When was the Apostasy?

[Snirilla]

Hello, does the Church have any "official" standpoint on when the apostasy happened?

I get the impression many LDS think it happened very early, as soon as all the apostles had died? But didnt they pass the teachings on to any worthy new disciples of their own? Did it really end so soon??

Other say it was in the 4th century AD when Christianity became official state religion of the roman empire, first council of Nicea, etc?

[HiJolly]

Someone will probably post a link, but I rarely bother. Sorry.

AFAIK, the apostasy began before the Apostles were killed. Note the letters from the Apostles to the different congregations of the early church often addressed false beliefs in the various congregations.

So it was a mix for the first several decades. I'd say by the 4th century, the institutional apostasy was a lock. But I don't think there ever was or ever has been a complete *personal* apostasy.

HiJolly

[Still_Small_Voice]

According to what I have found it was around 70 to 300 A.D. in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Read what James Talmage says on page 746 of Jesus The Christ:

When Constantine the Great came to the throne in the first quarter of the fourth century, a radical change was inaugurated in the attitude of the state toward the church. The emperor straightway made the so-called Christianity of the time the religion of his realm; and zealous devotion to the church became the surest recommendation to imperial favor. But the church was already in great measure an apostate institution and even in crude outline of organization and service bore but remote resemblance to the Church of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior and builded through the instrumentality of the apostles. Whatever vestiges of genuine Christianity may have possibly survived in the church before, were buried beyond the sight of man by the abuses that followed the elevation of the churchly organization to secular favor through the decree of Constantine.

[uniderth]

I think we often make the mistake of looking at the apostasy as an on/off event. It wasn't. The apostasy is based on the individual beliefs and practices of every member in the entire church. It is a fluid and dynamic event. We can point to certain teachings and recognize it as an apostate teaching but there is no exact date when everything suddenly went dark. Even today many churches descended from the ancient Christian Church contain truth.

[mrmarklin]

The event that culminated in the apostasy was when the keys of the priesthood disappeared. Clearly that happened when the apostles could no longer gather a quorum due to separation and/or death.

Once the keys of the priesthood were gone, no one had the legitimate right to confer bishoprics etc on to successors.

I don't think we know the date of that "event".

[bytebear]

It was a transition of power from apostles to bishops until the Pope (a bishop) ended up replacing the head apostle (Peter) and the first presidency (Peter, James, John). There probably was a time when apostles were being replaced, but it seems to me that the power shifted quickly since we have no real record of succession of apostles.

[bytebear]

Did anyone watch Jeopardy today? The Final Jeopardy was "The Catholic and Eastern churches split in 1024 when the Pope and the Patriarch did this to each other. It was reversed in 1964." The answer was, they excommunicated each other.

[rameumptom]

The Apostasy was not a one-moment event. It was gradual over centuries. It was more prominent in some areas than others. Various things occurred to move the apostasy along.

That said, LDS often think that the apostasy was a 100% absolute apostasy. It wasn't. Instead, it was (for the most part) akin to the Israelites in Moses' day. They rejected the Melchizedek Priesthood and were left with the Aaronic Priesthood and the Terrestrial Law of Moses (D&C 84:19-26). So it was with Christianity. They retained the Bible, the commandments, and a desire to follow God. They had enough to be saved in heaven (at least the Terrestrial Kingdom), but did not have the priesthood authority and power, ordinances and covenants necessary for exaltation.

[Blackmarch]

Hello, does the Church have any "official" standpoint on when the apostasy happened?

I get the impression many LDS think it happened very early, as soon as all the apostles had died? But didnt they pass the teachings on to any worthy new disciples of their own? Did it really end so soon??

Other say it was in the 4th century AD when Christianity became official state religion of the roman empire, first council of Nicea, etc?

It was happening before the apostles died. The beginning of the end was when the apostles all died, and things went down hill from there.

Can we find a definitive line and say "so and so was the last peron who had the authority and did not lose it to unrightiousness"? no i doubt we can. However a study of history can show us that the by certain dates the church had been corrupted and etc..

TO edcit if you want a 'for absolutely sure' type date i'd have to go with Joseph Smith's visitation experience.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Blackmarch

[phi39]

"They retained the Bible, the commandments, and a desire to follow God. They had enough to be saved in heaven (at least the Terrestrial Kingdom), but did not have the priesthood authority and power, ordinances and covenants necessary for exaltation." -rameumptom

The BoM also says that many things were taken out of the Bible. My question related to the apostasy is about logistics: how would that removal have happened, and what might have been the content of the things lost?

I raise that because last semester I finished my second (and probably last) semester of Greek. We spent a fair amount of time studying and reading about how the NT text was transmitted to us and how to determine the best reading when there are variants to choose from. One thing became clear: as the books of the NT were written and went into circulation they went "viral." It was haphazard at best, and that was the saving grace. If anyone or group actually tried to change or erase parts of the NT they could never track down all the random copies. Likewise, if mistakes crept in there were always better renderings elsewhere. So how did we loose those "plain and precious truths" that would have shown us the way to the celestial kingdom?

[carlimac]

I'm left to wonder why the apostasy (I'm referring to the loss of priesthood authority) was allowed to occur. Why didn't the apostles simply pass it down (or across) to someone to preserve it? The way it is disseminated in a patriarchal line today from father to son(s) and really in every direction as every worthy man can receive it, why didn't that happen with the original apostles? Any ideas?

I have Catholic friends who vehemently disagree with us that an apostasy ever happened or that the any line of authority was ever broken. I don't know how to clearly explain it to them. I'ld like some help with this.

Edited March 2, 2012 by carlimac

[uniderth]

Who says they didn't pass it on? John was still alive. Priesthood power would become invalidated over time when the ordinances were changed by the institutional church.

The three Nephites were another group that would have possessed the priesthood. The Jews would still have had the Levitical Priesthood.

Priesthood is only PART of the apostasy equation. We oversimplify it by saying Apostles killed = Priesthood lost = Apostasy.

[the_last_gunslinger]

There's also the notion of Priesthood keys, the right to organize the true church. I think it's conceivable that some may have had the priesthood, but did not possess the keys to organize the church or act in a prophetic calling. So they may have still retained their authority, but with no direction, or "permission" it was essentially pointless.

[Blackmarch]

"They retained the Bible, the commandments, and a desire to follow God. They had enough to be saved in heaven (at least the Terrestrial Kingdom), but did not have the priesthood authority and power, ordinances and covenants necessary for exaltation." -rameumptom

The BoM also says that many things were taken out of the Bible. My question related to the apostasy is about logistics: how would that removal have happened, and what might have been the content of the things lost?

I raise that because last semester I finished my second (and probably last) semester of Greek. We spent a fair amount of time studying and reading about how the NT text was transmitted to us and how to determine the best reading when there are variants to choose from. One thing became clear: as the books of the NT were written and went into circulation they went "viral." It was haphazard at best, and that was the saving grace. If anyone or group actually tried to change or erase parts of the NT they could never track down all the random copies. Likewise, if mistakes crept in there were always better renderings elsewhere. So how did we loose those "plain and precious truths" that would have shown us the way to the celestial kingdom?

the loss or removal would most likely have happened as translators tried to make what they read and what they believed match a little better to their understanding./. loss and/or destruction of both church populace and material by antagonistic parties pre constantine, of material not deemed doctrine by the councils post constantine.

It must also be remembered that the bible was not compiled as the bible until far later and the what composes the "books" were seperate. as you say many of the writings went viral.. and as much as that was a saving grace it was also a stumbling block- for along with them were many other writings (many which were not taught or written by the apostles or early church leaders but were claimed to have been), as well as when something goes viral especially in writing or by word of mouth it does not remain exactly the same everywhere, and without a complete original there isn't a super reliable backup to go to. Sure you can more likely get a better gist of something by going with a general majority but thats not a 100% assurance. Nor did every document composing the bible get equally promulgated throughout the various populations.... and thats for only the stuff that got preserved.

What's said or aggravating that from the new testament there is really only 4 documents that are written as something meant for everyone, where as the rest are letters dealing with specific situations with specific parts of the early church... and in many cases we don't have the letters they were responding to.

[carlimac]

Who says they didn't pass it on? John was still alive. Priesthood power would become invalidated over time when the ordinances were changed by the institutional church.

The three Nephites were another group that would have possessed the priesthood. The Jews would still have had the Levitical Priesthood.

Priesthood is only PART of the apostasy equation. We oversimplify it by saying Apostles killed = Priesthood lost = Apostasy.

See this is what I'm trying to figure out. My friends from other religions argue the same thing and say there was no need for a restoration. It's so complicated!

[clevermoniker]

You will never be able to explain this to a Catholic. They still believe that they are the true church, the very same church founded at the time of Christ. If their Pope's have always had the proper authority, then there would be no reason for a restoration.

[carlimac]

'Fraid so. But I do know several people personally who left their strict Catholic upbringing to join the church. Not that I'm trying to convert them. Just having conversations- amicable ones.

[carlimac]

You will never be able to explain this to a Catholic. They still believe that they are the true church, the very same church founded at the time of Christ. If their Pope's have always had the proper authority, then there would be no reason for a restoration.

'Fraid so. But I do know several people personally who left their strict Catholic upbringing to join the church. Not that I'm trying to convert them. Just having conversations- amicable ones.

[Still_Small_Voice]

This bothers me somewhat. When I hear of people in the church talking about the corruption and how unreliable the Bible is.

The New Testament is very reliable. Almost all information in it is correct. If you read 1 Nephi chapter 13 verses 24-29 it talks about truth being removed from the Bible.

The most precious of all truths removed from the Old Testament are those regarding Jesus Christ.

The following was written in the Church News, January 22, 1966 which I am only going to partially quote:

“If we had the Old Testament as it was originally written, mankind would have a most powerful—an infallible—witness that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Christ . . . The witness for Christ was the most important thing in that ancient record, and that is what was eliminated by the enemies of Christ who sought to destroy all scriptural marks of identification which might have clearly identified Him as the Savior of the world.”

There are some plain prophecies of Christ that remain in the Old Testament but most were removed (see Psalm chapter 22 and Isaiah chapter 53)

A few of the Old Testament texts were corrupted, but it is not what is there that is the problem. It is more of what has been removed in the Bible that causes so many to stumble. And I would even go further in saying that people just do not read the Bible anymore at large. That is the main problem.

[clevermoniker]

"as far as it is translated correctly"... tells us that it's not.

The fact is, it is full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Entire books were taken out of it. We still do not know which Apocryphal books are "gospel".

[trubludru]

See this is what I'm trying to figure out. My friends from other religions argue the same thing and say there was no need for a restoration. It's so complicated!

A lot has to do with their background, etc. It is tough topic to delve into because their are so many different things that play into why people don't see a need for a restoration. I don't presume to speak for anyone but it seems from what I know most Protestants come from a grace through belief/faith background so the importance of Priesthood authority is a bit of an enigma to them because the ordinaces and authority of the priesthood are not seen as necessary. Any ordinances they do participate in seem to be more of reaffirming of their faith rather then necessary.

Catholics on the other hand I think see themselves as the constant, original church, and since they have been around from the beginning of Christianity then how could they be lacking the necessary Priesthood authority, especially when they are the group of Christians that has maintained a Priesthood hierarchy for a couple of thousand of years. Unfortunately there seems to be a disconnect even if the local Bishop of Rome was called as a Bishop by Peter that didn't make him and Apostle and from what I understand it was at least a couple of hundred years down the road before the Bishop of Rome claimed or assumed the leadership of the Christian/Catholic church as a whole.

I once did a fair amount of reading on the Apostasy but as many people have said it is tough to pin down exactly what or when the original church switched from the being the "true" church to an "apostatized" church. It is obvious from the various New Testament epistles that it was difficult to maintain correct doctrine in the Church for the Apostles. So yes as the Apostles were killed and unable to gather as quorum with the authority to ordain new apostles it became an increasingly uphill battle. I think it is likely that different groups in different areas held onto the original teachings for varying amounts of time. From what I read it seems one of the major signs/symptoms of Apostasy began occuring by the 100s, the mode of Baptism and truths taught about it began to change as the local Priesthood leadership died or apostatized and there was nobody left with the authority to correct the changes in the ordinaces and doctrines that were introduced intentionally or by mistake or call new leaders with the proper Priesthood keys to lead.

Anecdoctally, on my mission I was in a town were I jokingly say, "The Church was almost true" not disparingly but due to the simple fact that it was fairly isolated and due to a lack stable members a few longtime church members ended up serving in leadership positions for extended periods of time in the branch. While they did their best it seemed like there was a fair amount of "quirkiness" due to the large influence their personalities and strengths and weaknesses had on the branch. While I was there a new stake was created in the mission and the branch ended up being transferred to a different stake from the one it had been in. I noticed it seemed like once the new stake leadership had visited the branch a couple of times after the switch to become familiar with members there, they quickly made an effort to visit nearly every week despite it being quite out of the way ( I suspect to provide some much needed guidance and training).

[Still_Small_Voice]

"as far as it is translated correctly"... tells us that it's not.

The fact is, it is full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Entire books were taken out of it. We still do not know which Apocryphal books are "gospel".

I know several passages in the New Testament that are wrong, but in my studies of the New Testament I have found it to be very reliable. What verses do you know about that are wrong?

A few I can name off the top of my head are:

John 1:18

I John 4:12

Romans 4:4-5

Romans 7:24-25

The New Testament is very reliable but incomplete.

[bytebear]

"as far as it is translated correctly"... tells us that it's not.

The fact is, it is full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Entire books were taken out of it. We still do not know which Apocryphal books are "gospel".

I've always taken "translated" to mean "interpreted" The translation may be accurate, but the interpretation is where things start going off the rails. Also, Joseph Smith's Translation (JST) was an inspired interpretation, not a literal translation. The Book of Moses was a revelation of scripture, not a restoration of text.

But as someone said, the apostasy isn't about lost scripture, but about lost priesthood keys. The bishops (pope) took over the church(es) and essentially split into western and eastern wings, and apostles disappeared. It would be akin to the current apostles all dying and the Stake Presidents took over (which is how we did get many of the Mormon splinter groups). But even if these splinter groups or any group for that matter had the exact same doctrines and rituals of the LDS Church, they would still be non-binding because priesthood authority was not present. The story of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John literally laying their hands on the head of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry is to me one of the most powerful truths of this church.

[Dravin]

I've always taken "translated" to mean "interpreted" The translation may be accurate, but the interpretation is where things start going off the rails. Also, Joseph Smith's Translation (JST) was an inspired interpretation, not a literal translation. The Book of Moses was a revelation of scripture, not a restoration of text.

I too am inclined to allow translated to have elements of interpreted particularly as it pertains to truths being lost. Consider for example how LDS and mainstream Christians can point to the same verses to support opposed doctrines. By the time the Bible reached the new world with the prevailing interpretation of the people it can be said it lost the truth of doctrine X.

[uniderth]

I've always taken "translated" to mean "interpreted" The translation may be accurate, but the interpretation is where things start going off the rails. Also, Joseph Smith's Translation (JST) was an inspired interpretation, not a literal translation. The Book of Moses was a revelation of scripture, not a restoration of text.

I think this is a great line of thinking as interpretation is one reason why we needed the Book of Mormon. On points where the Book of Mormon and Bible directly textually support each other we can be sure that we have the correct interpretation.

But as someone said, the apostasy isn't about lost scripture, but about lost priesthood keys. The bishops (pope) took over the church(es) and essentially split into western and eastern wings, and apostles disappeared. It would be akin to the current apostles all dying and the Stake Presidents took over...

Could be, however in the ancient church not all the apostles died. John was still alive. In the new world the three Nephites were still alive. So the keys were not taken from the earth. But as I said earlier it is not simply priesthood keys it is also correct teachings and ordinances. Ordinances became corrupted as they were changed. Any time an ordinance is changed from its original form it is corrupted.

Certain churches likes to use certain writings over others. Thus they could use some writings to support certain interpretations over others.

We can also point to the acceptance of Christianity as the official religion of Rome. Christianity became perverted by being combined with existing Pagan cults. It was also enslaved to the Roman government. Thus Rome became the head of the church rather than Christ.

(which is how we did get many of the Mormon splinter groups). But even if these splinter groups or any group for that matter had the exact same doctrines and rituals of the LDS Church, they would still be non-binding because priesthood authority was not present.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. We didn't get Mormon splinter groups because all of the leadership died. Rather it was Joseph and Hyrum who were killed. By that time Joseph had given the title of prophet(not President of the Church) to Hyrum and Joseph had taken on the title of Priest and King. With both of them dead it presented a unique difficulty for the church.

There were, in fact, many people Joseph Smith had appointed to succeed him.

Sidney Rigdon was the last survivor in the First Presidency. Thus this presiding quorum was not entirely lost.

Joseph Smith III was appointed multiple times by Joseph Smith, Jr to be his successor. However at the time of Joseph's death his son was too young to lead the church. Multiple groups even Brigham's group believed Joseph III would eventually lead the church. The only reason he didn't become leader of the Brighamite group(that's us by the way) is because Emma and her children refused to join because of plural marriage.

Brigham Young claimed that the Quorum of the Twelve should lead the church. It wasn't until they reached Utah and he changed his mind and organized a First Presidency with himself as president. He did this without the vote of the church.

My favorite is James Strang, James Strang claimed to receive a letter from Joseph Smith which he interpreted as appointing him to lead the church. Also James claimed that angelic messengers ordained him to be President of the Church right after Joseph died. But that's not the interesting part. What is interesting is the James seemed to possess all that same gifts that Joseph did. Not only did James operate as a prophet, seer, and revelator; but as a translator. He claimed to have translated a record of "Rajah Manchou of Vorito" It is a small set of plates. Later he claimed to have translated the "Book of the Law of the Lord" from the brass plates.

Out of all of these I think they each have equally valid claims on leadership. I personally believe that all are valid successors and instead of breaking apart the church should have remained together. But instead of trying to function together many men wanted to grab for power. The puzzle pieces fit together.

Sidny Rigdon would have remained in the First Presidency. James Strang would have taken on the role as President of the Church until Joseph III was old enough. Brigham would have continued to lead the Twelve(remember the Twelve are equal in authority to the First Presidency, but are not allowed to administer in Stakes of Zion only in stakes scattered abroad).

It is interesting that in real history James Strang died just a few years before Joseph Smith III received revelation to take leadership of the Church.

For further evidence of the validity of all the claims I point to this:

D&C 38:27

27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

What was the parable that was given? It came in the preceding verse 26:

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

In this parable we learn of a man with twelve sons. All of the sons are of the man are obedient to him. Is the man just if he tells one of the obedient sons to be clothed in robes and sit here; but then tells another obedient son the be clothed in rags and sit there?

The point being made that if the church breaks up(or some other situation which causes the church to no longer "be one") and each branch obeys God; then in order for God to be just he must respect them all equally cloth them with robes and command them to sit "here"(presumably next to Him). Or he must reject them all cloth them in rags and command them to sit "there".

But wouldn't this create a lot of confusion? Who could we look to as the proper successor? Exactly! That's why the church is commanded to be one.

Well, I apologize for going off topic. Please don't look upon this as an attack on anyone. I just love research into the succession crisis and I hate seeing these other branches of the church who are our brothers and sisters getting the short end of the stick.

The story of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John literally laying their hands on the head of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry is to me one of the most powerful truths of this church.

Yes, it is powerful. But lets not forget the history of many righteous branches of the church who were called to independent of existing church leadership(Lehi, Alma, Jesus, etc.)

Matthew 3:7-9

7 ¶But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

To tie this back to the apostasy it is not enough to have claims to priesthood. There must be correct practices and ordinances(verse 8). Even if a group has all the correct priesthood but are not correctly practicing the ordinances then it is just as bad as not having priesthood.