Evidence for the "Great Apostasy"

[NightSG]

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.

Wait...I was disappointed in the encyclopedia...does that mean I have to go out and experience everything directly now?

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?

Reread it when in doubt. Sometimes, things just stop being confusing after a few tries.

[Guest]

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?

Maynard, when it comes to these matters of religion - simple reading of historical accounts or scholarly articles can show evidence for any religion except for the obviously whacked up ones. A Roman Catholic, for example, has evidence showing they have Apostolic Authority just like an Eastern Orthodox would have evidence showing they are the One Holy and Apostolic Church. The East-West Schism would have one side say they are the true Church and the other side say they are the true Church with evidences abundant for both. Which is one is true? You can debate that until time immemorial and logic can lead you to one or the other. The East would call the West "hateful", "baseless", whatever. The West would say the same for the East.

The LDS Church is no different. Instead of siding with East or West, the LDS Church says the Great Schism itself is the result of an apostate Church. Is this true? You can debate that until time immemorial as well.

If your only aim is to learn history, then you can read Talmage Book, and all the other Catholic History books and bounce them against each other in a historical fashion just like reading the encyclopedia. All of those sources are abundant with factual events.

But, do those facts lend to one Church being the true Church? Nope. For example, if I do not include my spiritual experiences in this discussion, I can argue for both the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS Church with equal fervor and it would all be scholarly, historical, and "true". I can point to events in history that shows evidence that the Catholic Church was apostate. And I can point to the exact same evidence and say, sure, some people, even popes were apostate but individual sins do not comprise the loss of authority of an entire Church.

This would be the exact same discussion when it comes to trying to tell a Jew that Jesus is God. Or trying to tell a protestant the truth of transubstantiation.

You can point to events and writings that support one or the other. It won't convince anybody anything. It's just a, "oh yeah, that's nice" thing to say as a historian/scholar.

But... did the Great Apostasy really happen? That question cannot be answered by a historian or a scholar. Not at all. Not even a bit. The answer to that question is as individual as the question, Is There A God?

[Guest]

Wait...I was disappointed in the encyclopedia...does that mean I have to go out and experience everything directly now?

Yep! My son read the children's encyclopedia about ball pythons. Sorely disappointed because he has pet ball pythons and what he learned taking care of them is a lot more than what the encyclopedia told him.

It's a good thing he is not as interested in learning about Great White Sharks.

[NightSG]

Yep! My son read the children's encyclopedia about ball pythons. Sorely disappointed because he has pet ball pythons and what he learned taking care of them is a lot more than what the encyclopedia told him.

I was referring to the article about cheerleaders.

I'll tell the bishop you said I needed the experience.

[SteveVH]

But... did the Great Apostasy really happen? That question cannot be answered by a historian or a scholar. Not at all. Not even a bit. The answer to that question is as individual as the question, Is There A God?

Anatess, with all due respect, the Great Apostasy is the foundational belief upon which the LDS Church either stands or falls. If the question cannot be answered by historians or scholars, "not at all, not even a bit", then what does that imply? You say that "The answer to that question is as individual as the question, Is There A God?" But these are two, very different things. A "Great Apostasy" would be a historical event of great magnitude, even if it happened over a period of time. We read of heresies, schisms, corrupt clergy and such in the history of the Church, but never a complete and total apostasy by the Church, not even close. History is absolutely silent as to an event such as this. The question "is there a God?" is a matter of faith, not history. Do you not believe that the Great Apostasy, an event occuring in history, should be answered with historical evidence rather than being reliant upon faith or some interior "feeling"?

[estradling75]

Anatess, with all due respect, the Great Apostasy is the foundational belief upon which the LDS Church either stands or falls. If the question cannot be answered by historians or scholars, "not at all, not even a bit", then what does that imply? You say that "The answer to that question is as individual as the question, Is There A God?" But these are two, very different things. A "Great Apostasy" would be a historical event of great magnitude, even if it happened over a period of time. We read of heresies, schisms, corrupt clergy and such in the history of the Church, but never a complete and total apostasy by the Church, not even close. History is absolutely silent as to an event such as this. The question "is there a God?" is a matter of faith, not history. Do you not believe that the Great Apostasy, an event occurring in history, should be answered with historical evidence rather than being reliant upon faith or some interior "feeling"?

All the important questions is life come down to faith... a 'feeling' as you call it. Does God exist? Super important... Where is the historical evidence for God?... Atheists and agnostics will will look and say that there is no historical evidence.. A believer will look and say yes there is... They will never agree until faith is gained or lost by one side or the other.

Did Jesus Christ live and resurrect 2000 years ago? Another super important question yet people are all over the map on the evidence. The more faith they have the more likely they are to say that yes that Christ did live and resurrect and is the Son of God.

Now you can disbelieve the LDS take if you wish... But don't go around holding us to a higher standard of objective proof then you hold yourself to... You can no more objectively prove that it didn't happen, (that the Catholics currently hold the authority) then we can objectively prove that it did. (And that the LDS now hold it)

Please note that if you can objectively prove that the Catholics have the authority by nature of said proof you also must prove that such authority exists, and by proving it exists you prove the existence of God so go convert atheist and agnostic with your evidence and see how far you get.

[Jason_J]

Here are a few more of my thoughts on this:

Firstly, history is a very interesting thing. It is quite fascinating to me to see the multitude of arguments between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and you can add in the Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians/Church of the East if you want) who are looking at the same history, the same events, reading the same Church Fathers, and coming to different conclusions on a number of issues, including ecclesiology. It's been my observation that Catholics tend to be more...forgiving in their attitude towards the Eastern Orthodox than the Orthodox are to Catholics (especially as far as how similar and/or different they are, validity of sacraments, etc). More frequently, I've seen many Orthodox (especially clergy out of those) state that the Catholic Church is heterodox, has innovated doctrines that had no place in the early Church, etc etc. It's also fascinating when I read dialogues between Catholics and Orthodox where they sling proof texts from the ECFs at each other, yet understand them differently. This is interesting to me, in light of the present discussion, because history can be interpreted differently by various parties. Sure, we're looking at the same history, but the understanding can be different in various cases, and not just between Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians, but even within traditional Christianity, including amongst the oldest traditional churches.

Do you not believe that the Great Apostasy, an event occuring in history, should be answered with historical evidence rather than being reliant upon faith or some interior "feeling"?

As has already been presented in this very thread, Latter-day Saints believe that there certainly are historical evidences for the Great Apostasy. Those are only a sample of the work done by various Latter-day Saint apologists and scholars (the two are not necessarily the same) putting a belief in an apostasy of the Church and a restoration of the Church in historical context. Now, you will understand such historical evidences differently than a Latter-day Saint, as a Catholic, with your "preconceived notions" (a term I have seen you use here and elsewhere), in the same way that a Catholic and Orthodox would understand various issues in the ancient Church differently as well with their own "preconceived notions". It is also interesting when people from other camps look at that history and come to their own conclusion (maybe that the Catholic perspective is the "historically correct" one, or the Orthodox, or whatever), including with the Latter-day Saint view(s) on the history of Christianity. Historians have yet to conclusively prove that the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church (or how about the Oriental Orthodox) are the "one true Church", the true continuation of the pre-schism Church, otherwise I'd assume the Ecumenical Patriarch would become Eastern Catholic, or the Pope would become Orthodox, etc.

It should also be noted that for Latter-day Saints, both faith and reason are important. a witness of the Holy Ghost is not about some random "feeling", as many critics seem to love to caricature. Latter-day Saints believe that we can ask God anything in prayer in faith, and He can give us an answer (sometimes it is "no"). So, we are quite comfortable asking God whether the Great Apostasy happened. Sure, we can look at what we believe are Biblical and historical evidences, and we can also ask God. Likewise, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical event; it actually happened in actual history/time. However, I can also pray to God to know if the resurrection is a true event, one that has important bearing on our eternal life.

[NightSG]

You can no more objectively prove that it didn't happen, (that the Catholics currently hold the authority) then we can objectively prove that it did. (And that the LDS now hold it)

I'm still waiting for all of you to prove that you even exist. After all, I could be alone, taking a nap somewhere, and just dreaming you folks up to pass the time.

[Traveler]

All the important questions is life come down to faith... a 'feeling' as you call it. Does God exist? Super important... Where is the historical evidence for God?... Atheists and agnostics will will look and say that there is no historical evidence.. A believer will look and say yes there is... They will never agree until faith is gained or lost by one side or the other.

Did Jesus Christ live and resurrect 2000 years ago? Another super important question yet people are all over the map on the evidence. The more faith they have the more likely they are to say that yes that Christ did live and resurrect and is the Son of God.

Now you can disbelieve the LDS take if you wish... But don't go around holding us to a higher standard of objective proof then you hold yourself to... You can no more objectively prove that it didn't happen, (that the Catholics currently hold the authority) then we can objectively prove that it did. (And that the LDS now hold it)

Please note that if you can objectively prove that the Catholics have the authority by nature of said proof you also must prove that such authority exists, and by proving it exists you prove the existence of God so go convert atheist and agnostic with your evidence and see how far you get.

Proof can be a most elusive thing. It is possible for someone that is hostile to an idea to stand at noon time in the light of day and bright sun and declare it night.

Many express interest in a concept but have no intention to use such information to form opinions or draw conclusions but rather to somehow justify or make excuse as to why they have not recognized truth.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

Anatess, with all due respect, the Great Apostasy is the foundational belief upon which the LDS Church either stands or falls.

With all due respect, the foundational belief(s) upon which the LDS Church either stands or falls is 1)God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and commissioned him to do a great work, the strongest evidence of which is 2)the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. That is where our perspectives of the Atonement, the Apostasy, Salvation, Eternal Progression, the Fall, Spiritual Gifts, Revelation, the Millennium, etc stem from.

If the question cannot be answered by historians or scholars, "not at all, not even a bit", then what does that imply?

It implies that anyone who relies solely on history to proof an article of faith is employing the wrong methodology.

You say that "The answer to that question is as individual as the question, Is There A God?" But these are two, very different things. A "Great Apostasy" would be a historical event of great magnitude, even if it happened over a period of time.

Yes, yes it would. I remind you that the Apostasy refers to a loss of authority, and the belief that said authority exists or has ever existed is a matter of faith.

We read of heresies, schisms, corrupt clergy and such in the history of the Church, but never a complete and total apostasy by the Church, not even close. History is absolutely silent as to an event such as this. The question "is there a God?" is a matter of faith, not history. Do you not believe that the Great Apostasy, an event occuring in history, should be answered with historical evidence rather than being reliant upon faith or some interior "feeling"?

I think you will also find evidence of God throughout history if you look through the lens of faith.

While I have not asked for "proof",

No, you asked for "evidences" and then held them up to a standard of 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?

Yes, yes I am. There are some good evidences, and I think they've been shown to you, but I don't think this is a proof matter.

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.

Oh, but it is. 281,312 persons in 2011 found it a convincing argument.

[SteveVH]

With all due respect, the foundational belief(s) upon which the LDS Church either stands or falls is 1)God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and commissioned him to do a great work, the strongest evidence of which is 2)the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. That is where our perspectives of the Atonement, the Apostasy, Salvation, Eternal Progression, the Fall, Spiritual Gifts, Revelation, the Millennium, etc stem from.

And if there were no apostasy would there have been any need for a restoration to begin with? Your own leaders, including Talmage, have made the "Great Apostasy" a make or break issue.

It implies that anyone who relies solely on history to proof an article of faith is employing the wrong methodology.

I have never said that we should rely "solely" on history for anything. But when an article of faith contradicts real events then something is wrong and I would apply this to the Catholic Church as well as the LDS.

Yes, yes it would. I remind you that the Apostasy refers to a loss of authority, and the belief that said authority exists or has ever existed is a matter of faith.

Thank you. I have my answer.

I think you will also find evidence of God throughout history if you look through the lens of faith.

I would agree completley.

No, you asked for "evidences" and then held them up to a standard of proof.

That is not my intention. I only ask that these "evidences" have some credibility. Maybe that is a matter of perspective.

Yes, yes I am. There are some good evidences, and I think they've been shown to you, but I don't think this is a proof matter.

Again, a matter of perspective. I don't consider them "good" evidences at all. The Catholic Church has fought heresy and corruption, from within and without, for 2000 years and has maintained its orginal doctrines intact, not to mention an unbroken line of succession clear back to Peter. That would be an extraordinary feat for a simple human institution with no divine authority to accomplish. In fact, it has never been accomplished. The Church has outlived every government and human institution that has existed since its inception. Not only has it outlived them, it continues to flourish.

Oh, but it is. 281,312 persons in 2011 found it a convincing argument.

In this same period the Catholic Church grew by 12,250,000 new members. Numbers mean very little if anything. I would venture to guess that Islam has grown even more than the Catholic Church. That does not convince me to become Muslim.

[Jason_J]

Again, a matter of perspective. I don't consider them "good" evidences at all. The Catholic Church has fought heresy and corruption, from within and without, for 2000 years and has maintained its orginal doctrines intact, not to mention an unbroken line of succession clear back to Peter. That would be an extraordinary feat for a simple human institution with no divine authority to accomplish. In fact, it has never been accomplished. The Church has outlived every government and human institution that has existed since its inception. Not only has it outlived them, it continues to flourish.

Yep, definitely a matter of perspective. Orthodox, looking at the same history, the same Ecumenical Councils, the same ECFs, etc., would disagree on "maintained its original doctrines intact". I personally would also agree with their assessment on that, but again, matter of perspective.

[estradling75]

Again, a matter of perspective. I don't consider them "good" evidences at all. The Catholic Church has fought heresy and corruption, from within and without, for 2000 years and has maintained its orginal doctrines intact, not to mention an unbroken line of succession clear back to Peter. That would be an extraordinary feat for a simple human institution with no divine authority to accomplish. In fact, it has never been accomplished. The Church has outlived every government and human institution that has existed since its inception. Not only has it outlived them, it continues to flourish.

Indeed it is a matter of Perspective... any one not of your faith would not see/agree with your claims. Pretty much any other Christan group is going to strongly disagree with your assessment of this

[Maynard]

Yep, definitely a matter of perspective. Orthodox, looking at the same history, the same Ecumenical Councils, the same ECFs, etc., would disagree on "maintained its original doctrines intact". I personally would also agree with their assessment on that, but again, matter of perspective.

Jason,

With all due respect this is silly. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, draw deeply upon the rich and detailed history of traditional Christianity and agree on over 90% of their doctrinal declarations. The Orthodox even grant the Bishop of Rome a place of primacy among the other bishops. The unity between the two is probably closer than any other christian communities in the world. Yet you compare this to the distance between Rome and the LDS? Are you trying to use it as an argument against the continuity of the teachings of the Catholic Church? How many of the 81 break away sects from the LDS church would you consider to be a valid argument that the LDS church has fallen into Apostasy?

Anatess,

You mentioned that no more convincing argument could be made for Apostolic Succession than could be made for the Great Apostasy. I hope to post on that tomorrow.

[Jason_J]

Jason,

With all due respect this is silly. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, draw deeply upon the rich and detailed history of traditional Christianity and agree on over 90% of their doctrinal declarations. The Orthodox even grant the Bishop of Rome a place of primacy among the other bishops. The unity between the two is probably closer than any other christian communities in the world. Yet you compare this to the distance between Rome and the LDS? Are you trying to use it as an argument against the continuity of the teachings of the Catholic Church? How many of the 81 break away sects from the LDS church would you consider to be a valid argument that the LDS church has fallen into Apostasy?

I agree that this interpretation of my post is "silly", however that is certainly not what I was stating at all. Post #57 explains what I am saying. I am most definitely not comparing the distance between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches with that between the Catholic Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and as a believer in the apostasy and restoration of the fulness of Truth, I never would make such a comparison). Also, the number of "break away sects" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with anything (I never brought up anything related to break away groups in relation to traditional Christianity). I think you are reading too much into my posts.

What I did mean is exactly what I stated: Catholics look at Christian history, the Ecumenical Councils, the ECFs, etc, and see that they apparently have "maintained its original doctrines intact". Orthodox on the other hand (evidenced by the multitude of articles written on this, as well as posts by Orthodox on various forums I've read) would say that the Catholic Church has not "maintained its original doctrines intact", but has innovated, is heterodox, etc., and the Orthodox Church alone has "maintained its original doctrines intact". They say this after looking at the same history, ancient Ecumenical Councils, the ECFs, etc. This page is just one example of such views (doesn't seem to allow direct link, click "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy), as does this one . Catholics generally tend to be more forgiving on the differences than Orthodox, in my experience.

My point is about looking at history and drawing conclusions. I, and many others, look at history and see evidences for an apostasy, as well as a Divine restoration of true doctrines and practices. StephenVH, and many others, sees evidences for the continuity of the Catholic Church and the Divine hand in that through hardship. Orthodox see evidences for the innovations and heterodoxy of the Catholic Church, and the continuity of the Orthodox Church with the original ancient Faith. The point is that it is a matter of perspective, and just because someone doesn't see "good evidences" for the apostasy and restoration doesn't mean that they aren't there or that others don't recognize such, anymore than just because I don't see "good evidences" for the Catholic Church being the "one true Church" doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily there or that others don't recognize such.

[Maynard]

I agree that this interpretation of my post is "silly", however that is certainly not what I was stating at all. Post #57 explains what I am saying. I am most definitely not comparing the distance between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches with that between the Catholic Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and as a believer in the apostasy and restoration of the fulness of Truth, I never would make such a comparison). Also, the number of "break away sects" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with anything (I never brought up anything related to break away groups in relation to traditional Christianity). I think you are reading too much into my posts.

What I did mean is exactly what I stated: Catholics look at Christian history, the Ecumenical Councils, the ECFs, etc, and see that they apparently have "maintained its original doctrines intact". Orthodox on the other hand (evidenced by the multitude of articles written on this, as well as posts by Orthodox on various forums I've read) would say that the Catholic Church has not "maintained its original doctrines intact", but has innovated, is heterodox, etc., and the Orthodox Church alone has "maintained its original doctrines intact". They say this after looking at the same history, ancient Ecumenical Councils, the ECFs, etc. This page is just one example of such views (doesn't seem to allow direct link, click "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy), as does this one . Catholics generally tend to be more forgiving on the differences than Orthodox, in my experience.

My point is about looking at history and drawing conclusions. I, and many others, look at history and see evidences for an apostasy, as well as a Divine restoration of true doctrines and practices. StephenVH, and many others, sees evidences for the continuity of the Catholic Church and the Divine hand in that through hardship. Orthodox see evidences for the innovations and heterodoxy of the Catholic Church, and the continuity of the Orthodox Church with the original ancient Faith. The point is that it is a matter of perspective, and just because someone doesn't see "good evidences" for the apostasy and restoration doesn't mean that they aren't there or that others don't recognize such, anymore than just because I don't see "good evidences" for the Catholic Church being the "one true Church" doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily there or that others don't recognize such.

Jason,

Thanks for this clarification, perhaps in my late night delirium I missed the connection with your other points. I still disagree with your overall conclusion, but I now understand that your comments were not as "out there" as they had seemed.

[Jason_J]

Jason,

Thanks for this clarification, perhaps in my late night delirium I missed the connection with your other points. I still disagree with your overall conclusion, but I now understand that your comments were not as "out there" as they had seemed.

No problem.

[Guest]

Jason,

Thanks for this clarification, perhaps in my late night delirium I missed the connection with your other points. I still disagree with your overall conclusion, but I now understand that your comments were not as "out there" as they had seemed.

I love this post.

Remember, SteveVH's objective - if I may be so bold as to presume - is to gain some understanding of why the LDS believe there has been a Great Apostasy. It was not for us to convince him that there was a Great Apostasy. (Do you see the nuance?)

So, to disagree with the conclusion Jason_J and I have (mentioning both of us especially because we were devout Catholics as well as stalwart defenders of the Catholic faith) is perfectly acceptable as long as you do attempt to understand why we believe the way we do.

[Traveler]

Jason,

With all due respect this is silly. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, draw deeply upon the rich and detailed history of traditional Christianity and agree on over 90% of their doctrinal declarations. The Orthodox even grant the Bishop of Rome a place of primacy among the other bishops. The unity between the two is probably closer than any other christian communities in the world. Yet you compare this to the distance between Rome and the LDS? Are you trying to use it as an argument against the continuity of the teachings of the Catholic Church? How many of the 81 break away sects from the LDS church would you consider to be a valid argument that the LDS church has fallen into Apostasy?

Anatess,

You mentioned that no more convincing argument could be made for Apostolic Succession than could be made for the Great Apostasy. I hope to post on that tomorrow.

The problem is that when someone asks for proof or even evidence of a "Great Apostasy" they are inviting more than criticism that will do more to divide than to bring understanding. In today climate of anti-religion there are already strong forces to divide devout believers.

As to my understanding - there is strong evidence that there has been an evolution in societies of Christians - specific towards those that do not believe the prescribed doctrines. The results have been horrifying. To finally rid Northern Europe of "Pagans" more men women and children were put to death for no more reason than they did not believe that died from the Black Plague. The single individual responsible for this slaughter and mass murder was given the title of "Defender of the Faith" and praised for his deeds. As a student of history I have not found a single individual within 100 years of this travesty willing to make it known publicly that there was any - even concern for this act.

So what should be our focus now. Tragic events of history or the evolution that has taken place in the hearts of devout believers that will not allow such a thing in our day?

I personally believe that in the last few hundred years that G-d has had a hand in changing the hearts and minds of societies for the better. Freedom and justice still have a long way to go before the would or even a remnant will be ready to receive Christ as king. It may surprise you to know that LDS do not believe they will be the only religion in the society of men - even after Jesus returns triumphant. We do believe Jesus will establish his kingdom as the governing society that will strongly support all freedoms - including freedom of religion. We also believe that the organization Jesus will employ will operate and be the same as the organization he established 2000 years ago starting with a governing body of his kingdom under him of 12 apostles.

We believe that preparations for Christ are currently being made and established by G-d and that the foundations have been put in place according to ancient prophesy - as I posted before in reference to Daniel chapter 2. I believe that great discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of a "restoration" and preparation to help us understand that history has been altered to draw of course traditional Christianity even by a slight and small percent so that many waiting as symbolized by the 10 virgins will be unprepared.

I believe G-d has called a prophet to prepare in much the same way as John the Baptist brought about a restoration 2000 years ago. The Pharisees and Scribes argued that there was not an apostasy among the Jews and that they could demonstrate through records that the doctrines had not been changed, that the traditions were intact and the priesthood lines continuous. That there was no need for a new covenant or new scripture.

Every Christian would love to claim that they would have recognized Jesus and his apostles and the rightful heirs of G-d's covenant had they lived at that time. But the truth is that when the "rubber met the road" most ancient believers in Christ abandoned him and denied him. At the last supper Jesus reviewed with his most trusted 12 that the seeds of apostasy was already planted among them. What is interesting to me is that John did not whisper to Peter, "I'll bet its Judas - he has sure been acting strange lately." Or as many would say today - "I'll bet its the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons or the Evangelicals - they have sure been acting strange lately." What they did say was, "L-rd is it I?"

This is the question we all should ask in association with apostasy. One does not have to be a Samaritan to participate in apostasy and being a Priest of Levitt does not exclude someone from apostasy.

The Traveler

[Maynard]

I love this post.

Remember, SteveVH's objective - if I may be so bold as to presume - is to gain some understanding of why the LDS believe there has been a Great Apostasy. It was not for us to convince him that there was a Great Apostasy. (Do you see the nuance?)

So, to disagree with the conclusion Jason_J and I have (mentioning both of us especially because we were devout Catholics as well as stalwart defenders of the Catholic faith) is perfectly acceptable as long as you do attempt to understand why we believe the way we do.

Anatess,

I think the breakdown is in the fact that while I understand the supporting points for the belief, I don't understand how you can believe that. For instance, even if I grant you that the Great Apostasy is a reality, I don't think the evidence Talmage offers points to an Apostasy. This is not proof that an Apostasy did not occur. This would be analogous to trying to prove that 1 and 1 make two by taking one beam of light and adding another beam of light to it. You still would have only one beam of light. Even though it is a fact that 1 and 1 make two, the beams of light would not provide good evidence for that truth.

Allow me one more analogy. A man loses his wallet and becomes convinced through an interior disposition that the wallet was left on the beach. He returns to the spot where he had been sunbathing, a heavily trafficked area, and finding dozens of sets of footprints he points to a single set and determines that those must be the footprints of the person who picked up the wallet.

Beginning from the assumption that these are in fact that footprints of the person who found the wallet, the man then begins to put together why this must have been the person. 1. His wife had told him the day they went to the beach that he was going to lose his wallet if he didn't take better care of it. 2. the footprints are smaller than others so they must belong to a shorter person, who could have more easily seen the wallet. 3. The footprints are not accompanied by those of a pet that might have distracted the person from noticing the wallet. 4. The footprints are headed in the direction of the parking lot and people are more likely to steal on their way out than on their way into a public place.

In the end, there is a legitimate chance that the man was right about the wallet being taken from the beach. His evidence may be unconvincing, but that does not necessarily mean that his conclusion is wrong. I feel as though each time I have pointed out the weakness in Talmage's argument (I have read some bad arguments for the Catholic position as well), the response is that I "should read it again," (which I have) or that, 'people aren't convinced because of their own personal beliefs.' Nope. Not the case. There is such a thing as bad evidence or evidence that doesn't really point to the conclusion, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.

[estradling75]

Anatess,

I think the breakdown is in the fact that while I understand the supporting points for the belief, I don't understand how you can believe that. For instance, even if I grant you that the Great Apostasy is a reality, I don't think the evidence Talmage offers points to an Apostasy. This is not proof that an Apostasy did not occur. This would be analogous to trying to prove that 1 and 1 make two by taking one beam of light and adding another beam of light to it. You still would have only one beam of light. Even though it is a fact that 1 and 1 make two, the beams of light would not provide good evidence for that truth.

Because you miss the fundamental point.. We don't believe in the apostasy because of some historical proof... We believe in the apostasy because God told us it has happened and we are not going to argue with God about the matter.

All the other 'evidences' (Even Talmage's) are 'arm of the Flesh' They are nice when they agree with what we know God has told us, and in error when they don't. But by no means to we put our trust in such no matter which way they might swing

[SteveVH]

Yep, definitely a matter of perspective. Orthodox, looking at the same history, the same Ecumenical Councils, the same ECFs, etc., would disagree on "maintained its original doctrines intact". I personally would also agree with their assessment on that, but again, matter of perspective.

Orthodox and Catholic doctrines are nearly identical and the differences that do exist are extremely minor. One is the "filioque". Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Orthodox believe in the primacy of the Pope, but not his supremacy. Catholics believe both. Those are the major differences. The foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference. And both have valid apostolic succession. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as the other lung; together we breathe life into the Body of Christ. They have extremely beautiful and rich liturgies and valid sacraments. The situation isn't near as grim as you wish to paint it. I would feel very much at home in the Orthodox Church.

Edited September 21, 2012 by StephenVH

[Maynard]

Orthodox and Catholic doctrines are nearly identical and the differences that do exist are extremely minor. One is the "filioque". Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Orthodox believe in the primacy of the Pope, but not his supremacy. Catholics believe both. Those are the major differences. The foundational doctrines held by the Church since the beginning are believed by both without any difference. And both have valid apostolic succession. The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox as the other lung; together we breathe life into the Body of Christ. They have extremely beautiful and rich liturgies and valid sacraments. The situation isn't near as grim as you wish to paint it. I would feel very much at home in the Orthodox Church.

Interestingly enough Stephen, one can see plainly (even if they don't agree with the progression) how the filioque and the supremacy of the papacy developed out of previously held Christian beliefs. One of the biggest intellectual hurdles for the idea of the Great Apostasy is that the beliefs of the restored church look nothing like the beliefs of the New Testament church. When something is restored it typically has the same framework, or is restored to its original condition. So many LDS concepts are completely absent from the early church one cannot even find the seeds of these beliefs expressed through the writings and liturgies of the early Christians. Perhaps I misunderstand what they mean by restoration. However, from what I gather the apostasy was not necessarily an issue of doctrine, as those I have spoken to have been quick to point out that the authority was lost, not all the teachings. The other side of the coin is, although the authority is the main issue, in the days that the authority was restored, many teachings of the early church were superseded by teachings that were not compatible with them.

[Maynard]

Because you miss the fundamental point.. We don't believe in the apostasy because of some historical proof... We believe in the apostasy because God told us it has happened and we are not going to argue with God about the matter.

All the other 'evidences' (Even Talmage's) are 'arm of the Flesh' They are nice when they agree with what we know God has told us, and in error when they don't. But by no means to we put our trust in such no matter which way they might swing

Estradling,

This is a very helpful post. You believe that the apostasy happened because God told you it happened. You accept things that support this position and any historical evidence that suggests otherwise in is error. Because of what you believe, you know that any evidence to the contrary cannot be true. And regardless of how compelling a historical or scriptural argument may be against the reality of such an apostasy you put no stock in it because it contradicts what you already believe. Is that a fair summary?

I think that, "...because God told us it has happened," might be the most succinct and revealing answer I have ever received on this topic.

[estradling75]

Estradling,

This is a very helpful post. You believe that the apostasy happened because God told you it happened. You accept things that support this position and any historical evidence that suggests otherwise in is error. Because of what you believe, you know that any evidence to the contrary cannot be true. And regardless of how compelling a historical or scriptural argument may be against the reality of such an apostasy you put no stock in it because it contradicts what you already believe. Is that a fair summary?

I think that, "...because God told us it has happened," might be the most succinct and revealing answer I have ever received on this topic.

Which I gave clear back in post 6

http://www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/48699-evidence-great-apostasy.html#post697919

And like everyone else I give more weight to that supports what I believe... For example you discredit modern findings on what the early christian church believed that supports LDS teaching by making the claim that is was from a heretical group... and therefore not valid. Yet from the LDS that belief that an apostasy occurred and that the Catholic church lost doctrine then the logical place to find it would be in groups that the Catholic church considers heretical. Thus 'proof' is exactly were we would expect to find it and were you will not accept it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

So while you might be critical of us saying we believe because we believe... we see you doing the same thing