The "Great Apostacy" problem

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

My problem with the apostacy is this --

When most LDS persons read a work of philosophy or journal of ideas or one's 'experiments with truth,' there is usually little chance that all of that collective experience will make any lasting mark. The thought process usually goes something like this, "Well that was interesting. He obviously had some of the light of Christ. I wonder what he would have done with the fulness of the gospel? I bet he has accepted his proxy baptism."

In other words the image of the apostacy poses this huge obstacle, depriving most LDS from mining collective human experience for truth, and primarily relegating all of those lives, and all of that thought, and all of that collective pain and struggle to the dust bins of a trivial pursuit box (or Jeopardy?).

I know this isn't categorically true, so I apologize in advance to the many good folks on this board who do not fit this description.

Well said.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Robin

My problem with the apostacy is this --

When most LDS persons read a work of philosophy or journal of ideas or one's 'experiments with truth,' there is usually little chance that all of that collective experience will make any lasting mark. The thought process usually goes something like this, "Well that was interesting. He obviously had some of the light of Christ. I wonder what he would have done with the fulness of the gospel? I bet he has accepted his proxy baptism."

In other words the image of the apostacy poses this huge obstacle, depriving most LDS from mining collective human experience for truth, and primarily relegating all of those lives, and all of that thought, and all of that collective pain and struggle to the dust bins of a trivial pursuit box (or Jeopardy?).

I know this isn't categorically true, so I apologize in advance to the many good folks on this board who do not fit this description.

So you know it's not categorically true, but you still hold it against the collective of the church?

Joseph Smith taught the idea that truth was to be sought after and embraced wherever it was found. I have found and find truth and beauty in the teachings of Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, from tribes in Africa, from ancient societies and modern ones alike, both from the religious and nonreligious, from the sacred and profane, and I think the Lord would want it that way as well.

The long and short of it is this, the great apostacy was taught, was in part espoused, and no longer applies to current LDS theology. Are there remnants of the ideologies that during this time people were Godless, regressive and in dark ages? Yes, but the prevailing thought is that their existed great advancements both spiritually and secularly.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

The long and short of it is this, the great apostacy was taught, was in part espoused, and no longer applies to current LDS theology. Are there remnants of the ideologies that during this time people were Godless, regressive and in dark ages? Yes, but the prevailing thought is that their existed great advancements both spiritually and secularly.

I'll give Fusnik credit at least for knowing what I'm talking about. Apparently here's another shift in Church policy/doctrine that needs to be added to the list (repeal of priesthood ban, etc.)--rejection of the concept of a Great Apostacy.

If anyone truly wonders what Fusnik and I are talking about, read Talmage's book (with a black cover and all) called "The Great Apostacy."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

There were significant pockets of enlightenment in the thousand years between the fall of the West and the Rennaisance; you see tangible evidnece of this in the great Gothic cathedrals, and lovely illustrated codex. But there was also widespread ignorance, and religion and theocratic forms of government were a part of the problem. As a Cougarboard poster recently noted, people believed the world was flat, and their ancient ancestors knew better. Religion wasn't the only problem. Western Europe's masters became uncshooled barbarians. The only available custodians of learning were the clergy, basically the only folks who could read or write for a long time.

I suippose we can argue about what "enlightenment' means. You are correct that they could still build some nice buildings, but a study of the social history of western Europe suggests, to my mind, at least, that it was a dark, brutal age where life was cheap and where outside of a few scattered cloisters (and not even in all of those) there was little light spread for any purpose.

"people' beleioved the world was flat? WHo? The mass of people did, certainly, but many persons did not, such as Gerbert/Silvester II (on my mind, obviously, becasue of the book I jhust finished) who personally made wooden golbes based on his moor-taught and ptolemic understanmding of the world and its hspae and which globes were in great demand amongst his correspondents. Yet, at this same time, Otto II would eliminate political rivals by tying their limbs to separate trees that had been bent inward and that, upon being released, would tear the person apart. To me, it was a very Dark Age and I am grateful to God and the muslims that they loved learning in that time frame so that thier knwoledge could be relied upon as part of the basis for the enlightment, as I am grateful for the efforts of untold thousands of monks who dutifually copied classic literature and texts even though few of them used or read the texts for any purpose other than to copy them. I suppose we can agree to disagree here.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What this comes down to is a fairly subtle point--a recognition that our culture for better or worse is an alloy that took thousands of years to forge, and reducing it to a simple formula of "truth" revealed as a blinding shaft of light piercing darkness obscures the long heroic struggle.

This point is not so subtle, really. That you think so tells me (and again with due respoect) that you have a very elitist view of any person with a testimony of this (and probabyl any) gospel. That you assume all persons who believe the truth was lsot from the earth and later restored are unable to grasp this point you consider subtle is somewhat insulting and, more importantly, assumes your conclusion as to the truthfulness of the gospel. IF the gospel isn't true, then you can sit back and admire it's contriubution to the alloy of our culture and experience. IF the gosepl is true, then nothing about the forging of our current existence is necessarily worng. IOW a believer need not ignore hisoptry, but merely believes that hisotyr relates to the resotration and facilitates the resoration. Again, you assume an extreme conclusion and refuse to examine or account for the middle ground where most of us live.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'll give Fusnik credit at least for knowing what I'm talking about. Apparently here's another shift in Church policy/doctrine that needs to be added to the list (repeal of priesthood ban, etc.)--rejection of the concept of a Great Apostacy.

If anyone truly wonders what Fusnik and I are talking about, read Talmage's book (with a black cover and all) called "The Great Apostacy."

I have read Talmadge's book. I still thiunk you're overstating it, as I described. Moreover, to ascribe some sort of monolithic approach to church memebrs on this topic is just as incorrect as it is to assert that everyone once beleived the world was flat.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So you know it's not categorically true, but you still hold it against the collective of the church?

Joseph Smith taught the idea that truth was to be sought after and embraced wherever it was found. I have found and find truth and beauty in the teachings of Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, from tribes in Africa, from ancient societies and modern ones alike, both from the religious and nonreligious, from the sacred and profane, and I think the Lord would want it that way as well.

The long and short of it is this, the great apostacy was taught, was in part espoused, and no longer applies to current LDS theology. Are there remnants of the ideologies that during this time people were Godless, regressive and in dark ages? Yes, but the prevailing thought is that their existed great advancements both spiritually and secularly.

I don't think I 'hold it against' anybody. And for the most part Fusnik, you are a different sort of bird compared to the rest of the flock.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Moreover, to ascribe some sort of monolithic approach to church memebrs on this topic is just as incorrect as it is to assert that everyone once beleived the world was flat.

I thought I was the one arguing that there were always "pockets of enlightenment" even in the West. Did I say everyone believed the world was flat?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by creekster

You are correct that they could still build some nice buildings, but a study of the social history of western Europe suggests, to my mind, at least, that it was a dark, brutal age where life was cheap and where outside of a few scattered cloisters (and not even in all of those) there was little light spread for any purpose.

And yet the Gospel was restored against the backdrop of slavery, civil war, the genocide of indigneous American peoples, and the 'taming' of the West. Talk about a brutal age where life was cheap.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I thought I was the one arguing that there were always "pockets of enlightenment" even in the West. Did I say everyone believed the world was flat?

Techincally you didn't, as you arttributed it to an anonymous CB poster, stating "people believed the world was flat, and their ancient ancestors knew better."

Here is a quote from Talmadge's book's introduction:

The Great Apostasy by Elder James E. Talmadge (1909)
From the Introduction:
"The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of the great apostasy as a condition precedent to the reestablishment of the Church in modern times is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims."

Do you disagree with this, apart from your overall rejection of the gospel?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Robin

And yet the Gospel was restored against the backdrop of slavery, civil war, the genocide of indigneous American peoples, and the 'taming' of the West. Talk about a brutal age where life was cheap.

Different issue (e.g. "how much enlightenemtn and prearation was necessary") and a difficult comparison for you to sustain, shoudl you wish to pursue it.