The Great Apostasy

[GrayMars]

First, hello! I haven't posted or lurked here in a good while.

Some history, I've asked the question of whether or not the LDS as a church holds authority on matters of faith. It began as I asked the same question of the other churches, and in coming to understand the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans, I came to believe they all make a really interesting claim about having apostolic succession - or a lineage going all the way back to the apostles. So when I became interested in the authority of the LDS as a church, I asked whether it claims a lineage of its own. This led me to the question of the Great Apostasy since it throws a wrench in that idea (or maybe it does?). I must have read about it somewhere, but my memory isn't so good. Can someone give me the idea without going into the history of it, like maybe if you were to give an expansive definition - and how does it differ from the others (i.e. apostolic succession)?

What I'm really looking for here is not a justification that the LDS hold authority for whatever reason that is tied to the Great Apostasy, but I would be interested also in hearing how you came to say, you know what: this makes sense. Because from where I am now, it's hard to conceptualize an informed point of view. It's like, these groups all say "Yeah, we have an answer!" and then you guys are like "But it's not the right answer!" So how do I come to reject this notion of a lineage being the best or only form of evidence for being an authentic tradition? I'm the kind of person who rejects all Protestant denominations besides the Episcopal Church which is technically Protestant but has its merit.

LDS to me is one that I personally need to look at in as much depth as, if not more than, the three churches I have mentioned.

 

GrayMars

P.S. I'm friendly.

[Guest]

@GrayMars,  Welcome.

I'm not really sure what your question is.  I'll do my best, but forgive me if I don't hit the mark.  Disclaimer: I'll be using language that I hope will be easier for a person outside the faith to understand.  It is not technically correct from our perspective.  But it is going to be much more meaningful if we forego legalese and just do general descriptions.

Our take on the situation is about authority, what it is, and where its rights come from.  We believe in the old theologic notion of sacerdotalism.  Our version means four things:

1. Those who claim authority from God, it is only justified if it was given to them by someone else who already has authority from God, and is authorized by God to pass such authority on to another.
2. If none holds such authority, it must be given by God Himself.
3. Any ordinances/sacraments (anciently: sacrifices, etc.; modern: Lord's Supper, etc.) may only be performed by those in authority to perform such ordinances.
4. We also believe that true prophecy (as God spoke to Moses face-to-face as one man speaketh with another) is the only true claim to authority from God directly.  We cannot simply claim "we felt a calling to the ministry".  While it may be fine to say "I wish to enlighten others as far as I feel I've been enlightened."  It would be too presumptive to say that because of that feeling, I now have authority to act as God's representative.

So, the question to ask any faith is: What is the source of your authority?  Is it an unbroken chain? I won't go into other faiths much because they have their own justifications.  But here's our story.

Jesus Christ Himself was the source of priesthood authority.  While on earth, he ordained his apostles by laying his hands on their heads personally and granting proper authority to bind on earth in a manner that will be bound in heaven (make covenants on earth which heaven will honor).  As time went on, the apostles died or were taken from the earth.  Those Christians who remained did not have all the proper authority to continue all the ordinances and covenants.

Various faiths that came afterward simply claimed the mantle without any laying-on-of-hands by someone who previously held the proper authority.  This break in the line of authority is what we define as "The Great Apostasy".  Without authority, no covenants were honored in heaven.

Without existing authority on earth, a divine intervention was required.  God then restored such authority to Joseph Smith and a few others through a series of divine manifestations.  He taught Joseph through many means including Divine visitation and angelic visitation -- little by little.  With each stage of learning, Joseph was given a certain level of authority to restore that which was lost.  After many years and many lessons, he was given all the authority necessary to make all covenants on this earth as God's representative.

This authority has been handed down to the present day in an unbroken chain.  Today 15 men regularly hold such authority -- Apostles.  Whoever is senior among those 15 men is the one who actively authorizes everything (The Prophet).  When one dies, another is called and is ordained by laying-on-of-hands to receive the authority held by the previous man.  When the Prophet dies, the next most senior apostle will take up the mantle of Prophet. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

Carb,

I think he was asking for an explanation of the great apostasy - CliffNotes version.  For example, there's this brief blurb under "Gospel Topics" on lds.org:

Quote

One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.

https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

FWIW

[LeSellers]

Everything Carborendum said is accurate. I'd add that Priesthood authority is wholly dependent on Priesthood keys. That is, even though I hold the Holy Priesthood of God, I cannot exercise it (outside my own stewardship, i.e., family and home teaching families — with the permission of the head of house — and within any callings I hold) without the express permission of (and usually assignment from) the president of my quorum or the bishop. For instance, I could not baptize my grandson unless his bishop approves my doing so. If I perform the ordinance, it will not be valid.

This concept is important for several reasons, not least of which is that it is by the keys of that stewardship that my Priesthood action is both valid and reliable. Because, although we speak of "my Priesthood", it isn't mine at all: it's the Priesthood of God, and He always works through His appointed representatives.

When the Priesthood was lost, it was the loss of keys that triggered the Great Apostasy. There may have been worthy Priesthood holders in, say, ad 245, but by then, the keys were gone. A Priesthood holder in northern Africa could bless his family, but he could not baptize his children, he could not ordain his son to the Priesthood because he did not have the keys to perform those ordinances.

Keys are hierarchical: that is, my bishop holds the keys to baptism in the ward, but the stake president holds the keys the bishop works under (that is, in the stake), but the President of the Church holds the keys to all ordinances throughout the world. As long as the President of the Church holds valid keys, all the ordinances performed with his authority are valid. If that key holder has died with passing on the legitimate keys, as happened before about ad 200, there can no longer be any valid ordinances.

So, the loss of the Priesthood happened (mostly likely) after the loss of Priesthood keys.

Some people believe that the Apostasy was the loss of doctrine. We can all agree that the Church teachings became corrupted without Apostles and prophets to correct them (the New Testament is full of the writings of Apostles who were desperately, and vainly, trying to correct doctrine). But there was much that remained true. The Great Apostasy was not about doctrine. It was about Priesthood, and, more importantly, Priesthood keys.

Lehi

Edited March 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[omegaseamaster75]

I will add my 2 cents and say this. Our succession of authority comes down to whether or not you believe that there was a great apostasy. If there was then God's priesthood authority was taken from the earth and had to be restored. We as LDS have provided the mechanism through which that happened. If there was no great apostasy than we are wrong plain and simple and someone else is right. 

At the end of the day it becomes a matter of faith.

Carborendum give a great snapshot of what we think happened. I know that Catholicism teaches an unbroken chain/line of authority from Peter to the current Pope. I also know that in Catholicism the laying on of hands by one in authority (like what we do) enables them to ordain others to be priests, bishops (the pope is an ordained Bishop), or deacons. 

[bytebear]

I recommend reading this to understand how authority was restored.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

The restoration of priesthood keys begins in verse 68.

Also Chapter 2 here:

https://www.lds.org/manual/our-heritage-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

[Sadliers]

What is truth? Is truth solely determined by the most articulate argument? Are our conclusions really the best way to determine truth? The question regarding authority is an excellent question but if you're striving to follow Jesus Christ then shouldn't the answer come from God rather than one's own wisdom and understanding?

 

"Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." (Jeremiah 17:5)

 

Our arm is our support mechanism for the body. If we lose our balance the arms are what supports us from falling. If we fall then it is the arm that supports the body as we get back up. In Jeremiah we are being warned of using men (flesh) to be our support (arm). Accepting what others say without turning to God for validation is what we are being warned against. We need to look to God for understanding and truth, not man. Whatever man presents as truth we must take to God so we can know for ourselves.

 

One greatly misunderstood doctrine among followers of Jesus is the Holy Spirit yet it is the Holy Spirit that is our most frequent and direct connection to Him. Since Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and since they are one, we cannot neglect the Holy Spirit without also neglecting Jesus. Just the same, if we want to listen to Jesus then we can do it by listening to the Holy Spirit.

 

I enjoy listening to evangelical preachers and do it very regularly (almost daily). One area that we diverge from mainstream Christianity is where it comes to the Holy Spirit. The seminaries that train the preachers teach that when interpreting the Bible there is a defined process, such as comparing the verse in question with other similar verses. There are about 5 steps that are taught on how to interpret the Bible. The one step that is omitted is to rely on the Holy Spirit. In fact not only is that step omitted but they are taught specifically not to rely on feelings yet that is the most common way that the Holy Spirit communicates! The defined process involves relying on one's own wisdom or on others (authorities - flesh) in violation of the counsel given in Jeremiah 17:5. 

 

Paul identified how the Holy Apirit feels when we are feeling the presence:

 

"22    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 

23    Meekness, temperance" (Galatians 5:22-23)

 

Notice that it is a "fruit", not "fruits", of the Spirit. That means that all of those feelings will be present at the same time when we are feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit. If any of those feelings are missing then it is not the Spirit being felt but rather normal human emotions. All of those feelings will be felt when it is the presence of the Spirit being felt.

 

The Holy Spirit will only testify of truth, never of a falsehood. 

 

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" (John 16:13)

 

The most basic process to receive truth by the Holy Spirit involves first being sure it is the Spirit that is being felt. Many err in feeling an emotion or two but neglect to ensure that all of the feelings are present. Once you know the Spirit is with you (and it may take prayer and a hymn to get the Spirit present) then read,  hear, watch, or ponder on whatever it is that you're trying to detect as truth. If the presence of the Spirit disappears then it is not truth. If the Spirit remains or grows stronger then it is truth. It takes faith to trust that the feeling is the Holy Spirit (and God will validate for you if needed) and it takes faith to trust the answer, but isn't faith a key element in following Jesus Christ?

 

The method just outlined is the method that Christians (at least evangelicals) are taught to never utilize when trying to understand the Bible but that is the most basic way that God reveals it to us. Failing to recognize the feelings from the Spirit is to fail to recognize Jesus. Remember the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after the resurrection? They walked and talked with Jesus but failed to recognize Him. They even invited Him into their home for the night without having realizing that they just invited Jesus in. It was not until they placed food before Him, and He blessed the bread, before their eyes were opened and they finally recognized Him, only for Him to vanish. As they reflected on the events it dawned on them that they could have recognized Him earlier but failed to because they failed to recognize one key witness:

 

"And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32)

 

By relying on one's own understanding and ignoring what is felt the very presence and witness of the Savior may not be recognized. If you learn to recognize truth by the Spirit then you are literally learning truth from God rather than man's opinions. It will lead you closer to God and it will ultimately lead you to this church. But don't take my word for it, take God's word for it as it is revealed to you personally. It is a very valuable skill to have as a Christian. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Sadliers

[anatess2]

Adding on to the posts already presented.

You can pretty much distill everything to competing theologies - Catholic or LDS.

The Catholics claim that the Authority of the keys of Peter passed on to Pope Linus - the Bishop of Rome.  The Catholics believed that the death of the last Apostle (presumably John) gave the Bishops apostolic authority.  Therefore, each Bishop in their own regions have apostolic authority.  The Catholics experienced a schism wherein the Western Bishops asserted that the Bishop of Rome has Primacy over all the Bishops - this is not a higher priesthood but the Bishop of Rome has the authority to decide Church governance.  The Eastern Bishops did not recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - they continued their practice of each Bishop having the same authority as they are assigned to their own regions.  The Protestant reformation believed that apostolic authority is not a requirement for Church governance and that the Scriptures holds authority.  So adherents to the Bible have the authority of the Kingdom.

The LDS believes that The Great Apostasy started at the death of the last of the Apostles.  Apostolic Authority did not transfer to the Bishops.  Apostolic Authority, therefore, was absent from the earth for a time.  Apostolic Authority was restored when Peter himself ordained Joseph Smith an apostle.

It is a matter of faith, prayer, and pleading to the Holy Spirit to know which claim is true.  It's not something you can prove by logical extrapolations.

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The LDS believes that The Great Apostasy started at the death of the last of the Apostles.  Apostolic Authority did not transfer to the Bishops.  Apostolic Authority, therefore, was absent from the earth for a time.  Apostolic Authority was restored when Peter himself ordained Joseph Smith an apostle.

 

That's not quite accurate.

LDSs believe that the great apostasy begin by about ad 50, when the Saints started rejecting the Apostles. John and Paul wrote about it, and I can see a few hints in Peter's writings, too. We could even move that date to ad 33, when all but the Apostles left off following the Lord. Recall that He had to ask the twelve, will you also go away?

Rejecting the Priesthood and the sound doctrine taught by the Lord and His emmisaries, even if it did not completely swamp the Church at the time, was the first step to losing the keys and the Priesthood itself.

Lehi

Edited March 26, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

T;hat's not quite accurate.

 

LDSs believe that the great apostasy begin by about ad 50, when the Saints started rejecting the Apostles. John and Paul wrote about it, and I can see a few hints in Peter's writings, too. We could even move that date to ad 33, when all but the Apostles left off following the Lord. Recall that He had to ask the twelve, will you also go away?

Rejecting the Priesthood and the sound doctrine taught by the Lord and His emmisaries, even if it did not completely swamp the Church at the time, was the first step to losing the keys and the Priesthood itself.

Lehi

Apostasy within the Church started, yes.  But as an apostle still lives, Apostolic Authority remains, the Great Apostasy is not yet started.  You can have every single rank-and-file member of the Church and all bishops and stake presidents become apostates it wouldn't cause a Great Apostasy unless President Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve all pass away or become apostate without ordaining a new Apostle.

Edited March 26, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Apostasy within the Church started, yes.  But as an apostle still lives, Apostolic Authority remains, the Great Apostasy is not yet started.  You can have every single rank-and-file member of the Church and all bishops and stake presidents become apostates it wouldn't cause a Great Apostasy unless President Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve all pass away or become apostate without ordaining a new Apostle.

I think you misread my point.

The Saints began ignoring the Apostles, or outright rejecting them. That was what led to the Lord's not choosing new ones when the current ones died.

Apostasy is not an event, it's a process. So, when the Saints fell away, even though the Priesthood and its keys were there, the Church (the people, the "assembly") was in apostasy. The Church, that is, the structure, the organization, was not, but the organization followed the people because the people become the structure.

Lehi

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I think you misread my point.

The Saints began ignoring the Apostles, or outright rejecting them. That was what led to the Lord's not choosing new ones when the current ones died.

Apostasy is not an event, it's a process. So, when the Saints fell away, even though the Priesthood and its keys were there, the Church (the people, the "assembly") was in apostasy. The Church, that is, the structure, the organization, was not, but the organization followed the people because the people become the structure.

Lehi

Okay, I get your point.

[Blackmarch]

On March 21, 2016 at 11:17 PM, GrayMars said:

First, hello! I haven't posted or lurked here in a good while.

Some history, I've asked the question of whether or not the LDS as a church holds authority on matters of faith. It began as I asked the same question of the other churches, and in coming to understand the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans, I came to believe they all make a really interesting claim about having apostolic succession - or a lineage going all the way back to the apostles. So when I became interested in the authority of the LDS as a church, I asked whether it claims a lineage of its own. This led me to the question of the Great Apostasy since it throws a wrench in that idea (or maybe it does?). I must have read about it somewhere, but my memory isn't so good. Can someone give me the idea without going into the history of it, like maybe if you were to give an expansive definition - and how does it differ from the others (i.e. apostolic succession)?

What I'm really looking for here is not a justification that the LDS hold authority for whatever reason that is tied to the Great Apostasy, but I would be interested also in hearing how you came to say, you know what: this makes sense. Because from where I am now, it's hard to conceptualize an informed point of view. It's like, these groups all say "Yeah, we have an answer!" and then you guys are like "But it's not the right answer!" So how do I come to reject this notion of a lineage being the best or only form of evidence for being an authentic tradition? I'm the kind of person who rejects all Protestant denominations besides the Episcopal Church which is technically Protestant but has its merit.

LDS to me is one that I personally need to look at in as much depth as, if not more than, the three churches I have mentioned.

 

GrayMars

P.S. I'm friendly.

The authority that is found in the LDS was given from the apostles as resurrected angels to joseph smith and from thence to the rest of the prophets and apostles that have composed the LDS leadership since then. As of 1830s there was no authority that God recognised on the earth as being able to bind in heaven as well as on earth.

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

The authority that is found in the LDS was given from the apostles as resurrected angels to joseph smith and from thence to the rest of the prophets and apostles that have composed the LDS leadership since then. As of 1830s there was no authority that God recognised on the earth as being able to bind in heaven as well as on earth.

Just wanted to clarify this one.  "As of 1830" is 1830 onwards isn't it?  Just wanted to make sure this is clear that there was no authority until the 1830s... The authority was restored in 1830 and remains until today.

[LeSellers]

10 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

The authority that is found in the LDS was given from the apostles as resurrected angels to joseph smith and from thence to the rest of the prophets and apostles that have composed the LDS leadership since then. As of 1830s there was no authority that God recognised on the earth as being able to bind in heaven as well as on earth.

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just wanted to clarify this one.  "As of 1830" is 1830 onwards isn't it?  Just wanted to make sure this is clear that there was no authority until the 1830s... The authority was restored in 1830 and remains until today.

Not quite accurate. John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood on 15 May 1829, and Peter, James and John, the Melchizedek Priesthood a few weeks (or days) later.

It is true that Elijah restored the sealing power in 1836, but not all power "to bind in heaven as well as on earth" is in those keys: baptism and bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost are both eternal covenants, binding us in heaven as well as here.

Lehi

 

[LeSellers]

10 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

The authority that is found in the LDS was given from the apostles as resurrected angels to joseph smith and from thence to the rest of the prophets and apostles that have composed the LDS leadership since then. As of 1830s there was no authority that God recognised on the earth as being able to bind in heaven as well as on earth.

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just wanted to clarify this one.  "As of 1830" is 1830 onwards isn't it?  Just wanted to make sure this is clear that there was no authority until the 1830s... The authority was restored in 1830 and remains until today.

Not quite accurate. John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood on 15 May 1829, and Peter, James and John, the Melchizedek Priesthood a few weeks (or days) later.

It is true that Elijah restored the sealing power in 1836, but not all power "to bind in heaven as well as on earth" is in those keys: baptism and bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost are both eternal covenants, binding us in heaven as well as here.

Lehi

 

[Blackmarch]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Just wanted to clarify this one.  "As of 1830" is 1830 onwards isn't it?  Just wanted to make sure this is clear that there was no authority until the 1830s... The authority was restored in 1830 and remains until today.

sorry 1830s. I was rounding the number to the nearest decade.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Blackmarch

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Blackmarch said:

sorry 1830s. I was rounding the number to the nearest decade.

I was talking about the difference between from 100-1830s and 1830s onwards. 

[omegaseamaster75]

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Not quite accurate. John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood on 15 May 1829, and Peter, James and John, the Melchizedek Priesthood a few weeks (or days) later.

It is true that Elijah restored the sealing power in 1836, but not all power "to bind in heaven as well as on earth" is in those keys: baptism and bestowing the Gift of the Holy Ghost are both eternal covenants, binding us in heaven as well as here.

Lehi

 

Does anyone else think that it is odd that we wouldn't have a restoration date for the Melchizedek priesthood?

[LeSellers]

18 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Does anyone else think that it is odd that we wouldn't have a restoration date for the Melchizedek priesthood?

Not I.

For the most likely period when Peter, James, and John appeared, Joseph was under continual legal harassment. From the account of one Philo Dibble, he had just escaped (with the help of his lawyer) a kangaroo court with serious mob involvement. He and Oliver (also a defendant) fled, and, after Oliver had, pardon the usage, petered out, the Ancient Apostles appeared and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood. They were both covered in mud, worn, weary, and bleeding from brambles and branches. Joseph told Dibble that this was a blessing, especially for Oliver, to buoy his spirits, due to their extreme mental and physical distress.

Lehi

[Blackmarch]

21 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Does anyone else think that it is odd that we wouldn't have a restoration date for the Melchizedek priesthood?

Actually i'm more surprised we have what we have. Holy things tend to be kept away from the world.

[omegaseamaster75]

19 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

Actually i'm more surprised we have what we have. Holy things tend to be kept away from the world.

Honestly, the restoration of the high priesthood and we don't know the date?

We know the date of the first vision, the restoration of the aaronic priesthood, the organization of the church, etc, etc....

seems like a pretty big miss for me. I am OK with it, I accept its restoration, but it's not nothing.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

We know the date of the first vision,

Do we?

[omegaseamaster75]

16 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Do we?

You know what I don't think that we do. 

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You know what I don't think that we do. 

We don't. We just know the approximate time.