Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[SteveVH]

Keep in mind that you asked for evidence of an Apostasy not necessarily a discussion to prove there was an apostasy. If one is to sit on a jury and render a verdict - they must be willing to consider the evidence impartially.

No disagreement there. I have not asked for a discussion, however since the purpose of a forum is presumably for that purpose, feel free.

Previously I inquired of you concerning what you would accept as evidence - and your response very much confused me. It is my honest impression that you have reached a conclusion in this matter - and with speculation on my part - it appears to me that you did so without any consideration of evidence. Which causes me to wonder why and with what motivation you ask now - if you honestly have no intention to consider the matter.

You are correct in that I have reached a conclusion in the matter. I am trying to understand how Mormons reach a conclusion in this matter. How you have determined that I have a reached a conclusion "without any consideration of evidence" seems more than a little presumptuous. If you would like me to respond to your purported "evidence" I will be happy to do so. Keep in mind that each of the issues you have presented could be a thread on their own.

But I will be happy to give you the basic premise on which I have drawn my conclusions. It is based upon the very promises made by Christ himself concerning his Church. He promised that he would not leave us orphans, but would remain with his Church until the end of time. He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. In short, the Church is a divine institution, it is Christ's own Church, and therefore is not dependent upon man in order to succeed. I believe he has kept his promises which would make any need for a restoration null and void from the outset. That is the perspective from which I begin. If you wish me to expand my answer I'll be more than happy to do so.

[Traveler]

No disagreement there. I have not asked for a discussion, however since the purpose of a forum is presumably for that purpose, feel free.

You are correct in that I have reached a conclusion in the matter. I am trying to understand how Mormons reach a conclusion in this matter. How you have determined that I have a reached a conclusion "without any consideration of evidence" seems more than a little presumptuous. If you would like me to respond to your purported "evidence" I will be happy to do so. Keep in mind that each of the issues you have presented could be a thread on their own.

But I will be happy to give you the basic premise on which I have drawn my conclusions. It is based upon the very promises made by Christ himself concerning his Church. He promised that he would not leave us orphans, but would remain with his Church until the end of time. He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. In short, the Church is a divine institution, it is Christ's own Church, and therefore is not dependent upon man in order to succeed. I believe he has kept his promises which would make any need for a restoration null and void from the outset. That is the perspective from which I begin. If you wish me to expand my answer I'll be more than happy to do so.

You and I are not so far apart as it may seem. I believe that Jesus was making reference to his spirit and his purpose and not the institution or organization that presented G-d's covenants before man.

That in essence Jesus will not abandon anyone - regardless of whatever religious institution to which they belong - which I believe is not as valuable as the spirit they follow. I believe this notion is best expressed in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The contrast being that the priest and the Levitt symbolically represent the church as an institution which can and does fail in the parable - but the Samaritan that was a product of a corrupt institution but loyal to the spirit of Christ (more than to a institution or church) is what does not fail.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Anatess, thank you for the link. No I have just not had the time to read another book right now (reading three simultaneously as it is), but I do have the link and am planning on giving it at least a look. To be honest with you, it will depend upon the credibility of what I find as to whether I will read it in depth. There are a lot of books out there and many versions of history. If Mr. talmage is intellectually honest in his writing I will give it a go.

I don't understand you. If you're looking for credibility, you are more likely to find it in a book written by an esteemed Apostle of the LDS Church than a random poster on the internet.

The historical accounts are close to accurate - it is what I learned in Catholic School after all. How the accounts are interpreted is what I told you was difficult for a Catholic to read. You have to be impartial to truly consider the possibilities of what is presented in the book, otherwise, it would be pointless really because you're just going to reject anything that contradicts what you already have a pre-conceived position on which you're not going to read.

So, if you really want to know what LDS believes about the Great Apostasy, Talmage's book has the accurate LDS view on the matter bounced against the mainstream Christian view - more than you will find on the responses to this thread.

[Jason_J]

I don't understand you. If you're looking for credibility, you are more likely to find it in a book written by an esteemed Apostle of the LDS Church than a random poster on the internet.

The historical accounts are close to accurate - it is what I learned in Catholic School after all. How the accounts are interpreted is what I told you was difficult for a Catholic to read. You have to be impartial to truly consider the possibilities of what is presented in the book, otherwise, it would be pointless really because you're just going to reject anything that contradicts what you already have a pre-conceived position on which you're not going to read.

So, if you really want to know what LDS believes about the Great Apostasy, Talmage's book has the accurate LDS view on the matter bounced against the mainstream Christian view - more than you will find on the responses to this thread.

Exactly. I really don't expect StephenVH to change his mind after reading that, nor do I believe he expects us to change our minds after reading what he says either (though of course either could happen in theory). To me and many others, it is abundantly clear, based on the Bible and history, that there actually was an apostasy, that it was predicted, and that there was a restoration, and it too was predicted. I and many others find Biblical and historical support of many of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church. Do I expect StephenVH to find such arguments and evidences compelling? Not really. But then, nor do I find the evidences and arguments put forth by Catholic apologists compelling (not to mention the Orthodox arguments against Catholic arguments on various issues, which I find quite fascinating in light of how each of those churches perceives the other and interprets the same Ecumenical Councils, the ancient, undivided Church and its ecclesiology, etc etc). So really, I think the purpose of forums like this is to understand where someone is coming from, and understand their beliefs.

As far as what I have found interesting as related to the Great Apostasy and a Restoration of Christ's Church, I've found the following to be helpful:

Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration) by Jeff Lindsay (FWIW, I love Jeff Lindsay's website as an introductory apologetic LDS website, especially because it answers so many of the common questions traditional Christians have about Mormonism, and because it links to other helpful resources. It also has many helpful rational arguments for LDS belief and practice).

Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (I love this book. It goes over a host of ancient evidences for the LDS faith as being a true restoration, and that Joseph Smith and/or his associates didn't simply make things all up in the 1800s. It also goes over the apostasy of course. It can be read online)

Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy by Noel B. Reynolds

Mormonism and Early Christianity by Hugh W. Nibley

When the Lights Went Out: Three Studies on the Ancient Apostasy by Hugh W. Nibley

[Traveler]

Exactly. I really don't expect StephenVH to change his mind after reading that, nor do I believe he expects us to change our minds after reading what he says either (though of course either could happen in theory). To me and many others, it is abundantly clear, based on the Bible and history, that there actually was an apostasy, that it was predicted, and that there was a restoration, and it too was predicted. I and many others find Biblical and historical support of many of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church. Do I expect StephenVH to find such arguments and evidences compelling? Not really. But then, nor do I find the evidences and arguments put forth by Catholic apologists compelling (not to mention the Orthodox arguments against Catholic arguments on various issues, which I find quite fascinating in light of how each of those churches perceives the other and interprets the same Ecumenical Councils, the ancient, undivided Church and its ecclesiology, etc etc). So really, I think the purpose of forums like this is to understand where someone is coming from, and understand their beliefs.

As far as what I have found interesting as related to the Great Apostasy and a Restoration of Christ's Church, I've found the following to be helpful:

Mormon Answers: Questions about the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ (Apostasy, Authority, Restoration) by Jeff Lindsay (FWIW, I love Jeff Lindsay's website as an introductory apologetic LDS website, especially because it answers so many of the common questions traditional Christians have about Mormonism, and because it links to other helpful resources. It also has many helpful rational arguments for LDS belief and practice).

Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (I love this book. It goes over a host of ancient evidences for the LDS faith as being a true restoration, and that Joseph Smith and/or his associates didn't simply make things all up in the 1800s. It also goes over the apostasy of course. It can be read online)

Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy by Noel B. Reynolds

Mormonism and Early Christianity by Hugh W. Nibley

When the Lights Went Out: Three Studies on the Ancient Apostasy by Hugh W. Nibley

There are other things of importance than just trying to convince each other who is more right. In life is not likely that one will learn very much if they only converse with those with whom they agree. But such discussion of different points of view should not be hostile by intent and I do not believe Steve to be a hostile guy. But two things should result:

one - we will both better understand the others point of view and

two - we will both better understand our own points of view.

The Traveler

[Guest]

There are other things of importance than just trying to convince each other who is more right. In life is not likely that one will learn very much if they only converse with those with whom they agree. But such discussion of different points of view should not be hostile by intent and I do not believe Steve to be a hostile guy. But two things should result:

one - we will both better understand the others point of view and

two - we will both better understand our own points of view.

The Traveler

Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Neither Jason nor I refered to Steve or his inquiries as hostile. What we did say is that reading the book The Great Apostasy (or any study of the Great Apostasy from the LDS viewpoint) by a devout Catholic requires a very open mind - because something unique about the Great Apostasy is that it is directly anti-Catholic. This is different from say, inquiries regarding the LDS doctrine of Pre-mortal Existence because such a doctrine - although contrary to Catholic doctrine - does not directly undermine the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is very difficult for a Catholic (I'm just speaking from experience here) to discuss the Great Apostasy and say, "Okay, I understand why you would say that." when the whole discussion is a direct attack on the Catholic Church. There's really no way to sugar coat it. And for a Catholic, it is painful to go through.

If you notice, my modus operandi when discussing Catholic versus LDS doctrine is to start with the things common to both and then bridge the gap by discussing concepts that have been restored (missing from Catholic doctrine). This way, a Catholic have a higher chance of actually coming to an understanding of where we're coming from (no, agreement is not necessary, and there's no onus to determine who is more right).

But with the Great Apostasy, it's a dichotomy. If the Great Apostasy happened, then the Catholics have no leg to stand on. If the Great Apostasy did not happen, then the LDS have no leg to stand on. There's no common ground here. So, the discussion starts off with an air of contention. The only way to avoid the contention is for the Catholic to consider the possibility that the Catholic Church could possibly have lost authority - and that is just not something a devout Catholic is open to (for very understandable reason).

Edited September 19, 2012 by anatess

[SteveVH]

I don't understand you. If you're looking for credibility, you are more likely to find it in a book written by an esteemed Apostle of the LDS Church than a random poster on the internet.

The historical accounts are close to accurate - it is what I learned in Catholic School after all. How the accounts are interpreted is what I told you was difficult for a Catholic to read. You have to be impartial to truly consider the possibilities of what is presented in the book, otherwise, it would be pointless really because you're just going to reject anything that contradicts what you already have a pre-conceived position on which you're not going to read.

So, if you really want to know what LDS believes about the Great Apostasy, Talmage's book has the accurate LDS view on the matter bounced against the mainstream Christian view - more than you will find on the responses to this thread.

You make a good point and I will follow your advice and pick it up. Please don't misunderstand me. If I read everything that people suggest I would have time for little else. In addition, many times it seems that what your "esteemed" leaders write does not often translate into what Mormons actually believe. If something is a little controversial I hear "well that isn't officially doctrine", or "he wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that". I have no problem locating Mormon material to read. What I am interested in is how actual Mormons believe, which is why I am on a Mormon forum and not curled up somewhere with a Mormon book. But fair is fair and I happen to trust your judgment on this. I'll read it and give you my comments. :)

[SteveVH]

Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Neither Jason nor I refered to Steve or his inquiries as hostile. What we did say is that reading the book The Great Apostasy (or any study of the Great Apostasy from the LDS viewpoint) by a devout Catholic requires a very open mind - because something unique about the Great Apostasy is that it is directly anti-Catholic. This is different from say, inquiries regarding the LDS doctrine of Pre-mortal Existence because such a doctrine - although contrary to Catholic doctrine - does not directly undermine the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is very difficult for a Catholic (I'm just speaking from experience here) to discuss the Great Apostasy and say, "Okay, I understand why you would say that." when the whole discussion is a direct attack on the Catholic Church. There's really no way to sugar coat it. And for a Catholic, it is painful to go through.

If you notice, my modus operandi when discussing Catholic versus LDS doctrine is to start with the things common to both and then bridge the gap by discussing concepts that have been restored (missing from Catholic doctrine). This way, a Catholic have a higher chance of actually coming to an understanding of where we're coming from (no, agreement is not necessary, and there's no onus to determine who is more right).

But with the Great Apostasy, it's a dichotomy. If the Great Apostasy happened, then the Catholics have no leg to stand on. If the Great Apostasy did not happen, then the LDS have no leg to stand on. There's no common ground here. So, the discussion starts off with an air of contention. The only way to avoid the contention is for the Catholic to consider the possibility that the Catholic Church could possibly have lost authority - and that is just not something a devout Catholic is open to (for very understandable reason).

You have a great insight here, Anatess and I could not agree more. Unfortunately human nature is something with which we have to deal. We all approach the issue with our own biases. All I can say is that I will do my best to be as objective as I can.

[Maynard]

I have a few thoughts on Talmage’s book which I read after it was suggested to me by some missionary friends. I then reread the book a year later. The first thought is that Talmage’s strength is not in building an objective argument from the ground up. He certainly researched in an effort to find evidence comforting to those already holding the LDS position, but from an outsiders perspective it was not convincing. Let me list some of the reasons I was left feeling this way.

In order to effectively reach those that do not yet believe that a great apostasy took place, the author must make an argument illustrating that it is more reasonable to believe that an apostasy occurred than it is to believe that there was not an apostasy. Note that accomplishing this would only get the person to the point of believing that there was an apostasy, not that the LDS Church is the restoration of the true Christian church. Talmage begins to move his argument forward through the use of Scripture. To do this Talmage wisely and discriminately chooses passages that seem to indicate a falling away. He quotes Paul’s warning of wolves among sheep. He cites Paul’s comment to Timothy about the people of Asia turning away from him. He also references Amos chapter 8, and he provides evidence in the book of Revelation that only 7 churches remain worthy of receiving revelation from the Apostles.

Talmage’s shortcoming here is a lack of placing these statements in the context of the entire bible. Paul’s comment to Timothy about all of Asia turning, as Talmage would have it, toward apostasy is in direct contradiction with Talmage’s own observation about the seven churches in Revelation which were the Asian Churches. Talmage would have us believe that the churches turned away from the Apostle Paul over four decades before they were the only churches still worthy of Apostolic Revelation. Talmage’s use of Amos chapter 8 speaking of the great apostasy also falls short. Amos chapter 9 refers to the restoration that would occur after the events of Amos 8. In Acts chapter 15 the Apostle James quotes Amos chapter 9 as though the restoration has already taken place. Certainly if the Apostles of Christ interpreted Amos 9 in such a way, its meaning should not be twisted by later generations.

Talmage suffers similar troubles in his interpretation of extrabiblical Christian history. He blames Hellenistic influences for the Neo-Platonist idea of the Trinity. However, those he accuses of being swayed by these Neo-Platonists lived more than two centuries before Neo-Platonism came onto the scene. Certainly Hellenistic language was used to describe the Christian faith, but there is no evidence that doctrinal changes came about as a result. Talmage also quotes heavily from Gnostic sects highlighting the fact that the foretold apostasy was taking place. However, the early church declared these writings to be heretical. In comparison, the short history of the LDS faith has produced over 80 splinter groups, 46 of which are still in existence today. Would Talmage, or any other LDS scholar, consider the current LDS church to be experiencing a “Great Apostasy”? The standard to which Talmage holds the historical church must not be more stringent than the one he applies to his current church.

In the end Talmage produces evidence that he seeks to shape into a proof for the LDS idea of a great apostasy. Unfortunately his attempt lacks depth and scholarly scrutiny. As Stephen said, I have met many very intelligent members of the LDS church, and I refuse to believe that any of them would be convinced by such a book. If anyone can suggest another book that is more effective at providing a case for the Great Apostasy I would be willing to read it.

[Maynard]

Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Neither Jason nor I refered to Steve or his inquiries as hostile. What we did say is that reading the book The Great Apostasy (or any study of the Great Apostasy from the LDS viewpoint) by a devout Catholic requires a very open mind - because something unique about the Great Apostasy is that it is directly anti-Catholic. This is different from say, inquiries regarding the LDS doctrine of Pre-mortal Existence because such a doctrine - although contrary to Catholic doctrine - does not directly undermine the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is very difficult for a Catholic (I'm just speaking from experience here) to discuss the Great Apostasy and say, "Okay, I understand why you would say that." when the whole discussion is a direct attack on the Catholic Church. There's really no way to sugar coat it. And for a Catholic, it is painful to go through.

If you notice, my modus operandi when discussing Catholic versus LDS doctrine is to start with the things common to both and then bridge the gap by discussing concepts that have been restored (missing from Catholic doctrine). This way, a Catholic have a higher chance of actually coming to an understanding of where we're coming from (no, agreement is not necessary, and there's no onus to determine who is more right).

But with the Great Apostasy, it's a dichotomy. If the Great Apostasy happened, then the Catholics have no leg to stand on. If the Great Apostasy did not happen, then the LDS have no leg to stand on. There's no common ground here. So, the discussion starts off with an air of contention. The only way to avoid the contention is for the Catholic to consider the possibility that the Catholic Church could possibly have lost authority - and that is just not something a devout Catholic is open to (for very understandable reason).

anatess,

I think that this depends on whom you are speaking to. No matter what position one comes from there must be a recognition that both the Catholic and the LDS tradition come with significant hurdles. I have no problem with deep historical investigation of why, where, and how the Catholic Church went wrong, lost its authority, etc. Some arguments are much more cogent than others, and I have never felt attack by LDS members explaining their standpoint to me. I have a much more difficult time with LDS accounts of history. I do believe that the greater burden of proof lies on the LDS because we all believe that a church originally existed and the LDS position is that there is a break in continuity of that church.

[SteveVH]

I have just started reading "The Great Apostasy" by James Edward Talmage. I would like to point out a problem that crops up along the lines of which Anatess was speaking and it has to do with the perspective from which one views a certain text. Let me quote the paragraph of which I speak:

"25. The record states that the Messiah appeared in person among the Nephites on the western continent. This was subsequent to His ascension from the Mount of Olives. A foreshadowing of this great event was given by Christ in a declaration made while yet He lived on earth. Comparing Himself to the good shepherd who giveth his life for the sheep, He said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."--(John 10:16; read verses 1-18 inclusive. Compare III Nephi 15:21.)"

Mr. Talmage begins with the presupposition that the story of the Book of Mormon is true. I do not fault him for that, of course, but I don't think anyone would argue that it does not influence his interpretation. From a Catholic perspective, Jesus is not speaking geographically, but rather is speaking of those outside of Judaism, giving us the first glimpse of the worldwide scope of the Church. Where they live is of no importance. In other words, he is speaking of the gentiles, not a certain group of people on a certain continent, but rather everyone in the world, not just Jews. The book of Acts addresses this very issue, with Peter's vision of the unclean animals (gentiles) and both Paul and Barnabas' mission to the gentiles. The reason I bring this up is that since I believe Talmage's premise, that Christ was speaking of a certain people on a certain continent, rather than the gentiles throughout the world, is in error, everything subsequent which is based upon this premise, therefore, must also be in error. It only makes sense if one first accepts the Mormon position and then works backwards. In other words, it is like saying "We know that Jesus appeared on the American continent" (the presupposition), therefore this verse must mean that he is speaking of the people to which he appeared".

I have a difficult time with this type of reasoning.

[Vort]

I have just started reading "The Great Apostasy" by James Edward Talmage. I would like to point out a problem that crops up along the lines of which Anatess was speaking and it has to do with the perspective from which one views a certain text. Let me quote the paragraph of which I speak:

"25. The record states that the Messiah appeared in person among the Nephites on the western continent. This was subsequent to His ascension from the Mount of Olives. A foreshadowing of this great event was given by Christ in a declaration made while yet He lived on earth. Comparing Himself to the good shepherd who giveth his life for the sheep, He said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."--(John 10:16; read verses 1-18 inclusive. Compare III Nephi 15:21.)"

Mr. Talmage begins with the presupposition that the story of the Book of Mormon is true. I do not fault him for that, of course, but I don't think anyone would argue that it does not influence his interpretation. From a Catholic perspective, Jesus is not speaking geographically, but rather is speaking of those outside of Judaism, giving us the first glimpse of the worldwide scope of the Church. Where they live is of no importance. In other words, he is speaking of the gentiles, not a certain group of people on a certain continent, but rather everyone in the world, not just Jews. The book of Acts addresses this very issue, with Peter's vision of the unclean animals (gentiles) and both Paul and Barnabas' mission to the gentiles. The reason I bring this up is that since I believe Talmage's premise, that Christ was speaking of a certain people on a certain continent, rather than the gentiles throughout the world, is in error, everything subsequent which is based upon this premise, therefore, must also be in error. It only makes sense if one first accepts the Mormon position and then works backwards. In other words, it is like saying "We know that Jesus appeared on the American continent" (the presupposition), therefore this verse must mean that he is speaking of the people to which he appeared".

I have a difficult time with this type of reasoning.

Either the Book of Mormon is a true record or it is not. If it is not, you may safely dismiss what Elder Talmage wrote. If it is true, then the record itself states what Talmage claims: That the "other sheep" referred at least in part to the Nephites. In fact, your very interpretation is specifically rejected by the Lord, who notes that at no time did he ever go among or preach to the Gentiles, but only ever to the House of Israel. Gentiles become the sheep of Christ only when they enter into covenant with him, at which point they are no longer Gentiles, but people of the covenant.

[Traveler]

I have just started reading "The Great Apostasy" by James Edward Talmage. I would like to point out a problem that crops up along the lines of which Anatess was speaking and it has to do with the perspective from which one views a certain text. Let me quote the paragraph of which I speak:

"25. The record states that the Messiah appeared in person among the Nephites on the western continent. This was subsequent to His ascension from the Mount of Olives. A foreshadowing of this great event was given by Christ in a declaration made while yet He lived on earth. Comparing Himself to the good shepherd who giveth his life for the sheep, He said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."--(John 10:16; read verses 1-18 inclusive. Compare III Nephi 15:21.)"

Mr. Talmage begins with the presupposition that the story of the Book of Mormon is true. I do not fault him for that, of course, but I don't think anyone would argue that it does not influence his interpretation. From a Catholic perspective, Jesus is not speaking geographically, but rather is speaking of those outside of Judaism, giving us the first glimpse of the worldwide scope of the Church. Where they live is of no importance. In other words, he is speaking of the gentiles, not a certain group of people on a certain continent, but rather everyone in the world, not just Jews. The book of Acts addresses this very issue, with Peter's vision of the unclean animals (gentiles) and both Paul and Barnabas' mission to the gentiles. The reason I bring this up is that since I believe Talmage's premise, that Christ was speaking of a certain people on a certain continent, rather than the gentiles throughout the world, is in error, everything subsequent which is based upon this premise, therefore, must also be in error. It only makes sense if one first accepts the Mormon position and then works backwards. In other words, it is like saying "We know that Jesus appeared on the American continent" (the presupposition), therefore this verse must mean that he is speaking of the people to which he appeared".

I have a difficult time with this type of reasoning.

If you had noticed the footnotes reference two sources. One from the New Testament and one from the Book of Mormon. You should have checked out the reference in the Book of Mormon for clarification. You are correct in understanding that the message was to go forward to the Gentile nations but what you overlooked is the specific mission of Jesus to the house of Israel of which the Jews were but one of 12 tribes.

I am sure you will understand that the covenant that G-d established with Abraham, Issac and Jacob could not be fulfilled inclusive to the Jews alone and that before the time of the Gentiles that his word must go to the house of Israel first. If you need more reference (Biblical) I can provide this for you.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

anatess,

I think that this depends on whom you are speaking to. No matter what position one comes from there must be a recognition that both the Catholic and the LDS tradition come with significant hurdles. I have no problem with deep historical investigation of why, where, and how the Catholic Church went wrong, lost its authority, etc. Some arguments are much more cogent than others, and I have never felt attack by LDS members explaining their standpoint to me. I have a much more difficult time with LDS accounts of history. I do believe that the greater burden of proof lies on the LDS because we all believe that a church originally existed and the LDS position is that there is a break in continuity of that church.

Have you considered the prophesy in Daniel concerning the Figure (kingdoms) and that G-d would establish his kingdom during a time when the Roman empire was first divided into 2 kingdoms (the legs of the figure) and then later when the Roman empire was divided into 10 kingdoms (of iron and clay represented by the toes of the figure). That after this time of division (or separation) is when the kingdom of G-d would be established then roll forth to full the world and that the Roman empire would fall and never again arise as a kingdom. There is only one time when the Roman empire was divided into 10 kingdoms and that would be hundreds of years after the establishment of the Catholic Church.

There are other prophesies that indicate that the Jews would return to Jerusalem shortly after the kingdom of G-d was established and was in part referenced during the middle ages as a reason for the Crusades. Which obviously was not the time when those prophesies were fulfilled.

The Traveler

[Maynard]

"Have you considered the prophesy in Daniel concerning the Figure (kingdoms) and that G-d would establish his kingdom during a time when the Roman empire was first divided into 2 kingdoms (the legs of the figure) and then later when the Roman empire was divided into 10 kingdoms (of iron and clay represented by the toes of the figure). That after this time of division (or separation) is when the kingdom of G-d would be established then roll forth to full the world and that the Roman empire would fall and never again arise as a kingdom. There is only one time when the Roman empire was divided into 10 kingdoms and that would be hundreds of years after the establishment of the Catholic Church.

There are other prophesies that indicate that the Jews would return to Jerusalem shortly after the kingdom of G-d was established and was in part referenced during the middle ages as a reason for the Crusades. Which obviously was not the time when those prophesies were fulfilled."

This is the first time someone has presented that to me. I appreciate that and will certainly look into it!

[rameumptom]

In regards to Elder Talmage's book, the Great Apostasy, it is a decent book. That said, it is a dated book, with arguments that many LDS scholars would not use today. A century ago, the Church believed in a complete apostasy. Most LDS scholars do not agree with that assessment today. Talmage suggests the history containing some less-than-stellar popes (some of whom excommunicated each other) as evidence of the apostasy, but we can use some bad historical events in LDS history to suggest the same thing!

For me, the key issues are these: While it continues its apostolic claim, the Catholic Church mainly views revelation in regards to individuals, not the whole Church. For example, the concept of unbaptized children's salvation in Limbo is again up in the air, because previously held beliefs have been determined un-Biblical by the current pontiff. A continuous apostolic revelatory experience would allow the college of cardinals and Pope to receive a revelation to determine the answer.

There are a few other key issues, such as keys of authority. I do not know if the Catholic Church retains some priesthood authority. They very well may. But I believe that some authority was lost along the way, requiring a restoration of authorities and lost teachings.

[Vort]

A century ago, the Church believed in a complete apostasy. Most LDS scholars do not agree with that assessment today.

This is simply untrue. There was indeed a complete and total apostasy. Every vestige of divine authority was taken from the earth. A restoration of authority was needed. It was no "partial apostasy".

Talmage suggests the history containing some less-than-stellar popes (some of whom excommunicated each other) as evidence of the apostasy, but we can use some bad historical events in LDS history to suggest the same thing!

First, there is nothing in the history of the leadership of the LDS Church that even approaches the viciousness of Papal infighting or the corruption experienced by the Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages or Renaissance era. To draw such an equivalency is absurd.

Second, Talmage's use of the deep corruption of the Roman Catholic Church's leadership as evidence of the loss of divine authority is reasonable and convincing, but is intended as evidence, not as a final proof. Saying that there has been some amount of corruption at times in LDS Church leadership implies nothing about the validity of Elder Talmage's arguments.

Third (an extension of the first point, perhaps), there is nothing in LDS Church history that mirrors or resembles the mutual excommunication of the Roman and Avignon-based papacies during the so-called "Babylonian captivity".

I do not know if the Catholic Church retains some priesthood authority. They very well may.

From an LDS perspective, this is clearly and unquestionably false. John the Baptist restored the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood, and Peter, James, and John restored that of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Those restorations would have been unnecessary had any vestige of authority survived in the Roman Catholic tradition. Very clearly, it did not. The apostasy was complete well before 400 AD.

[mordorbund]

I have just started reading "The Great Apostasy" by James Edward Talmage. I would like to point out a problem that crops up along the lines of which Anatess was speaking and it has to do with the perspective from which one views a certain text. Let me quote the paragraph of which I speak:

"25. The record states that the Messiah appeared in person among the Nephites on the western continent. This was subsequent to His ascension from the Mount of Olives. A foreshadowing of this great event was given by Christ in a declaration made while yet He lived on earth. Comparing Himself to the good shepherd who giveth his life for the sheep, He said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."--(John 10:16; read verses 1-18 inclusive. Compare III Nephi 15:21.)"

Mr. Talmage begins with the presupposition that the story of the Book of Mormon is true. I do not fault him for that, of course, but I don't think anyone would argue that it does not influence his interpretation. From a Catholic perspective, Jesus is not speaking geographically, but rather is speaking of those outside of Judaism, giving us the first glimpse of the worldwide scope of the Church. Where they live is of no importance. In other words, he is speaking of the gentiles, not a certain group of people on a certain continent, but rather everyone in the world, not just Jews. The book of Acts addresses this very issue, with Peter's vision of the unclean animals (gentiles) and both Paul and Barnabas' mission to the gentiles. The reason I bring this up is that since I believe Talmage's premise, that Christ was speaking of a certain people on a certain continent, rather than the gentiles throughout the world, is in error, everything subsequent which is based upon this premise, therefore, must also be in error. It only makes sense if one first accepts the Mormon position and then works backwards. In other words, it is like saying "We know that Jesus appeared on the American continent" (the presupposition), therefore this verse must mean that he is speaking of the people to which he appeared".

I have a difficult time with this type of reasoning.

That would only be a problem if you were looking for objective, incontrovertible proof. If, however, you simply want "a real Mormon response" that isn't limited "to just ... historical evidence", then you'll have to recognize that it comes from our history and our revelations. Jesus told Joseph Smith that the creeds were abominations. Nephi sees the plain and precious teaching of the gospel corrupted by schemers. When Joseph is given authority to baptize, he is not referred to any duly ordained preacher, like Sidney Rigdon for instance, instead an angel must give him what is no longer on the earth.

...

Knowing that there has to be more I would appreciate a real Mormon response to this question. I don’t mean to limit it to just to historical evidence, that is just the question I asked of the bishop, any evidence will do. If the answer just comes down to “that is what we believe by faith” I understand and can accept that. I am just wondering if there is something more on which you base this belief. Thanks.

[SteveVH]

I have now read the first 50 pages of Talmage's book. I have made an appointment with my dentist for a root canal just so I can get in the mood to continue. So far I find Talmage to be no more "scholarly" than any other anti-Catholic writer and have found nothing that I would describe as convincing.

He relies heavily on three "historians" who's credentials are less than stellar. Edward Gibbon ("The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire") is famous for his hatred of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and certainly cannot be considered an objective historian.

Joseph Milner was a strong Evangelical Protestant who lived in the 1700s at a time when tensions between Protestantism and Catholicism were extremely high. Even the Protestant publication, the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" rerers to Milner's work as "innacurate and uncritical".

Johann von Mosheim, who is the most objective of the three, describes corruption and heresy within the Church. No Catholic denies this, but corruption and heresy among unfaithful Catholics does not equal a "total apostasy". If it does then the LDS Church would have to admit that it is also in a total apostasy unless it claims that there are no unfaithful Mormons out there.

The only reference to an early historian I have found so far is Eusebius Pamphilus who gives a detailed account of the various heresies and divisions found in the Church during the first three centuries. Talmage attempts to use these accounts as evidence that the early Church had become corrupt while ignoring the fact that Eusebius' also describes how the Church councils and early Church Fathers refuted each and every one of these errors and preserved the deposit of faith given to the Church by the Apostles. He also seems, so far, to ignore the writings of the early Church Fathers who lived and wrote during this same period (Clement, Ignatius, Justin and Ireneus) and whose writings were widely available in 1909 when he wrote his book. An honest scholar would have to take these writers into account.

Sorry, so far I am less than impressed.

Edited September 20, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

That would only be a problem if you were looking for objective, incontrovertible proof. If, however, you simply want "a real Mormon response" that isn't limited "to just ... historical evidence", then you'll have to recognize that it comes from our history and our revelations. Jesus told Joseph Smith that the creeds were abominations. Nephi sees the plain and precious teaching of the gospel corrupted by schemers. When Joseph is given authority to baptize, he is not referred to any duly ordained preacher, like Sidney Rigdon for instance, instead an angel must give him what is no longer on the earth.

While I have not asked for "proof", are you saying that objective, incontrovertible proof is absent from the Mormon argument? That in order to be believed one must first just accept the Mormon postion by faith? I am fine with that answer if that is the answer one wishes to give, but it is not real convincing to those outside of the Mormon faith.

[Jason_J]

Sorry, so far I am less than impressed.

Can't say I'm surprised. And as I mentioned, we aren't trying to "impress" you or convince you if anything. What we are doing is showing you resources that many Latter-day Saints find helpful, and presenting Latter-day Saint views on various historical and Biblical issues related to apostasy and restoration. I don't think any of us are surprised that you aren't impressed, anymore than you should be surprised that most of us wouldn't be/aren't impressed with Catholic apologetics and arguments, FWIW. The point is to show you our perspective(s), not convince you of something.

[Guest]

While I have not asked for "proof", are you saying that objective, incontrovertible proof is absent from the Mormon argument? That in order to be believed one must first just accept the Mormon postion by faith? I am fine with that answer if that is the answer one wishes to give, but it is not real convincing to those outside of the Mormon faith.

Are you saying that Catholic Apostolic Authority has objective, incontrovertible proof that is real convincing to those outside the Catholic faith?

I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find objective, incontrovertible scholarly proof that Jesus is God, let alone anything else.

Edited September 20, 2012 by anatess

[Maynard]

Jason_J,

I will not speak for StephenVH, but much of what he said in his last post on Talmage's book is the way that I felt when missionaries encouraged me to read it. Perhaps I would replace "not impressed" with "thoroughly confused." My question after reading the book was, how could anyone after studying history believe that Talmage's conclusions are tenable? I understand that the apostasy has more to do with priestly authority than with all of the people turning away from the faith. I don't think that people expect to be convinced of the absolute truth of the LDS position. I think they just expect to be able to follow the logic without having to ignore large holes in the plot and huge suspensions of disbelief. I did note that there were links to an LDS patristics site earlier in this thread. I intend to do some research there in the future. Perhaps that will be a help.

[Guest]

Jason_J,

I will not speak for StephenVH, but much of what he said in his last post on Talmage's book is the way that I felt when missionaries encouraged me to read it. Perhaps I would replace "not impressed" with "thoroughly confused." My question after reading the book was, how could anyone after studying history believe that Talmage's conclusions are tenable? I understand that the apostasy has more to do with priestly authority than with all of the people turning away from the faith. I don't think that people expect to be convinced of the absolute truth of the LDS position. I think they just expect to be able to follow the logic without having to ignore large holes in the plot and huge suspensions of disbelief. I did note that there were links to an LDS patristics site earlier in this thread. I intend to do some research there in the future. Perhaps that will be a help.

Now read all of my posts about the book on this thread especially my first post. It should be easy to do since my wide-eyed Avatar should jump at you. I felt this exact same thing when I first opened that book that I couldn't even get past Chapter II for 3 years.

The Great Apostasy, to me, is not meant to be read as an encyclopedia. You'll be disappointed as you are now finding out. The holes in the plot and the suspension of disbelief can only be filled by your own direct experiences. And so, as I mentioned in this thread, when I finally engaged the book in a prayerful fashion, I was able to finish it in one sitting. What I learned did not happen while I was reading the book - I know Catholic History pretty well from years of Catholic schooling. What I learned happened while I was sitting on that beach reflecting on what I read and scenes of what I know to be true from years of Catholic school and Philippine history started flitting across my brain painting a picture. And yes, it was a painful experience for me.

[Maynard]

Now read all of my posts about the book on this thread especially my first post. It should be easy to do since my wide-eyed Avatar should jump at you. I felt this exact same thing when I first opened that book that I couldn't even get past Chapter II for 3 years.

The Great Apostasy, to me, is not meant to be read as an encyclopedia. You'll be disappointed as you are now finding out. The holes in the plot and the suspension of disbelief can only be filled by your own direct experiences. And so, as I mentioned in this thread, when I finally engaged the book in a prayerful fashion, I was able to finish it in one sitting. What I learned did not happen while I was reading the book - I know Catholic History pretty well from years of Catholic schooling. What I learned happened while I was sitting on that beach reflecting on what I read and scenes of what I know to be true from years of Catholic school and Philippine history started flitting across my brain painting a picture. And yes, it was a painful experience for me.

Anatess,

If I am understanding you correctly, Talmage's book "The Great Apostasy considered in light of Scripture and secular History," will seem reasonable only if its truth is confirmed to the individual reader in prayer? I too read the Great Apostasy in one sitting. I didn't read it as a Catholic, or a person seeking spiritual truth. I read it as an historian attempting to get insight on the historical backing for the GA. Is this approach similar to the LDS truth test for the BOM?