Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?


Attention Mormons,

Your religion is founded on the assertion that their was a Great Apostacy early in Christian history and that until Joseph Smith was revealed to, the “true” Christian church was non-existent. My specific questions. When did the Great Apostacy occur? Where do you get that time?

Also, were all of the Christians sucked into the Apsotacy or were there Christians trying to resist it and keep the church “true” as you believe the Mormon church is today?

Last question, wouldn’t the Great Apostacy mean that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the church?


Listens to the crickets chirping in the deafening silence…

…and waiting for the zeinius foot to fall :rolleyes:


And you think that you are the first one ever to ask that question, do you?



My understanding is that the apostasy happened after Jesus and most of the apostles were killed. My seminary teacher put it this way when explaining it to me, “The prophets (apostles) did not lead the people astray…the people choose wickedness over righteousness.”

Also, were all of the Christians sucked into the Apsotacy or were there Christians trying to resist it and keep the church “true” as you believe the Mormon church is today?

I don’t understand what you mean by, “sucked into the Apostasy”, but I’ll do my best to explain it. Can you keep a branch off a dead tree trunk alive? No. Same goes for the Protestant churches. My church doctrine on this is that you cannot derive a true church from a church that has fallen from truth.

Last question, wouldn’t the Great Apostacy mean that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the church?

I guess it could depend on how you interperate this scripture verse. I do not know how you could, because it seems pretty clear, but when I was asking this to my seminary teacher he told me that the verse meant that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against the church. However, this means that Satan cannot overpower God. The church can fall into Apostacy but it will never stay in Apostacy because God always has the power to bring it back, he just respects peoples agency. God is all-knowing and He knew the right time to bring the church back, even if it meant some persecution. But we had a newly found land of “religious tolerance” instead of the land overseas where you were forced to go to the Church of England, so it would be easier.

Sorry if I might have mixed these up a little. I’ve asked these questions before of my LDS seminary teacher and this is how he explained it.


There was no apostacy! The claim was just one of many lies by Joseph Smith. I for one, hope that people keep asking this question. Maybe, it will cause someone to realize they’ve been lied to by the LDS. Then again, maybe Z can come up with an argument that isn’t one of the following: subjective feelings, circular logic, unproven assertions, or ad-hominem attacks. Maybe, but I doubt it. I grew up in the Mormon church in SLC, and in my experience that’s all they’ve got.

(my .02, for what it’s worth)

Peace in Christ,


No, this has been asked over and over, and I think it is fair to say that Zerinus (and other Mormon residents) have done their best to answer. The problem, it seems to me, is that there is a fairly wide range of belief among Mormons in this regard. Most Mormons in the street have no idea what “apostasy” means. The vast majority of the ones I know think it just means that people became cold in their practice of the faith. However, “apostasy” is actually a very, very grave sin of turning away from Jesus. It is a deliberate, conscious, determined REJECTION of Jesus.

Also, there is a wide array of belief among Mormons over whether the so-called Great Apostasy is UNIVERSAL, or whether it only involves the Apostolic Authority vested in the Bishops and priests of the Catholic Church by Jesus. It appears that older Mormons were more inclined to the UNIVERSAL theory, such that all Catholics, everywhere, became apostate. Whereas, modern Mormons are likely to accept that there have always been lots of good Christians in the world, but that they were good Christians, performing fantastical works of faith and conversion IN SPITE of there being no valid priesthood in effect on Earth.

No matter which variation, none of them are supportable, either by logical argument, or via the witness of history. The Great Apostasy is a myth. Such a myth is needed by the cults in order to give them something upon which to base the need for a “restoration.” Without an Apostasy, there is no need for a restoration. Mormons aren’t the only cult claiming a Great Apostsy. The other ones do, too.


What further complicates understanding the “apostasy” purported by Mormonism is the distinction between classical Mormonism and neo-Mormonism. In the classical sense, Joseph Smith himself stated that the two personages in his vision indicated to him that ALL creeds on the earth today (ca. 1820) were an abomination. This is clearly a very grave, universal sin.

Neon-Mormonism has clearly attempted to soften its image and to appear more “Christian” than in times past. According to this line of thought, the “apostasy” merely indicates the lost of true priesthood, i.e. the Church’s authority and right to act in the name of God.

The LDS missionaries are much more versed with this latter neo-Mormonism when they discuss the apostasy w/ investigators and the general public, however the classical view remains “on the inside.”


If they don’t know the answer, Zerinus, it’s a fair question, no matter how many folks have asked it before them. If you think the question is asked insincerely, it devolves on you to indicate reasons for your opinion. If you don’t know how sincere the questioner is, why not just answer and wait to see if they demonstrate evidence of bad faith.


I don’t necessarily think that he is insincere. But it takes time and effort to answer these posts, and I get fed up with answering them.



That’s the nature of the Internet. New folks come to a controversial issue every day for various reasons. Some are ‘trolls’, who just want to rehash the same things over and over precisely to frustrate folks like you and like me. Others really want to glean an answer and think this is the best way to get such an answer quickly. Since it’s hard to tell, early in an exchange, whether or not you are dealing with a troll, and since you are going to get the same questions over-and-over: why not prepare some stock answers for some of the stock questions, complete with links to brief, clear responses to such FAQ’s? And then recognise that there are people who are very sincere but who won’t read the links: they may fear picking up a virus by clicking on links or they may simply not be really big readers. Or they are afraid of ‘brainwashing’ or something. Whatever. Just give them enough rope to either lasso in answers for themselves–or to hang themselves.

Or just refrain from posting in threads you find repetitive and boring. Just keep in mind that in most cases someone WILL answer the question. Accurately or not. If you want to make sure the answers are accurate you may have to do the job yourself.



We’ll make it easy for you. One question. You’ve got ALL week to come up with an answer:

When did the “Great Apostasy” occur?

Okay, start researching…

Pax Christi


That is a fair point. I shall keep that in mind.



So what does my answer not count? Zerinus isn’t the only mormon on here.


BumpSetSpike, I think your answer was good. You appear to subscribe to the position that the so-called Great Apostasy was complete and universal, which is also the position that many other Mormons, including (as I understand him) Bruce McConkie. Zerinus seems to move a little to the left of this position, in keeping with modern trends to soften the theory of a complete, universal, thorough apostasy.

For the past few weeks I’ve been going to a Sunday morning lecture series given by a historian in our parish, which is an overview of Church history. Right now, we are moving into the Reformation period. The lecturer made the comment today, after spending 2 hours on the Western Schism, that no organization could have survived such corruption without the oversight of God. During the couple hundred years just prior to the Reformation, there was a series of events that seriously attacked the Church, including the Schism, the 70 years of the papacy being moved to Avignon, the Black Plague, corruption in the papacy. The worst of these corrupt popes was probably Alexander VI, the Borgia, who fathered such luminous sinners as Ceasare and Lucrezia Borgia. In fact, right after Alexander left the scene, here comes the Reformation, which the Church allowed to fester for almost 30 years before convening the council (Trent) that would ultimately reform the Church and bring on the Counter-Reformation.

Naturally, I agree with the lecturer. The Mormons claim that persecution from without, and corruptions from within, contributed to the development of the Great Apostasy. Mormons say that the priesthood was lost, that most Christians RENOUNCED the faith. But, history proves otherwise. If you spend some time studying the history of the Church, as well as the history of Europe, which quite frankly is incomprehensible without an understanding of Church history, it becomes obvious that God has preserved His Church from doom. Not from corruption, and the need for continual reform, but from death. The Church is alive today, and has always been alive, with a valid priesthood and Apostolic succession. After all, how could it have survived without priesthood and succession?

You don’t have to be a scholar to comprehend the foolishness of the Great Apostasy charge. Just use your common sense, combined with a little reading, and it should become clear rather quickly.


These guys are all obcessed with Z! They are all suffering from a severe bout of Zenotitis! So don’t take it to heart. Unless your name begins with Z, you are not likely to be taken much notice of by the guys reound here.







Or an alternative possibility: A person may ask a sincere question, expecting an open, honest answer. In responce, an answer is given which fails to address the question in a direct, honest fashion, or perhaps the user simply doesn’t know how or is unable to answer the question for some reason. Then, the person may repeat the question because he/she feels they never got an answer.
IMHO, this is the case most of the time.



OK, Zerinus. Step away from the martini. Your English skills have declined markedly since this morning. Eat the olive, then sleep it off. You’ll feel better tomorrow.


Allweather, give our troll a break! He is Mormon (and from his postings in spite of common sense and logic, he is faithful to the teachings of his gods and angels)

Zerinus DOES NOT drink alcoholic beverages! Thus, he would not have access to an olive (and all that Judeo-Christian symbolism thereto) BUT like all good LDS Apostate slinging Aaronic Priests, Zerinus DOES drink Kool-Aid.:smiley:

So, Zerinus. Step away from the Tupperware pitcher. Your Mormon Apologetic 101 skills have declined markedly since you signed up here at CA. Drink the Grape Kool-Aid that is in your cup, only, do not pour more from the pitcher. Go lie down. We’ll feel better in the morning.:yup:

Pax Christi


Ooops. I forgot about that. Sorry, Zerinus.

Reminds of something, though. I knew a woman about 9 years ago who worked as an office assistant in an accounting firm, where all the accountants were Mormons. (BTW why is it that so many Mormons work in accounting? Anybody else notice this?)

She said that she never saw so much candy eaten by so few people in her life. She said that all of them had HUGE caches of candy in their offices, and that they munched on it all day, every day. Her theory was that because Mormons eschew coffee and alcohol, they eat a lot of candy.

One day, I was having a sort of pre-argument conversation with my fiance’s dad, and he was lecturing me about coffee and alcohol, something about the Word of Wisdom. While he was doing this, he was eating a four-pound serving of pie and ice cream, which I pointed out to him as I reminded that Jesus told us that it isn’t what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but rather, what comes out of him.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit