The Great Apostasy didn't happen

[Five]

I have some notes from last month when I was busy arguing with TBMs on a Christian forum. Just private ruminations as I tried to untangle things. I used mostly LDS quotes from their official site because it is me arguing from their base belief that even if we go with what their narrative says 100%, it doesn't make sense.

---------

"Even though He is not physically on the earth, Jesus Christ leads and guides His Apostles through revelation. Under the leadership of His Apostles, the ancient Church spread quickly and thousands were baptized. Elders, bishops, deacons, priests, teachers, and evangelists (patriarchs) were called and given priesthood authority by the Apostles."

"Following the deaths of the Savior’s Apostles, the principles of the gospel were corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and to priesthood ordinances."

[LINK=Great Apostasy]

“The Apostles, after the Ascension of Christ, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode ‘the Apostasy’” (Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 21).

So, wait, were the priesthood keys passed on or not? The organization of the church as it is today doesn't need all twelve apostles in order to find out who next becomes an apostle or prophet. The keys aren't completely lost when some of them die because the remaining men with the authority have the power to call new men to fill these important slots and positions. So, as long as the Apostles called men into the priesthood(which this seminary lesson said that they did), then they don't need to actively appoint a successor.

How were unauthorized changes made when the Apostles passed on the keys of the priesthood? If Jesus Christ leads His Apostles through revelation, then why did those who received the priesthood from the Apostles not get revelation after those men died?

There is no historical evidence of this Apostasy. First, I can't find anywhere a specific date or document that shows when the Christianity preached by the Apostles went off course. We have all these documents from archaeologists and historians that were letters and sermons given by the Apostles. Not in any of them is there reference to uniquely Mormon doctrine or ordinances. Considering the fact that the Apostles went in several different directions to go and preach the word, the conspiracy of Satan's evil plan to destroy all trace of the precise rituals and doctrines, this cabal would need to have power and access in these different parts of the world. The records would need to have been destroyed early, because the books now in the Bible can be translated back and match some of the oldest versions of these books that we have. If someone was editing Mormon doctrine out of these papers, they needed to have gotten to the documents right in the Apostles hands or right after they died.

Second, several scriptures get referenced as pointing to a Great Apostasy foretold or currently happening at the time these documents and letters were written. So...this agent of Satan went to all of this trouble to eliminate every trace of the TRUE gospel of Christ right out of the hands of the Apostles themselves but he left in all these clues that point to this message being tainted or tampered with? Could it be that the Great Apostasy hasn't happened yet? Or possibly these scriptures weren't referencing a big event but apostasy in general?

Third, if it's a Restoration, then that means putting things back to how they originally were. Yet there is no evidence put forth by the LDS church that Jesus Christ's church was run the way the Mormon church is. Even if we go with just how the church was set up while JS was alive, there is no evidence that Christ organized things in that manner or taught these uniquely Mormon doctrines. There is no evidence that the Apostles set up a First Presidency with a Prophet at the head; there is no evidence that the Apostles built sacred temples and preached about genealogy; there is no evidence that the Apostles preached about spirits existing before birth nor is there evidence of the different kingdoms of glory after death. There are a lot of very unique and specific doctrines that a lot of evidence would have to be destroyed to eradicate any trace of. Which do you think would be easier? Going in and editing a document or destroying all of the papers that preach of Christ? If the editing was going to be so thorough, why leave any trace of Christianity being taught at all?

If we don't have any examples of the twelve Apostles staying together to call a Prophet and set up a firm leadership of the church, then couldn't we say that the Great Apostasy actually occurred right when Christ ascended? I mean, if the directive was to keep his church on the earth exactly as he organized it, then weren't the Apostles a part of the corruption by splitting up and going to preach as teachers and missionaries instead? Couldn't it be said that the reason we have no examples of Christ establishing this organization is because the Apostles left out those details or edited them out themselves? *gasp* All twelve were Judas!!!

"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. "

[LINK="Preach My Gospel"]

There's a huge flaw in this because most people understand that Christ signalled an end to the way things were done before. No longer did folks need to follow the Law of Moses because Christ made this ultimate sacrifice for us. If we're going by that metric that we no longer need to sacrifice animals and crops, then why do they assume we need another prophet after Christ's death? Why would we assume that apostles were still needed when the first we heard of them was as the counsel and lead disciples for Christ himself? If you called a prophet and put him in that middle position, with apostles around him...wouldn't that seem like you're trying to replace Christ?

Mormons try to point to Ephesians 4:11-14 to say "See? Christ's church was organized the exact same way the Mormon church set it up." First of all, the list of offices and priests in those verses is not ranked in the order that the LDS church ranks them; prophet is supposed to be above apostle. Second, the LDS church doesn't use all of those names for offices(evangelists) and they have inserted new office ranks in there(Patriarch).

Third, those offices such as deacon and teacher were meant for adult men. Even in the Mormon scriptures in D&C describe the duties for these offices as stuff you couldn't reasonably expect 12 and 15 year old young men to do. So, when you then give these offices to twelve year olds, as the modern church does, to say that this is how Christ dictated it should be set up is ignoring all the changes that have been made in just the past 130 years. Fourth, this comes across as a casual reference to these stations, to encompass those who might speak Christ's word. It's not a manual or an outline for how Christ's church should be run.

"While commentators, ancient and modern, have been divided regarding the meaning of Jesus’s statement to Peter about John’s fate at the end of the Gospel (see John 21:20–23), Joseph Smith received a revelation confirming that John’s mission will continue as a translated being until the Savior’s return (see Doctrine and Covenants 7:1–6). In other words, he not only prophesied of the end times, but his mission includes helping fulfill these prophecies as well as witnessing the fulfillment of the things that were revealed to him."

[LINK="John, the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved"]

"The Savior told John that he would “prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people” and become “as flaming fire and a ministering angel [and] minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth” (D&C 7:3, 6; see also John 21:20–23). Mormon said that the Three Nephites would be among the Gentiles and Jews, who would “know them not” (3 Nephi 28:27–28).

We don’t know anything more specific about the activities of these men. We know only that they have been transfigured so that they will not taste of death and that, whatever they are doing, it is for the purpose of bringing people to the Savior."

[LINK="Are John the Beloved…"]

So, if the 3 Nephites and John the Beloved were on the Earth, holding Priesthood authority, ministering and teaching the true gospel ordinances and principles, for 1,800 years...why was a Restoration of Christ's true church necessary? Why did John and the three Nephites allow the world to forget these truths? Wasn't that their mission? Didn't they have authority and keys? Why couldn't they have called new apostles and such? Why didn't they build temples?

This follows the flawed logic that the Great Apostasy was foretold, thus, a Restoration of the gospel was needed. Because the guy who made that prophecy(John) was one of the ones with the power to stop it from happening.

In any case, it's a blaring contradiction in the theology that LDS believe that John has been here this whole time, even came with Peter and James to give those exact keys and authority to JS and Oliver Cowdery. So, he still had them. Why he hadn't called someone and handed them to someone before JS is the big mystery. I guess the real ministry of these four translated beings is to simply allow billions of souls for almost 2,000 years to lose their way and just wander in darkness.

Thanks, John! We're really glad you stayed!

And it's not just that these four disciples of Christ failed but the premise that Christ himself failed.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Really? So, right after he died, all the truths he laid down and the work he did...it got corrupted and destroyed almost immediately? He might as well have never come, then.

[alas]

Look up the changes made when they adopted the Nicene Creed. This happened long after what the Mormons chain as the apostasy. This was when they accepted the concept of the Trinity to explain how if there is only one God, his son was also a God who prayed to his father. This is when they officially stopped believing in reincarnation, yeah, reincarnation. This is all well documented and part of history that Joseph Smith had to be aware of because he did a lot of religious research as to why the different sects did not agree.

Also, Less well documented there is all kinds of evidence that there were female priests and apostles, including a painting of a woman doing the eucaress, very clearly a woman in priest robes administering the sacrament. And names in the Bible that were the female form of the name.

So, yes the “apostasy” happened, just like it has with the Mormons changing the doctrine Joseph Smith left, if by “apostasy“ you mean changing basic doctrine and “many plain and precious things” Like female ordination.

I know, you have been totally overwhelmed with what you have been studying and now I am telling you to study the history of Catholicism.

[Corsair]

Really? So, right after he died, all the truths he laid down and the work he did...it got corrupted and destroyed almost immediately? He might as well have never come, then.

Right, it's only the LDS church that makes any claims to a Great Apostasy. A number of early Protestants mention apostasy of the Roman Catholic church, but the overwhelming majority of Christian faiths acknowledge hundreds of years of inspired Christian leaders. Both Catholics and Protestants will rely on Patristics, the study of the writings of famous and influential church fathers. Even "Sola Scriptura" Protestants would acknowledge the importance of Athanasius, Irenaus, Origen, Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Justin (among many others).

It is my opinion that the Great Apostasy is yet another difficult topic for the LDS church that has not yet been sufficiently addressed. Virtually all LDS apologetic ideas are designed to deal with Protestant and Evangelical arguments. Yes, Catholicism is decried as the ultimate fount of apostasy, but this largely stems from only presenting straw-man depictions of Catholic teachings.

Even the Nicene Creed is consistently misunderstood by the LDS church. It is supposed to be the ultimate sign of apostasy, but except for the one line which states "of one Being with the Father" the rest is entirely appropriate in an LDS setting. Plus, all of the arguments from when Abinadi appears to be Trinitarian in Alma would reasonably apply to it. The idea of God being strictly composed of spirit does not come out of the Nicene Creed.

[Five]

Look up the changes made when they adopted the Nicene Creed. This happened long after what the Mormons chain as the apostasy.

I don't know. For me, personally, it's about the lack of information from the church itself.

Just as a for instance, not to get too off track, but when I found out about the 19th century moneydiggers and folk magic, when I found out the concept of second sight, it completely changes the tone of the history we were given. It changes who Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer were in a crucial way.

So, although yes, I am grateful to discuss real aspects of history, I am actually arguing about the lack of information from the church itself. This is THE relevant historic point that validates the church's existence. The inconsistencies of the historic picture they provide. For me, personally, it doesn't matter about the Nicene Creed or how the Bible was ultimately put together. The LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored the way Christ operated his church. Why didn't the twelve apostles call a prophet and build a temple after Christ ascended? We have evidence of them splitting up and traveling the world. That sounds like, if the point was to keep the church intact, that they were a part of the corruption of the true church. It's one of those, "The Great Apostasy happened so that there could be a Restoration" dumb Mormon framings that you don't realize is dumb until you leave and look back.

And what of John and the three Nephites? I argued with a TBM on that Christian forum for days on why a translated being would stay on earth(1) and why "bringing people to Christ" included just letting them fall by the wayside with corrupted teachings(2). I guess finding people's keys and giving directions takes up a lot of time.

[alas]

Look up the changes made when they adopted the Nicene Creed. This happened long after what the Mormons chain as the apostasy.

I don't know. For me, personally, it's about the lack of information from the church itself.

Just as a for instance, not to get too off track, but when I found out about the 19th century moneydiggers and folk magic, when I found out the concept of second sight, it completely changes the tone of the history we were given. It changes who Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer were in a crucial way.

So, although yes, I am grateful to discuss real aspects of history, I am actually arguing about the lack of information from the church itself. This is THE relevant historic point that validates the church's existence. The inconsistencies of the historic picture they provide. For me, personally, it doesn't matter about the Nicene Creed or how the Bible was ultimately put together. The LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored the way Christ operated his church. Why didn't the twelve apostles call a prophet and build a temple after Christ ascended? We have evidence of them splitting up and traveling the world. That sounds like, if the point was to keep the church intact, that they were a part of the corruption of the true church. It's one of those, "The Great Apostasy happened so that there could be a Restoration" dumb Mormon framings that you don't realize is dumb until you leave and look back.

And what of John and the three Nephites? I argued with a TBM on that Christian forum for days on why a translated being would stay on earth(1) and why "bringing people to Christ" included just letting them fall by the wayside with corrupted teachings(2). I guess finding people's keys and giving directions takes up a lot of time.

Oh, I am not arguing that there was an apostasy and then Joseph restored any kind of anything. No, Joseph just made up crap, he did not “restore” anything. I am just saying that people could argue that the Catholic Church has apostatized from.... uhh ... the church Jesus never even started. But Joseph did not bring us back to what the early Christian churches taught AT! ALL! The Mormon church is no where near the early Christian churches, and that brings up the question of which early Christian church was closest to what Peter established. Perhaps the Gnostics? I suspect the Roman church was not what Jesus established or Peter for that matter.

Mormons claim to have the same priesthood structure, but there is no evidence to back that up. Deacons were most certainly not little boys during the first few hundred years after Christ.

What I am saying is that history points to a very different early church and it was nothing at all like the Mormon church, or the Catholic Church is today.

[moksha]

Didn't the LDS Church restore such ancient offices such as Stake President, Stake Patriarch, and Elders Quorum President?

[Five]

Oh, I am not arguing that there was an apostasy and then Joseph restored any kind of anything. No, Joseph just made up crap, he did not “restore” anything. I am just saying that people could argue that the Catholic Church has apostatized from.... uhh ... the church Jesus never even started. But Joseph did not bring us back to what the early Christian churches taught AT! ALL! The Mormon church is no where near the early Christian churches, and that brings up the question of which early Christian church was closest to what Peter established. Perhaps the Gnostics? I suspect the Roman church was not what Jesus established or Peter for that matter.

Mormons claim to have the same priesthood structure, but there is no evidence to back that up. Deacons were most certainly not little boys during the first few hundred years after Christ.

What I am saying is that history points to a very different early church and it was nothing at all like the Mormon church, or the Catholic Church is today.

Oh! I see! I understand. Then, yeah, absolutely, I don't mind at all researching the actual history and what folks outside of Mormonism say happened to the early church of Jesus Christ. Because I do see how the Catholic church tried to do a correlation committee themselves back in the day. I just also believe that temple weddings, baptisms for the dead, three kingdom glories, and Jesus and Lucifer brothers, we would have some surviving evidence of it. If I were a believing Christian, then I think the message Christ taught and desired to be spread survived to 1820 churches and faiths and beyond.

[Five]

Even the Nicene Creed is consistently misunderstood by the LDS church. It is supposed to be the ultimate sign of apostasy, but except for the one line which states "of one Being with the Father" the rest is entirely appropriate in an LDS setting. Plus, all of the arguments from when Abinadi appears to be Trinitarian in Alma would reasonably apply to it. The idea of God being strictly composed of spirit does not come out of the Nicene Creed.

Yes. In reading Fawn Brodie's book, the anti-Catholicism was another thing in Joseph Smith's day that he was influenced by. I was watching Sandra Tanner give a speech on youtube several weeks ago(sorry my memory is fuzzy) but I remember her saying stuff about Alexander Campbell. Sidney Rigdon was a student of his or something, so, when he came and met Joseph, he influenced him with changing ideas about the nature of God and authority and keys. This is what cheesed off the Whitmers and Cowdery and made them leave in 1838.

My knowledge of church history is very sharp and deep in New York and Pennsylvania. I get fuzzier and fuzzier the further west they go. It's a fun adventure though, filling in the gaps. I cannot wait until I move on from Joseph and start researching Brigham Young.