The "Great Apostacy" problem

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

One problem I have with the story of the apostasy is it basically (for most LDS) writes off nearlly 2000 years of spiritual and religious thought with one turn of a phrase.

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.

[creekster]

I am feeling dumber and dumber as I read your posts. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here. I have been an active member of the mormon church for the largest part of my adult life, and was active for the largest part of my pre-adult life, and believe an apostasy occurred, and I have never felt as though I turned a blind eye to any aspect of history nor do I lack familiarity with any of the historical trends and events you refer to in your post. Moreover, I have never felt or perceived any effort by anyone in the church to discourage me form study of those issues and events in history, nor do I find my reading about them to undermine my beleif in an apostacy. To the contrary, and as a small example, I just finished a book about Pope Silvester II, aka Gerbert, who was on the papal throne in Rome at the turn of the first millenium following Christ and I found his story and the description of the western Roman empire, as well as the situation in Byzantium, in that time frame to be entirely consistent with my understanding of the apsotacy.

What am i missing here?

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am feeling dumber and dumber as I read your posts. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here. I have been an active member of the mormon church for the largest part of my adult life, and was active for the largest part of my pre-adult life, and believe an apostasy occurred, and I have never felt as though I turned a blind eye to any aspect of history nor do I lack familiarity with any of the historical trends and events you refer to in your post. Moreover, I have never felt or perceived any effort by anyone in the church to discourage me form study of those issues and events in history, nor do I find my reading about them to undermine my beleif in an apostacy. To the contrary, and as a small example, I just finished a book about Pope Silvester II, aka Gerbert, who was on the papal throne in Rome at the turn of the first millenium following Christ and I found his story and the description of the western Roman empire, as well as the situation in Byzantium, in that time frame to be entirely consistent with my understanding of the apsotacy.

What am i missing here?

You are missing that some people want the Church to change to be exactly what they think it should be. This frequently is only a symptom of a bigger problem.

[fusnik11]

The idea that the world was void of light, and knowledge and advancement, during 120 A.D. to 1820 A.D. is a false idea perpetuated by mormon myth. It isn't grounded in reality, and isn't a prevailing thought among mormonism. Certain works paint the world entirely in unbelief, disarray, and certain levels of regression. But, the idea that the world was void of authority from God, aka, the priesthood, is in essence the true 'great apostasy.'

[creekster]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

The idea that the world was void of light, and knowledge and advancement, during 120 A.D. to 1820 A.D. is a false idea perpetuated by mormon myth. It isn't grounded in reality, and isn't a prevailing thought among mormonism. Certain works paint the world entirely in unbelief, disarray, and certain levels of regression. But, the idea that the world was void of authority from God, aka, the priesthood, is in essence the true 'great apostasy.'

It certainly isn't prevailing thought as far as I know. To the contrary, I find the fact that Islam's great golden age conincded rather nicely with the utter collapse of learning or progress in western eutope, again using a small example, to be indirectly faith promoting. With all due respect to you, SU, I think you tend to take the worse case example and argue against it ignoring that it is neither widespread nor correct.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

It certainly isn't prevailing thought as far as I know. To the contrary, I find the fact that Islam's great golden age conincded rather nicely with the utter collapse of learning or progress in western eutope, again using a small example, to be indirectly faith promoting. With all due respect to you, SU, I think you tend to take the worse case example and argue against it ignoring that it is neither widespread nor correct.

The view, as expressed by Talmage and others, is this: Christianity lost its way and along with it the material world fell into a "Dark Ages" which coincided with a Great Apostacy. The idea of a Great Apostacy is derivative of the archaic idea of a "Dark Ages" throughout Christendom, and integral to this notion was the concept that during the time of the "Great Apostacy" the world was in intellectual and spiritual darkness. Some people go so far as to even suggest that the Church brought on the Enlightenment, etc., or these events occurred as a precursor to the Resoration, i.e., people were wising up and getting ready for "restoration of the gospel."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The view, as expressed by Talmage and others, is this: Christianity lost its way and along with it the material world fell into a "Dark Ages" which coincided with a Great Apostacy. The idea of a Great Apostacy is derivative of the archaic idea of a "Dark Ages" throughout Christendom, and integral to this notion was the concept that during the time of the "Great Apostacy" the world was in intellectual and spiritual darkness. Some people go so far as to even suggest that the Church brought on the Enlightenment, etc., or these events occurred as a precursor to the Resoration, i.e., people were wising up and getting ready for "restoration of the gospel."

So the problems you have are:

1. linking an apostacy as a casuative agent of the Dark Ages, which may or may not have existed;

2. Suggesting that the enlightenemtn was a precursor to the restoration of the gospel (and that people were 'wising up accordingly) is incorrect; and, perhaps,

3. the world was not in intellectual or spiritual drakness during the 'dark ages.'

My response would be:

1. Were there "Dark Ages?" Not worldwide, certainly, as I already alluded to islamic ascendency during the first millenium in Western Europe. Was at least part of the world bereft of knowledge and light? Hard to deny this. If one considers a religious perspective then, as Fus noted, the loss of the priesthood itself consituttes a loss of light and knowledge that negatively affected the world. Does this mean there was no 'light' or knowledge whatsoever? Of course not. Does Talmadge say this? I haven't read his books in a while, but I don't think so. Even the much mlaigned Brigham Young says that ALL truth is part of the gosel, and thus their were clearly aspects of truth known to large chunks of the population in the world and thorughout Western Europe. None fo them had the priesthood, however, and so they undoubtedly suffered as a result, from my perspective.

Btw, my perspective is not allowed in your worldview and thus to criticize persons such as me for our perception of world events from your completely secular and non-faith based frame of refernce makes us talk past each other, doing little good to either of us.

2. We get it, you think the reformation was a backlash to the agnostic/atheistic (and I'll add deism to this) views of the enlightenment. OK. This has no bearing, however, on whether God allowed or caused these events to take place in order to create a fertile field in whichi gospel ideals could take root. The point is not what Martin Luther believed, the point is that Joseph Smith lived in a place and time that allowed him to restore the gospel. Martin Luther played a role in the events leading to JS's place and time. How his role was played (and whether some commentators got it wrong) is largely irrelevant to the faith-based position that the historical record shows the world was preapred for the gopsel.

3. Dealt with in number one, although histroy from the first millenium in westerm europe and th esatern Roman empire is far from enlightened (for example, the conversion story of the Rus people to eastern christianity). It is hard for me to tell if you think the Dark Ages wern't becasue they weren't truly dark world-wide, as opposed to just western wurope, or if you think they weren't dark in Western Euope, so I will reserve further comment in the evnt you feel it important to clairfy that point.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

3. Dealt with in number one, although histroy from the first millenium in westerm europe and th esatern Roman empire is far from enlightened (for example, the conversion story of the Rus people to eastern christianity). It is hard for me to tell if you think the Dark Ages wern't becasue they weren't truly dark world-wide, as opposed to just western wurope, or if you think they weren't dark in Western Euope, so I will reserve further comment in the evnt you feel it important to clairfy that point.

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, for example, 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.

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

So the problems you have are:


Btw, my perspective is not allowed in your worldview and thus to criticize persons such as me for our perception of world events from your completely secular and non-faith based frame of refernce makes us talk past each other, doing little good to either of us.

You're right, you're to some extent speaking klingon and I'm speaking English.

[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.