The "Great Apostacy" problem

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

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?

I think this is where you are speaking klingon and I'm speaking English.

No; I don't agree with Talmage. The statement obsures much sublime truth.

Here is what I believe: America is great. America represents, for better or worse, a progression of Western European culture, and our culture is not just contiguous but really a common fabric with Wetern European culture; however, one of America's glories is its ability to absorbe what is best of all the world's great cultures. A humble example: your local Thai restaurant. Okay, now I'm getting to the point--a but for cause of America is Christianity. It just is; because a small group of men came to believe their cult leader was cricified and died and then rose from the dead three days later we are what we are. Now, Christianity couldn't have done it alone; eventually, a sharp break with our Christian forefathers had to occur. But to a very large extent, Christianity is the horse we rode to get here. Finally, 70-80% of what I'm calling Christianity is Catholicism. By the time the Protestant Reformation occurred, and cerainly by the time Mormonism came to be, most of Christianity's work in this great process of getting us to the modern, republicand and free West was done. It was time for Newton and Darwin et al. to take the baton. As I've stated here, Protestamtism, and Mormonism, largely represent, in my view, efforts to take us back to that dark and brutish time you've referenced. The Reformation performed the service of breaking the Catholic theocratic hammerlock. You can quibble with the importance I give to Protestantism; Max Weber certainly would. But the salient point here is that by 1830 we were post Constitution, post-founding of the American Republic, and on our way to abolition of slavery, and the Bill of Rights (I dont think Mormonism had anything to do with any of this progress). Now, maybe Catholicism and its sundry splinter groups could have done a better job. Lord knows they were often at cross-purposes with progress, and the progression to "America" took a really, maybe inordinately long time. But we made it, and Catholicism and its spin offs are the but for cause, as I stated. And I don't believe that Mormonism would have been any different; in terms of Catholicim's and certainly Protestantism's foibles they and Mormonism are are similar breeds of cat. In fact, the last sentence really is a fiction, just a construct in my view, because I see Mormonism itself as owing its existence to these earlier faiths.

So yes, I reject the idea promulgated by Talmage that Catholicism and its splinter groups were degenerate, a "Great and Abominable Church," as overly simplistic. I believe that religions can be evaluated based on how they enrich and better their constituents' lives. And on that score, Christianity that rose out of Western Europe pre 1830 earns high marks in terms of the results it achieved, despite a lot of problems and zig zagging getting there, and that it needed a lot of help including from many who had to reject its creed to do their work.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think this is where you are speaking klingon and I'm speaking English.

No; I don't agree with Talmage. The statement obsures much sublime truth.

Here is what I believe: America is great. America represents, for better or worse, a progression of Western European culture, and our culture is not just contiguous but really a common fabric with Wetern European culture; however, one of America's glories is its ability to absorbe what is best of all the world's great cultures. A humble example: your local Thai restaurant. Okay, now I'm getting to the point--a but for cause of America is Christianity. It just is; because a small group of men came to believe their cult leader was cricified and died and then rose from the dead three days later we are what we are. Now, Christianity couldn't have done it alone; eventually, a sharp break with our Christian forefathers had to occur. But to a very large extent, Christianity is the horse we rode to get here. Finally, 70-80% of what I'm calling Christianity is Catholicism. By the time the Protestant Reformation occurred, and cerainly by the time Mormonism came to be, most of Christianity's work in this great process of getting us to the modern, republicand and free West was done. It was time for Newton and Darwin et al. to take the baton. As I've stated here, Protestamtism, and Mormonism, largely represent, in my view, efforts to take us back to that dark and brutish time you've referenced. The Reformation performed the service of breaking the Catholic theocratic hammerlock. You can quibble with the importance I give to Protestantism; Max Weber certainly would. But the salient point here is that by 1830 we were post Constitution, post-founding of the American Republic, and on our way to abolition of slavery, and the Bill of Rights (I dont think Mormonism had anything to do with any of this progress). Now, maybe Catholicism and its sundry splinter groups could have done a better job. Lord knows they were often at cross-purposes with progress, and the progression to "America" took a really, maybe inordinately long time. But we made it, and Catholicism and its spin offs are the but for cause, as I stated. And I don't believe that Mormonism would have been any different; in terms of Catholicim's and certainly Protestantism's foibles they and Mormonism are are similar breeds of cat.

So yes, I reject the idea promulgated by Talmage that Catholicism and its splinter groups were degenerate, a "Great and Abominable Church," as overly simplistic. I believe that religions can be evaluated based on how they enrich and better their constituents' lives. And on that score, Christianity that rose out of Western Europe pre 1830 earns high marks in terms of the results it achieved, despite a lot of problems and zig zagging getting there, and that it needed a lot of help including from many who had to reject its creed to do their work.

I somewhat agree with one of your points - that relgions can be evaluated, in large part, by how they enrich the lives of their members. There are many good religions out there, some not so good, but as far as I'm concerned there is only one religion that has everything necessary for ultimate salvation.

I find the following statement you made, at the very least, offensive (and pretty disrespectful of that one being that most here hold as superior and most important in our lives): "...because a small group of men came to believe their cult leader was cricified and died and then rose from the dead three days later..."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

I somewhat agree with one of your points - that relgions can be evaluated, in large part, by how they enrich the lives of their members. There are many good religions out there, some not so good, but as far as I'm concerned there is only one religion that has everything necessary for ultimate salvation.

I find the following statement you made, at the very least, offensive (and pretty disrespectful of that one being that most here hold as superior and most important in our lives): "...because a small group of men came to believe their cult leader was cricified and died and then rose from the dead three days later..."

I thought it was a pretty neutral way to put it. It's a close paraphrase of something I once read written by a great historian, J.M. Roberts. Maybe you're reading my useage of "cult" too narrowy.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think this is where you are speaking klingon and I'm speaking English.

No; I don't agree with Talmage. The statement obsures much sublime truth.

Here is what I believe: America is great. America represents, for better or worse, a progression of Western European culture, and our culture is not just contiguous but really a common fabric with Wetern European culture; however, one of America's great glories is its ability to absorbe what is best of all the world's great cultures. A humble example: your local Thai restaurant. Okay, now I'm getting to the point--a but for cause of America is Christianity. It just is; because a small group of men came to believe their cult leader was cricified and died and then rose from the dead three days later we are what we are. Now, Christianity couldn't have done it alone; eventually, a sharp break with our Christian forefathers had to occur. But to a very large extent, Christianity is the horse we rode to get here. Finally, 70-80% of what I'm calling Christianity is Catholicism. By the time the Protestant Reformation occurred, and cerainly by the time Mormonism came to be, most of Christianity's work in this great process of getting us to the modern, republicand and free West was done. It was time for Newton and Darwin et al. to take the baton. As I've stated here, Protestamtism, and Mormonism, largely represent, in my view, efforts to take us back to that dark and brutish time you've referenced. The Reformation performed the service of breaking the Catholic theocratic hammerlock. You can quibble with the importance I give to Protestantism; Max Weber certainly would. But the salient point here is that by 1830 we were post Constitution, post-founding of the American Republic, and on our way to abolition of slavery, and the Bill of Rights (I dont think Mormonism had anything to do with any of this progress). Now, maybe Catholicism and its sundry splinter groups could have done a better job. Lord knows they were often at cross-purposes with progress, and the progression to "America" took a really, maybe inordinately long time. But we made it, and Catholicism and its spin offs are the but for cause, as I stated. And I don't believe that Mormonism would have been any different; in terms of Catholicim's and certainly Protestantism's foibles they and Mormonism are are similar breeds of cat.

So yes, I reject the idea promulgated by Talmage that Catholicism and its splinter groups were degenerate, a "Great and Abominable Church," as overly simplistic. I believe that religions can be evaluated based on how they enrich and better their constituents' lives. And on that score, Christianity that rose out of Western Europe pre 1830 earns high marks in terms of the results it achieved, despite a lot of problems and zig zagging getting there, and that it needed a lot of help including from many who had to reject its creed to do their work.

Apart from the subtle attempt to undermine my position's cresdibility by calling it 'klingon' I am not too sure there is much here I disagree with. the difference between us devolves into a simple question of faith. We each consider the other's glass to be dark and smoky even though we are both seeing pretty much the same image.

Your last post is a little difficult to discuss becaseu the period of time you are refernceing appears to shift in the message. An exemplar of a response might be, hoewever, that my 'klingon' considers chrisitian churches of certain time periods to be degenreate not becasue they were primarily or even partially evil, but becasue they lacked truth needed for exaltation (e.g. priesthood). I understand you to say that they weren't necessarily degenerate but for other reasons. I can live with this and fail to see how my belief means that I have 'written off' philospohy or relgious thought for any period of time, let alone for the 2000 years in the post that you referenced that started this thread.

Nothing about my belief makes me fail to appreciate any of the advances or schools of thought that developed in the dark ages, the enlightenment or at any other time, it just menas that for myself I believe and manifest faith in the ideas presented by the LDS church. You obviously reject those beliefs, which I can also live with (just becasue I know eventually we'll get you back ;-)), but with your unwillingness to assume the veracity of my premise, even in arguendo, you and I will simply never agree here. The apostacy is, for me a failure of faith which I see evidecned in numerous ways. You obviously disagree. SO be it.

As a post script let me just add that whatever truth por goodness was found in what was at the time (about 200 a.d. to 1300 or 1400 a.d.) THE church in western europe was very difficult to find in practice. It was a brutish lot that ran things then and, usually (although not always but certainly ironically) the closer one got to Rome the worse it became.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I thought it was a pretty neutral way to put it. It's a close paraphrase of something I once read written by a great historian, J.M. Roberts. Maybe you're reading my useage of "cult" too narrowy.

This is Klingon/English again. Some would argue that this fact, and it is, however characterised, a fact, is very faith promoting.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I thought it was a pretty neutral way to put it. It's a close paraphrase of something I once read written by a great historian, J.M. Roberts. Maybe you're reading my useage of "cult" too narrowy.

That's possible...what exactly is your usage of cult suppose to mean here? In our society, there's certainly a very negative connotation attached to anything called a cult.

[ute4ever]

I always thought the great apostasy referred to a timeframe when God did not operate through living mortal prophets. However, the light of Christ and personal revelation were still prevalent to the worthy.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I always thought the great apostasy referred to a timeframe when God did not operate through living mortal prophets. However, the light of Christ and personal revelation were still prevalent to the worthy.

I think you're right.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Kudos to Robin. You posted what I was going to say but didn't have the energy. I find the whole notion of a "Great Apostacy" soooo vexing. To be blunt, it breeds untold blindness to history. This type of ignorance is particularly unfortunate becasue if you kiss off he last 2,000 years you turn a blind eye to discovering who you really are, i.e., the cultural and intellectual events that made your mind and your world view.

Within the alleged period of "Great Apostacy" you have Constantinople/Byzantium which continued to fourish culturally and intellectually, and along with it many contiguous areas including Arab kindgdoms. Indeed, the whole concept of a "fall of Rome" and ensuing "Dark Ages" is a Western conceit. The case can be made that Rome didn't really "fall" until about 1400 A.D., with the fall of Byzantium. Indeed, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" goes on describing another nearly 1,000 years of history after the Western half of the Empire became "extinct" in 476. It could be said that Rome simply changed the seat of its Empire. And by 1400 the Rennaisance was ready to take off, closely followed by the Enlightenment, which led to re-emergence of Republican ideals and the founding of the United States. Western Christians during the time of the Crusades originally sacked Byzantium (there's an irony) and recently scholars have started to say that what the Crusaders learned on their Eastern odysses was critical to the re-emergence of the West as dominant.

The Rennaisance was led by Catholics (yes, Rafael, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, et al. took their faith very seriously), and the Enlightnment was led primarily by atheists and agnostics, or people who almost by definition rejected the Judeo-Christian concept of God. The primary source of the inspiration for these latter two movements was most emphatically not the Protestant Reformation (which was a backlash against them, at its core), as is often suggested by Church "scolars," but a re-discovery of Classical values, preserved, paradoxically, by diligent Catholic monks. Thus, as T.S. Eliot once noted, a case could be made that Rome never fell, and we're still Roman citizens.

non-sequitor says he'd consider coming back into the fold if the beer ban were repealed. For me a big step in the right direction would be expunging this "Great Apostacy" nonsense from Church doctrine.

This is what you get when "intellectuals" think they know more than God and Jesus Christ.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

This is what you get when "intellectuals" think they know more than God and Jesus Christ.

Really? Let's look again at what SeattleUte said:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Within the alleged period of "Great Apostacy" you have Constantinople/Byzantium which continued to fourish culturally and intellectually, and along with it many contiguous areas including Arab kindgdoms. Indeed, the whole concept of a "fall of Rome" and ensuing "Dark Ages" is a Western conceit. The case can be made that Rome didn't really "fall" until about 1400 A.D., with the fall of Byzantium. Indeed, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" goes on describing another nearly 1,000 years of history after the Western half of the Empire became "extinct" in 476. It could be said that Rome simply changed the seat of its Empire. And by 1400 the Rennaisance was ready to take off, closely followed by the Enlightenment, which led to re-emergence of Republican ideals and the founding of the United States. Western Christians during the time of the Crusades originally sacked Byzantium (there's an irony) and recently scholars have started to say that what the Crusaders learned on their Eastern odysses was critical to the re-emergence of the West as dominant.

The Rennaisance was led by Catholics (yes, Rafael, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, et al. took their faith very seriously), and the Enlightnment was led primarily by atheists and agnostics, or people who almost by definition rejected the Judeo-Christian concept of God. The primary source of the inspiration for these latter two movements was most emphatically not the Protestant Reformation (which was a backlash against them, at its core), as is often suggested by Church "scolars," but a re-discovery of Classical values, preserved, paradoxically, by diligent Catholic monks. Thus, as T.S. Eliot once noted, a case could be made that Rome never fell, and we're still Roman citizens; and yes, I know more than God and Jesus Christ.

non-sequitor says he'd consider coming back into the fold if the beer ban were repealed. For me a big step in the right direction would be expunging this "Great Apostacy" nonsense from Church doctrine."

(Never mind, I found it this time.)