find and help back??

I think the Templework gives more light and understnding to this dilemma.

[Onetimequestion]

I would say that the non-LDS religions and denominations logic is at least understandable, though misguided. It runs something like this:

Fact 1: There are no living Apostles and Prophets around anymore and there haven't been for many centuries.

Fact 2: There is no additional scripture being written and there hasn't been for those same many centuries.

Conclusions: This is the way God intended it, the scriptural record is closed to any further additions and we have all the light we need.

Obviously, we do not agree with their conclusions here. The holes and flaws with this conclusion are many, but they don't really need to be ennumerated here.

The more important point is that the many Christian denominations out there have been instrumental in spreading the word about God and Christ. The last 1000 years mark a significant change in the world. There is virtually no person alive that hasn't heard of Christ, Christianity and the Judeo-Christian God. That is an extremely significant change in this world and their accomplishments should be celebrated and commended.

Actually, this isn't true at all. Many people in the Christian world still believe in Apostles and prophets. It's a large non-denominational movement called the five-fold ministry.

And don't generalize other religions beliefs. Not all of them are the same.

Also, they don't see it as "we have all we need." They see it as, through the spirit we can know all things. They have more faith than most LDS.