LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by soren1

Zerinus,

Here I will need to do some explaining. I distinguish between the doctrine of the Great Apostasy as taught the by LDS Church and the different doctrine that is found in the Book of Mormon. I am in fact the last person who will argue that a total apostasy is found in the Book of Mormon, which contradicts that thesis plainly, and instead teaches a view in line with classical Protestantism, originally expounded in Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church, that the true Church vanished under suppression by a false one, but subsisted in a state of repression. This is patently what is taught in 1 Nephi 13. In fact, the verse from 3 Nephi that you quote lends excellent support to the very case that I have been making for a long time. I suspect we are in substantial agreement, though perhaps with some differences, about what the Book of Mormon, teaches here.

I do not, expect, however, that you will agree with me that this contradicts current LDS teaching. So I must provide grounds for that assertion. My first, prima facie reason for thinking that there is a contradiction is that in defending the same kind of reading of the Book of Mormon as you before other Mormons I have usually been rebuffed for it. Admittedly, I argue the position for different objectives, but rarely has anyone even been willing to give me an inch. The only Mormon I have discussed this with before you who really saw Book of Mormon teaching for what it is was PacMan at MADB some years ago (and it was he who first introduced me to the “light of Christ” argument). I hold that you and PacMan are right about the Book of Mormon and the earliest sections of D&C, but at odds with current Church teaching, which fails to properly understand the key texts; the other Mormons I have dealt with are correct about what the LDS Church’s official stance is, but wrong about what the Book of Mormon says.

The Mormons who have criticized me for agreeing with you did so out of observance of statements like this one from Gospel Principles:[/i}

More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy (p. 105)

This is no longer a statement that Luther would agree with or, for that matter, Nephi.

As far as the Apostasy is concerned, the Book of Mormon and the D&C teach the same doctrines. I don't know where you get those ideas from.

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by zerinus

Okay, that was a long post, and it contained a quotation from Jeremiah 33 with no comment, which still leaves me at a loss to understand how Jeremiah 33 relates to, or negates the Mormon doctrine of the Apostasy. I hope you have a better answer to that question.

And yet you not provided a single shred of historical sources supporting the Mormon doctrine of an Apostasy actually happening against Christ Church.

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by soren1

Zerinus,

In your article you offer a distinction between the sacramental and ecclesial orders of the Church that appears to resolve this conflict. If I understand you correctly, you hold that there was a total apostasy with respect to the sacramental order but not the ecclesial order. The ordinances were lost, but individual believers still existed unknown to each other. The problem with this is that the Church’s ecclesial order is constituted by the sacramental order, because Church membership is determined by valid baptism.

The Apostasy affects both the ecclesiastical order as well as the sacramental order. It renders the sacraments null and void, and it strips the ecclesiastical order of anyone possessing divine authority from God, which is another word for the priesthood. But that did not mean that the Christian church or organization had lost its faith altogether, or became evil. The two are not the same thing.

The point at which you stray from Mormon orthodoxy in your article is when you say, “By that we do not mean that the entire church became wicked, or that there were no more true Christians left in the world who had a saving faith in the Christ.”

That is not true. I am not straying from Mormon orthodoxy by saying that. What I said articulates the view maintained by the Church for as long as I know.

Unless “saving faith” means for you something very different from what a normal Christian reader of your article would understand, then this is not Mormon teaching.

By “saving faith” I meant what I had quoted from D&C 10, as follows:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.
54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, [which already exists in the world] but I say this to build up my church [which already exists in the world];
55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church [which already exists in the world] need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

This revelation was received before the LDS Church had been officially organized; and what the Lord means by “my church” in verses 54 and 55 is the Christian church that already existed in the world at that time. God recognized them as “His church”. And it says that they shall “inherit the kingdom of God,” which means that they will be saved. So I think you have seriously misunderstood what Mormonism teaches on this subject.

Assuming a face-value understanding of “saving faith”, the number of statements by LDS leaders that deny salvation to anyone who has not received the actual ordinances of the LDS Church are so numerous and so clear that it would seem redundant even to bother documenting examples. To achieve salvation in Mormonism requires multiple elements, namely, repentance, baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and perseverance to the end. Noticing that 2 Nephi 9:23-24 teaching that baptism is essential to salvation as such, LDS leaders draw the conclusion that nobody can be saved outside the authority structure of the true Church. I will limit myself to just one recent text by Dallin H. Oaks in 1995: …

Yes, but you are overlooking the following verses:

D&C 137:

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

God’s true Church includes all those who would have received the fullness of the Restored Gospel if they had been allowed to live on earth long enough. God knows what was in their hearts, and judges them accordingly.

Many Bible verses declare that Jesus came to take away the sins of the world (e.g., John 1:29; Matt. 26:28). The New Testament frequently refers to the grace of God and to salvation by grace (e.g., John 1:17; Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:8). But it also has many specific commandments on personal behavior, and many references to the importance of works (e.g., Matt. 5:16; Eph. 2:10; James 2:14–17). In addition, the Savior taught that we must endure to the end in order to be saved (see Matt. 10:22; Mark 13:13).

Agreed, what was your point?

[CatholicGuyNY]

Originally Posted by zerinus

By “saving faith” I meant what I had quoted from D&C 10, as follows:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.
54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, [which already exists in the world] but I say this to build up my church [which already exists in the world];
55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church [which already exists in the world] need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

This revelation was received before the LDS Church had been officially organized; and what the Lord means by “my church” in verses 54 and 55 is the Christian church that already existed in the world at that time. God recognized them as “His church”. And it says that they shall “inherit the kingdom of God,” which means that they will be saved. So I think you have seriously misunderstood what Mormonism teaches on this subject.



Yes, but you are overlooking the following verses:

D&C 137:

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

God’s true Church includes all those who would have received the fullness of the Restored Gospel if they had been allowed to live on earth long enough. God knows what was in their hearts, and judges them accordingly.

This sounds like the Catholic belief in "baptism of desire":

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that before the church was allegedly restored, those that were Christians, part of "His Church", will be saved? What do you mean by this? Surely that includes the necessity of proxy baptism for them to be saved, right? Or will they be saved without baptism by the "proper authority"?

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by CatholicGuyNY

This sounds like the Catholic belief in "baptism of desire":

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. "

There are obvious similarities.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that before the church was allegedly restored, those that were Christians, part of "His Church", will be saved?

It applies not only to those who came before the LDS Church was organized, but also after.

What do you mean by this? Surely that includes the necessity of proxy baptism for them to be saved, right? Or will they be saved without baptism by the "proper authority"?

I think the assumption is that they will be saved by baptism by proxy.

[CatholicGuyNY]

Originally Posted by zerinus

There are obvious similarities.



It applies not only to those who came before the LDS Church was organized, but also after.



I think the assumption is that they will be saved by baptism by proxy.

ok thanks.

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by zerinus

The Apostasy affects both the ecclesiastical order as well as the sacramental order. It renders the sacraments null and void, and it strips the ecclesiastical order of anyone possessing divine authority from God, which is another word for the priesthood. But that did not mean that the Christian church or organization had lost its faith altogether, or became evil. The two are not the same thing.

This revelation was received before the LDS Church had been officially organized; and what the Lord means by “my church” in verses 54 and 55 is the Christian church that already existed in the world at that time. God recognized them as “His church”. And it says that they shall “inherit the kingdom of God,” which means that they will be saved. So I think you have seriously misunderstood what Mormonism teaches on this subject.

Zerinus, without delving into any particulars, have you ever considered that the Church originally founded by Jesus, which you admit still exists, (i.e. the Catholic Church) is in fact, Jesus own Church? He is the head. The assertion that Christ's own Church, not man's, but Christ's, could fall into a state in which His own sacraments could become null and void and that the priestly authority which was bestowed by Him could be lost, is just not plausible. I realize that this point has been brought up numerous times, but I don't think that I have ever seen it specifically addressed. I could be wrong. If I am please accept my apology, but would you mind humoring me with an answer.

Thanks.

[CatholicGuyNY]

Originally Posted by SteveVH

Zerinus, without delving into any particulars, have you ever considered that the Church originally founded by Jesus, which you admit still exists, (i.e. the Catholic Church) is in fact, Jesus own Church?

From what I've read from Mormons, they don't really believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, but is an..."evolution" of that primitive church that was founded by Christ.

Unless Zerinus said otherwise?

[zerinus]

Originally Posted by SteveVH

Zerinus, without delving into any particulars, have you ever considered that the Church originally founded by Jesus, which you admit still exists, (i.e. the Catholic Church) is in fact, Jesus own Church? He is the head.

The "church" referred to in D&C 10, which already existed in the world, and which the Lord acknowledged to be His church, does not refer to the Catholic, or any other particular church organization. It is not a "denominational" church. It refers to all those true Christians (of of whatever church) who had a genuine faith and testimony of Jesus Christ, worshiped Him according to His word, and endeavored to live by His precepts as contained in the Bible. Those are what the Lord refers to collectively as "my Church," regardless of which particular denominational church they belonged to. He says that He has established this new dispensation, or Restoration church, in order "build them up," not pull them down. The word church has several definitions or meanings, the most literal original of which was simply the true believers in Jesus Christ, and that is the sense in which it is understood in D&C 10.

The assertion that Christ's own Church, not man's, but Christ's, could fall into a state in which His own sacraments could become null and void and that the priestly authority which was bestowed by Him could be lost, is just not plausible. I realize that this point has been brought up numerous times, but I don't think that I have ever seen it specifically addressed. I could be wrong. If I am please accept my apology, but would you mind humoring me with an answer.

It has been addressed in the Blog post which I had given links to in a couple of posts earlier.

[SirThomasMore]

How sad it must be for Zenius to have a god so weak, dishonest, and cruel to have allowed an Apostasy

[soren1]

Originally Posted by zerinus

Okay, that was a long post, and it contained a quotation from Jeremiah 33 with no comment, which still leaves me at a loss to understand how Jeremiah 33 relates to, or negates the Mormon doctrine of the Apostasy. I hope you have a better answer to that question.

Zerinus,

Yes, I do have a better answer, but my explanation wound up so long that it will be my only post for today. I listed three premises before giving the text, which I thought would make its application evident. Having already waxed long, and because there was a screaming baby on my lap, I gave rather short shrift to this critical point. If you don’t see it already from those premises, then I am probably assuming other principles about covenants or salvation history that you either don’t accept or don’t know. So I shall rehearse a lesson on covenant theology which, even if familiar in parts to you and others, is worth repeating for its own sake, because it is good and true, so here comes another long post.

The entire narrative structure of the Bible is built upon a sequence of divine covenants, each of which builds upon the one before and extends the reach of God’s kingdom. There are exactly six basic covenants. The first is the creation covenant with Adam followed by the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. (For Abraham and Moses, there is actually a sequence of covenants, but they amount to one overarching covenant for each.) After the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7, there are no further divine covenants in the Old Testament, and the task remains for the prophets to foretell the final, culminating covenant with the messiah, which extend God’s Kingdom to the entire world.

Here a point of clarification must be made. A covenant is not, I repeat, is not, a contract. Some covenants (but not all) can be compared to contracts because they contain mutual contingent responsibilities, but that is a superficial similarity relative to the essential qualities of a covenant that distinguish it from a contract. A contract involves an exchange of goods, whereas a covenant is a sworn exchange of persons. It is not, “I will give you this if you give me that,” but rather, “I swear to give you me and you swear to give me you.” This difference can be seen in the way covenants function to establish families in the Bible: marriage and adoption are both covenants. Thus when God covenants with David to establish his kingdom under Solomon, has says, “I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son.” (2 Sam 7:14) This is an example of what modern scholars term a kinship covenant. The two other important forms of biblical covenants are treaty covenants and grant covenants.

Of the three forms, a treaty covenant is the most like a contract. In it, a lord makes a someone else into a vassal, with mutual obligations affixed. The Adamic covenant and most of the Mosaic covenant are examples of this (though it also has grant and kinship portions). God says in each case, “If you act by these precepts you will get blessings from me, if not you will get curses.” When the vassal does not live up to the terms of the covenant, curses ensue.

A grant covenant is one in which the superior party alone assumes obligations. This normally follows as a reward for some good deed already done by the recipient of the grant. For instance, God covenants with Noah that he will never send another flood on the earth, with no stipulations involved: Noah has served God already, and God now rewards him. Another important example of this, which gets a lot of attention from Paul, is the Abrahamic covenant, in which God rewards Abraham’s faith in sacrificing Isaac by swearing that “by your descendants shall all nations of the earth bless themselves.” (Gen 22:18) The grant form of this covenant becomes the critical premise in Romans, in which Paul’s basic argument of the first eight chapters can be summarized as follows: although disobedience to the Mosaic treaty-covenant would seem to ensure curses for all men, the Abrahamic grant-covenant, which happened prior to Moses, must be fulfilled unconditionally; this paradox is resolved by Christ, whose sacrifice fulfills the Mosaic Law totally and makes available to us the promises that Abraham received by faith.

[soren1]

Zerinus,

The Mormon doctrine of the Great Apostasy depends upon a crucial misunderstanding of divine covenants, which can be formally identified: it treats the Levitical covenant as if it were a treaty covenant, which can be lost due to human transgressions, when it is in fact a grant covenant without any stipulations that could cause the covenant to be forfeited by the people as a whole. Jeremiah understands the Levitical charter as a grant covenant, and he interprets the messianic kingdom in light of that understanding.

That the Levitical covenant has a grant form can be seen from the Torah alone. In Ex 16-24, before the Levite become priests, all the covenantal terms are conditional, treaty-type terms; Israel then violates those conditions in the episode of the Golden Calf and forfeits the covenant. Prior to the Calf, sacrifices were offered by the youths of Israel, the firstborn sons, who are set apart unto the Lord (Exod 13:2, 12-15; 22:29) Yet it is these youths who end up making offerings to the Golden Calf. For this reason, they lose their rights under the treaty covenant, and God cuts a new covenant with the Levites: “Behold I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb among the sons of Israel.” (Num 3:11) God renews the violated covenant with Israel by establishing a new priestly covenant with the Levites. That is why St. Paul can later say, “For the priesthood being transferred, there is necessarily a change of the Law as well.” (Heb 7:12; no other Biblical grounds for this claim exists.)

Because the Levites were faithful to God, dissented from worshipping the Golden Calf, and executing justice upon the perpetrators, God rewards them saying, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day.” As result this new covenant has the form of a reward to them, a pure blessing, and hence, it is now an unconditional grant covenant, a gift in response to past good actions. Notice its similarity, as well, to the Abrahamic grant, “Because you have not spared you son…”. Part of the blessing that God covenants to the Levites is the perpetuity of their priesthood on earth forever (Num 18:8, Lev 7:34).

What Jeremiah 33 does is confirm the covenantal status of this blessing on the Levites and then apply it to the Christian Church. Contrary to the wild claims of many theologians of the Second Great Awakening in early nineteenth-century New England, the restoration of Israel that ends the famine prophesied by Amos and other prophets is not a restoration that occurs in the future or the recent past but is clearly taught in the New Testament as consisting in the extension of the Church beyond Israel’s borders, grafting in the Gentiles among whom the Jews are dispersed, with no similar loss or dispersion to ever occur again. (Amos 9:11-12, 15; Acts 15:14-16). They don’t need to go back to Israel physically, because the New Israel comes to them spiritually. Jeremiah is writing about the same restoration of Israel. He begins with a Messianic prophesy of Christ’s coming Kingship, as then shows the power with which that Kingship will be established: by the very power and certainty of God’s covenant oaths, which entail a persistent, unbroken presence of the Levitical priests as servants of the Davidic King ruling in Zion.

Yet, Mormonism claims that the Levitical priesthood was taken from the earth, with no Levites left to minister, after the time of the Messiah. On what grounds? Because of human agency. But that is nothing in comparison to God’s own covenanted life-oath. Freedom can account for why individuals fall away, but the entire body of the Church as a whole is established by divine covenant. In the case of the perpetuity of priesthood, it is ensured by an unconditional grant, and hence cannot be lost even if men sin. If it were God would have violated his oath to the Levites, dissolving his own sovereignty as a false-swearer. Rather than accept this blasphemous claim, we must trust in God’s power to bring all his promises to pass even when men sin. That is what Paul means when he says, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Rom 3:4)

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by SirThomasMore

How sad it must be for Zenius to have a god so weak, dishonest, and cruel to have allowed an Apostasy

Indeed,Jesus is a failure and let-down because His Church could not fight off an apostasy.

[zaffiroborant]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Indeed,Jesus is a failure and let-down because His Church could not fight off an apostasy.

Indeed,Jesus is a failure and let-down because His Church could not fight off an apostasy twice

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by zaffiroborant

Indeed,Jesus is a failure and let-down because His Church could not fight off an apostasy twice