Was there a Great Apostasy?
 

Mormons have long accepted as a cultural piece of truth that some "Great Apostasy" from original pristine truth occurred after the First Century. Seattle mockingly has pointed out the absurdities of the proposition.

Do you believe it's (a) still taught or (b) a correct principle?

The line of authority cannot be even agreed upon as to Pope Leo or Clement. Now I know the Catholic Church has designated one of the traditions for sake of convenience, but it seems rather unconvincing to me.

It is interesting that somebody such as Talmadge whom I generally like and respect would pen his "Great Apostasy". Even by his day, there was plenty of German research disabusing of the silly notion that Christianity had anything in bulk that was pure.

It seems to me that Christ spent the bulk of his adult life preaching faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. As no bureaucratic structure existed, it appears odd he would have spent much time delineating a future organizational structure, when the apostles couldn't even understand a physical resurrection. Agnostics believe Christ was more a failed apocalyptic Jewish preacher whom others held up to be the Messiah in light of political and social concerns.

These past three or four years I've spent not an inconsiderable time reading research into early Christianity, and discovered the traditional notions often purveyed within the Church to be misplaced or untrue. It seems we continue this false message because it creates a better contrast for our message, "you're wrong, we're right," because "they lost it all, and we got it all back" is the simple message we'd prefer to convey.

Arch, your answers are somewhat convoluted.

You characterize the apostasy as a loss of truth. The apostasy was a loss truth than it was a rejection of authority. Another common translation for the greek word "apostasia" is "mutiny." Rejection of truth would be better classified as "heresy."

I'll pass on this poll.

The notion of a great apostasy is a lot like when Hitchins says religion has no good purpose at all and just contaminates everything. How could a fair minded student of history not acknowledge that "Christianity" is a but for cause of Western Civilization? Is Western Civilization really such a thoroughly terrible thing? I know Hitchins doesn't believe that. Tom Paine is his idol. But though Tom Paine was an atheist, he was a product of the civilization that Christianity in many respects created.

Now, when we talk about "Christianity" in this context, we are talking about the very form of apostate Christianity condemned by Talmage. The problem is that if you pull one strand as important as Christianity from the tapestry of Western Civilization, maybe the whole things comes apart. Anyway, maybe you get something much worse. There are worse things than Western Civilization. Agreed?

There is this notion that some say has been supported by the Dead Sea scrolls that early on there were two branches of Christianity, one more Jewish and occult and ascetic (they didn't drink wine, etc.), and the other infused with Greek philosphy and culture, and projecting to gentiles. James (Jesus' brother) and Paul have been identified as the heads of each branch. The extinction of James' Christianity and the spectacular, world changing success of Paul's might be characterized by some as an apostasy from the original pure form of Christianity, I suppose. But what would the other Christianity, James' Christianity, have led us to? I shudder to think.

Anyway, as FARMS has noted, great apostasy=Hellenization of Christianity. I submit you can't take the Greek out of Christianity and wind up with the United States of America, just as you can't take Christianity out of Europe and wind up with the U.S.A.

The doctrine of great apostasy just doesn't make any sense from a non-eccliesiastical, historical perspective. It's gibberish. But I understand you had to have had an apostasy for a "restoration" to make any sense.

Nobody is trying to pull apart any strands from the tapestry of Western Civilization. This pet theory of yours, that Mormonism seeks to turn the clock back to the first Century AD through the "restoration", frankly doesn't make any sense to me. We're not Ahmish.

Methinks you're falling into the same trap as Arch, though perhaps in a different sense. I don't believe you are correctly identifying what we believe was lost, nor what it is that is being restored.

What do you believe? Cite please.

One correction: Thomas Paine was not an atheist. He was a deist. He spoke of God often but he didn't limit God to the definitions in the Bible. He claimed no knowledge of who or what God is, he but believed in a supreme being.

Paine was a product of the false Christian Dogmas taught in his era. He simply couldn't fall for the same stuff that Joseph Smith failed to grasp a generation later.

Who am I supposed to cite on the matter of what I believe? Am I not an expert enough in that particular field?

To me there was no Great Apostasy, just a loss of priesthood authority. That was my convoluted point, and I agree with you that Western Civilization is not what I was challenging.

What do you believe Church members actually mean or should mean when they use that misnomer?

They mean what the word itself means-- that there was falling away from the church as it was authoritatively established by Christ. The restoration is of that priesthood authority-- which, parenthetically, does not require doing away with anything good that happened in the interim.

It's not a misnomer at all. The definition, from the middle Liddell: 1. a defection, revolt; 2. departure from. The loss of priesthood authority IS the great apostasy.

I agree with this definition.

Although the Roman Catholic Church would argue that their priesthood has remained intact, in a line of traceable succession, back to Peter.

Today's LDS apostles also claim a line of priesthood authority back to Peter, but they reassure us that the apostasy won't happen again. I'm sure St. Eleutherius (Pope #13) would also have also dismissed any suggestion of widespread Christian apostasy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

For one thing, as has been discussed here before, I don't think there's really much practical difference between atheists, deists, or agnostics, except for self-identification maybe for political purposes.

Paine was hard core atheist. He loathed Christianity, whatever gloss you want to put on it, thought the Bible was a fable. Back then, that meant you were an atheist, as atheist as it got.

Seriously, can you give me a quote where he invokes God?

The Catholics lose me when their authorities can't really say who the first pope was, Leo or Clement.

But the thought all good was lost is the primary thought which ultimately conveyed by many Mormons when they use the term "Great Apostasy."

Source on who says "all good was lost" in the Apostacy. TIA.

Well, I'm not afraid to reject that notion as blatantly false. But I don't think that thought was ever the church's official position on the apostasy. It's been a while since I read Talmage's book, but I don't remember even him being THAT absolutist.

It's been a while since I've read Talmage, so my impressions may be mistaken. In fact, I haven't read it since 1979. But the distinct impression I was left was this, "priesthood lost, God's grace lost and Christianity went gravely astray."

We continue to portray the history between Christ and Joseph Smith as one big dark era. It may not have been so bluntly stated, but that is the impression I was left with.

What does TIA mean?

TIA= thanks in advance.

I agree that the impression may be perpetuated by church members, which may be the point Arch is trying to get at in this thread. I'll be happy to do away with the notion that Catholicism is THE Great and Abominable Whore, sans any form of light and truth.

Thank you. Western culture was formed by virtue of the development of the RCC. We would not be where we are today without it. We culminate with this near-sightedness with BRM's characterization in his first version. So even at the top the culture cultivated that grossly mistaken belief.

where are we today?

The last 100 years were probably the bloodiest in the past 3,000 years.

So yes, I guess you could say the RCC brought us to this, with the specter of nuclear holocaust over our heads.

And at the time of Christ, we lived in idyllic peace?

You said where we are today is because of the RCC. I asked, "where are we today?"

I read "The Great Apostasy" on my mission. Even as a brain washed young pup I was shocked at how poorly written it was, and the facile dismissal of two thousand years of history, and crude anti-Catholicism. I read "Jesus the Christ," and it has left almost no impression on me at all. This is unusual, because as you may have noted, when I take the time to read a complicated book I usually drill down, spend time reading it, remember lines, rearead passages, etc. It becomes a part of me. All I remember about Jesus the Christ is that it was extremely derivative when it didn't engage in flights of fancy about events for which there is no legitimate historical record at all.

There are many Mormon scholars like B.H. Roberts, Henry Eyring, Rex Lee, and Sterlign McMurrin for which I have a lot of respect. From what I've seen, Talmage was a pretender.

Are you shocked at crude Anti-Mormonism?

I'm not usually impressed with or intertested in any internicene feuds within monotheism (except the ones long ago that were accompanied by swords and lances, etc.). So, no, I find the meat ax like Talmage used equally unintresting when wielded at Mormons by rival religious groups.

Where do you get this nonsensical chauvensim? Paine would not have been interested in Mormonism's magic world view. He'd have been hostile to it if it affected his life at all. Actually, the founders' atheism or deism or whatever you want to call it was indispensable to their fitness to accomplish the radical and brilliant reforms achieved.

Paine did not like any organized religion. However, I will take him at his word when he said he believed in God. Here is a quote from The Age of Reason: " I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life". That doesn't sound like an atheist to me.

He also has some great views on revelation.

People who've read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities tell me that whatever system Jesus set up collapsed after he was gone.

That's apostasy of authority.

Apostasy of truth is much easier to demonstrate. It's much easier to trace how homoousios, creation ex nihilo, rejection of divine embodiment, etc. entered Christianity.