The Great Apostasy

[Holly3278]

Can someone please help me to understand the Great Apostasy. How long did it last? Also, is there any historical evidence of a Great Apostasy?

[Latter Days Guy]

Can someone please help me to understand the Great Apostasy. How long did it last? Also, is there any historical evidence of a Great Apostasy?

The great apostasy lasted from the death of the last of the apostles until the restoration of the church in 1830. Some would say that the various reformations etc were indications that the church was in apostasy and needed reforming to get it back to the original church. We LDS would say that it would need more than a reformation but a restoration of the church to bring it back to the original church of the new testament times.

One thing I've wondered about myself is the removal of the priesthood keys etc. at the death of the last apostles. Didn't the priesthood keys remain on earth after this time with them being held by the three Nephites who were not to taste death until Jesus returned? I've not really looked into these three and only remember them now because I've just re-read 3 and 4 Nephi.

[Dr T]

You are asking LDS to show proof of a complete apostasy. I'm not LDS so take this with a grain of salt (where does that phrase come from? Maureen can you help me with that one?) but from what I know, the belief is that when the apostles died, there was an absence of authority on Earth until the authority was imparted to Joseph Smith. There has to be a laying on of hands for that "authority" to be passed on in the LDS belief system. Joseph was charged with the task of restoring the church. I suppose they hold that there was not a passing down of the "church authority" until then. I think your question is a good one. What have you all learned about this apostasy issue? From what do you base that belief? If there is more to it I'd like to hear it.

Thanks you,

Dr. T

I wrote this and then walked away. When I returned I saw I didn't send it. It should have been the 2nd post. Sorry if it is repetitive.

[Holly3278]

You are asking LDS to show proof of a complete apostasy. I'm not LDS so take this with a grain of salt (where does that phrase come from? Maureen can you help me with that one?) but from what I know, the belief is that when the apostles died, there was an absence of authority on Earth until the authority was imparted to Joseph Smith. There has to be a laying on of hands for that "authority" to be passed on in the LDS belief system. Joseph was charged with the task of restoring the church. I suppose they hold that there was not a passing down of the "church authority" until then. I think your question is a good one. What have you all learned about this apostasy issue? From what do you base that belief? If there is more to it I'd like to hear it.

Thanks you,

Dr. T

I wrote this and then walked away. When I returned I saw I didn't send it. It should have been the 2nd post. Sorry if it is repetitive.

I'd also like to hear more about this.

[Latter Days Guy]

Here is a site with further information on the subject.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai016.html

[Holly3278]

Here is a site with further information on the subject.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai016.html

Thank you.

[Traveler]

Can someone please help me to understand the Great Apostasy. How long did it last? Also, is there any historical evidence of a Great Apostasy?

One thing I think of concerning Apostasy and restoration is that sometimes we cannot isolate all things to a specific time - Like Wednesday afternoon September 8, 0074 AD. the Apostasy began. We see the seeds of apostasy being planted even while Jesus was alive. Likewise the restoration did not all take place with Joseph Smith. There were many "reformers" during hundreds of years preparing and in the same manner there is yet much to be done to restore the kingdom of G-d and the return of Jesus as the king.

With that said there are mile stones. Some of the milestones in history that I see of the Apostasy is the event of the destruction of the Library at Alexandria. This event destroyed the most accurate copies of the Old and New Testament scriptures and started the western world in the era known as the “Dark Ages”. Another milestone of Apostasy was Charlemagne and his purges of the pagans of northern Europe that brought more death than the Black Plague.

I believe some of the milestones in the restoration was the first printing of an English translation of the Christian Bible along with the concept of the common people reading scriptures. I also believe the Freedom of Religion act of 1649 that outlawed death as a punishment for not believing the dominate religion (though it would be 200 years before this included non-Trinitarian religions) was a major milestone in Wester society. Some other milestones was the restoration of the Book of Mormon and the same and offices and authority of the Priesthoods held by the Apostles. Another is the dedication by a modern Apostle of the holy land for the return of Israel and the return of Jews to the middle east as a nation.

Milestones I am looking for to yet happen is the sending of missionaries to the middle East and the building of a temple in Jerusalem.

The Traveler

[Holly3278]

<div class='quotemain'>

Can someone please help me to understand the Great Apostasy. How long did it last? Also, is there any historical evidence of a Great Apostasy?

One thing I think of concerning Apostasy and restoration is that sometimes we cannot isolate all things to a specific time - Like Wednesday afternoon September 8, 0074 AD. the Apostasy began. We see the seeds of apostasy being planted even while Jesus was alive. Likewise the restoration did not all take place with Joseph Smith. There were many "reformers" during hundreds of years preparing and in the same manner there is yet much to be done to restore the kingdom of G-d and the return of Jesus as the king.

With that said there are mile stones. Some of the milestones in history that I see of the Apostasy is the event of the destruction of the Library at Alexandria. This event destroyed the most accurate copies of the Old and New Testament scriptures and started the western world in the era known as the "Dark Ages". Another milestone of Apostasy was Charlemagne and his purges of the pagans of northern Europe that brought more death than the Black Plague.

I believe some of the milestones in the restoration was the first printing of an English translation of the Christian Bible along with the concept of the common people reading scriptures. I also believe the Freedom of Religion act of 1649 that outlawed death as a punishment for not believing the dominate religion (though it would be 200 years before this included non-Trinitarian religions) was a major milestone in Wester society. Some other milestones was the restoration of the Book of Mormon and the same and offices and authority of the Priesthoods held by the Apostles. Another is the dedication by a modern Apostle of the holy land for the return of Israel and the return of Jews to the middle east as a nation.

Milestones I am looking for to yet happen is the sending of missionaries to the middle East and the building of a temple in Jerusalem.

The Traveler

Don't Mormons believe that there was a complete apostasy by the time the apostles had died or do they believe that the apostasy was gradual?

[Traveler]

Don't Mormons believe that there was a complete apostasy by the time the apostles had died or do they believe that the apostasy was gradual?

There was an apostasy from authority but there was apostasy from more than just the authority. Mostly we understand that authority was taken from the earth piece by piece as apostles died (or otherwise removed from the society of man) that were not replaced. But there were still others that had authority given to them by the apostles - since they did not have authority to pass priesthood offices on to others without the Apostles the structure and methods of the kingdom was doomed with the loss of the Apostles. However, the authority was not completly lost until the last priesthood holder ordained under the Apostles also died. This could take several years and today we have no idea who the last priesthood holder was - It might have been a man known as Moroni.

The Traveler

[Holly3278]

<div class='quotemain'>

Don't Mormons believe that there was a complete apostasy by the time the apostles had died or do they believe that the apostasy was gradual?

There was an apostasy from authority but there was apostasy from more than just the authority. Mostly we understand that authority was taken from the earth piece by piece as apostles died (or otherwise removed from the society of man) that were not replaced. But there were still others that had authority given to them by the apostles - since they did not have authority to pass priesthood offices on to others without the Apostles the structure and methods of the kingdom was doomed with the loss of the Apostles. However, the authority was not completly lost until the last priesthood holder ordained under the Apostles also died. This could take several years and today we have no idea who the last priesthood holder was - It might have been a man known as Moroni.

The Traveler

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

[Maureen]

...I'm not LDS so take this with a grain of salt (where does that phrase come from? Maureen can you help me with that one?)...

Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find...

Grain of salt

(With) a grain of salt is a literal translation of a Latin phrase, (cum) grano salis. A pinch of salt may also be used.

In common parlance, if something is to be taken with a grain of salt, it means that a measure of healthy skepticism should be applied regarding a claim; that it should not be blindly accepted and believed without any doubt or reservation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "to take 'it' with a grain of salt" means "to accept a thing less than fully". It dates this usage back to 1647.

The phrase comes from Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, regarding the discovery of a recipe for an antidote to a poison. In the antidote, one of the ingredients was a grain of salt. Threats involving the poison were thus to be taken "with a grain of salt" and therefore less seriously. In reality, salt is not an antidote to any poison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt

M. :)

[Traveler]

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

We hold to the concept that Apostles and the authroity of the Apostles are a most important part of the Kingdom that was anciently lost and have been restored to the kingdom (church) in our day.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Thank you M. I didn't know that kind of thing was on Wikipedia. :) I knew I could depend on you for that kind of thing.

Dr. T

[Holly3278]

<div class='quotemain'>

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

We hold to the concept that Apostles and the authroity of the Apostles are a most important part of the Kingdom that was anciently lost and have been restored to the kingdom (church) in our day.

The Traveler

Ah okay thanks.

[Snow]

Can someone please help me to understand the Great Apostasy. How long did it last? Also, is there any historical evidence of a Great Apostasy?

The Great Apostasy was awesome. A total 10 in my book. It was... um... you know, great. Not as cool and the Super-Duper Apostasy but still better than the Run-of-the-Mill Apostasy that got so much publicity back in the day.

[Blessed]

<div class='quotemain'>

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

We hold to the concept that Apostles and the authroity of the Apostles are a most important part of the Kingdom that was anciently lost and have been restored to the kingdom (church) in our day.

The Traveler

Just the apostles? Why not the Elders, Teachers, Seventy, and Patriarchs?

[LionHeart]

One thing I would like to point out that stands out in my mind as strong evidence of apostasy, is the fact that back in the dark ages, if one wanted to get rid of someone, all that was necessary was to accuse the victim of being a witch. This in itself, was a death sentence. The victim was subjected to extreme torture in an attempt to extract a confession. Finally the victim could no longer take it and would confess a false confession; soon after which, he/she was burned at the stake. But it was the clergy men of the church who were behind the torturing.

Compare this with how Jesus, or His apostles would have handled the situation and there is a big contrast. If the accused was posessed, they simply would have cast out the demon; if the accused was not posessed but engaged in sinful practices, "He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

L.H.

[Holly3278]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

We hold to the concept that Apostles and the authroity of the Apostles are a most important part of the Kingdom that was anciently lost and have been restored to the kingdom (church) in our day.

The Traveler

Just the apostles? Why not the Elders, Teachers, Seventy, and Patriarchs?

Who are the Seventy?

One thing I would like to point out that stands out in my mind as strong evidence of apostasy, is the fact that back in the dark ages, if one wanted to get rid of someone, all that was necessary was to accuse the victim of being a witch. This in itself, was a death sentence. The victim was subjected to extreme torture in an attempt to extract a confession. Finally the victim could no longer take it and would confess a false confession; soon after which, he/she was burned at the stake. But it was the clergy men of the church who were behind the torturing.

Compare this with how Jesus, or His apostles would have handled the situation and there is a big contrast. If the accused was posessed, they simply would have cast out the demon; if the accused was not posessed but engaged in sinful practices, "He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

L.H.

Yes, but this occurred during the Dark Ages. If I understand correctly, the Great Apostasy took place much earlier than that such as possibly the 2nd Century CE.

[BrotherHinds]

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

The reason we do not believe in Apostolic Succession the EXACT same way as the Catholics do is because Apostolic authority was not given to the first Pope by an Apostle or someone who an Apostle had ordained, but rather he was appointed by the hand of man.

We know from historical records that Constantine, a pagan, ordered the creation of a formalized, unified, and singular church of Rome. He decided that it would be a Christian church because he knew that the doctrines were more unifying than paganism. He selected several men who he named as priests and ordered them to search the records of the Jews, the letters of the early followers of Christ, and anything on Christ Himself, and to select from that what would be the whole of their religious text and the basis for their doctrine. He also had them decide and write what the tenents or doctrine of the church would be and to write it down. He then had them select from among themselves a leader or head of the church.

This was a church organized by man, the organization of which was ordered by man and not God, and the first leaders were appointed by a man, who not only did not have proper authority from God, but was also a pagan. This counsel of priests appointed by Constantine was also where the taking away of the plain and precious parts of the Gospel began.

Also, after this time and until the begining of the Reformation, anyone who challenged the authority and doctrines of the Catholic church as directed from the Vatican in Rome was severely punished and even killed by hanging, torture, beheading, or burning at the stake. Would Christ have supported such measures for disobedience or challenging of doctrines? I think not.

[Holly3278]

<div class='quotemain'>

Ah okay. Well that is very interesting. Thank you! I guess you do not believe in Apostolic Succession as Catholics do then right?

The reason we do not believe in Apostolic Succession the EXACT same way as the Catholics do is because Apostolic authority was not given to the first Pope by an Apostle or someone who an Apostle had ordained, but rather he was appointed by the hand of man.

We know from historical records that Constantine, a pagan, ordered the creation of a formalized, unified, and singular church of Rome. He decided that it would be a Christian church because he knew that the doctrines were more unifying than paganism. He selected several men who he named as priests and ordered them to search the records of the Jews, the letters of the early followers of Christ, and anything on Christ Himself, and to select from that what would be the whole of their religious text and the basis for their doctrine. He also had them decide and write what the tenents or doctrine of the church would be and to write it down. He then had them select from among themselves a leader or head of the church.

This was a church organized by man, the organization of which was ordered by man and not God, and the first leaders were appointed by a man, who not only did not have proper authority from God, but was also a pagan. This counsel of priests appointed by Constantine was also where the taking away of the plain and precious parts of the Gospel began.

Also, after this time and until the begining of the Reformation, anyone who challenged the authority and doctrines of the Catholic church as directed from the Vatican in Rome was severely punished and even killed by hanging, torture, beheading, or burning at the stake. Would Christ have supported such measures for disobedience or challenging of doctrines? I think not.

I agree that Christ would not have supported such horrendous instances and that is one reason why I am considering leaving the Catholic Church. I do not wish to be a part of a church that has bad fruits. But then we must not forget that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has also had bad incidents such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I would have to say this is because all churches are made up of human beings and human beings make mistakes. It is bad that we have such bad mistakes in our pasts but what can we do? We can't go back and change the past. We must accept that it happened, learn from our mistakes, and move on.

As for Constantine doing all that stuff, I was not sure if he had really done all that stuff and I am still not sure but I suspect that it is true.

[Dr T]

Basing belief on the life of the founder (like Jesus) and the central tenants, not on the atrocities carried out by its followers seems to be a more suitable reason for joining a church. If you think that only the Catholic church has a history of violence you are sorely mistaken. LDS, Hindu, etc. they all have some.

Dr. T

[Holly3278]

Basing belief on the life of the founder (like Jesus) and the central tenants, not on the atrocities carried out by its followers seems to be a more suitable reason for joining a church. If you think that only the Catholic church has a history of violence you are sorely mistaken. LDS, Hindu, etc. they all have some.

Dr. T

I agree that all religions have a history of at least some violence. It is very sad but no religion is exempt from hypocrisy.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'> Basing belief on the life of the founder (like Jesus) and the central tenants, not on the atrocities carried out by its followers seems to be a more suitable reason for joining a church. If you think that only the Catholic church has a history of violence you are sorely mistaken. LDS, Hindu, etc. they all have some.

Dr. T

I agree that all religions have a history of at least some violence. It is very sad but no religion is exempt from hypocrisy.

Jesus and the apostles were involved in violence. However, just because there was violence does not mean that they caused it. It is a simple matter of who was violent against who or who drove out who. The same applies to hypocrisy. There was Judas among the apostles that was not on board the program - but it is different when the controllers, the force and the majority behind a movement is pursuing a program or publishing hypocrisy contrary to good principles of behavior.

In short - good peoples will always find themselves at odds with evil. But good peoples should never find themselves as odds with other good peoples of different cultures or beliefs. Jesus taught this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were of a different culture and differed on points of doctrine from the Jews. Because of that there was much hatred and even violence between those groups. Jesus taught that such hatred based on culture and belief is “NOT CHRISTIAN”. If others cannot be both appreciated and allowed to live in peace based on culture or religion - then that person, society or religion is apostate to G-d’s will culture and religion. And I know of no better sign of apostasy.

The Traveler

[BrotherHinds]

You know, I find it interesting how non-members always point to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as being something the "Church" did. That it was sanctioned by the "Church". Yet they can't truly link that particular incident to the LDS church the same way one can link the crusades and the inquisitions to the Catholic church and Jihadsto Islam.

Suppossedly from what I have read, those that were attacked at Mountain Meadows were part of a group of people who members of the LDS church had previously had problems with. President Brigham Young punished those involved that were of the church and issued sincere appologies to the families of the victims and survivors. Yet in the cases of the Crusades, Inquisitions, and Jihads, no appologies have been made by and Pope, Sheik, Bin Laden, or any other religious leader.

However, mainstream Christianity and the Catholic church views the LDS church as a cult, devil worshipers, nonChristian, blasphemers, heretics, conjurers, ect. Much like people did to the prophets, followers of prophets, Christ, the Apostles, the original seventy called by Christ, and the early faithful Christians.

[Dr T]

the original seventy called by Christ

I'm not familiar with that assertion. From where did you get that idea?

thanks you