The Great Apostasy didn't happen
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:11 pm
I have some notes from last month when I was busy arguing with TBMs on a Christian forum. Just private ruminations as I tried to untangle things. I used mostly LDS quotes from their official site because it is me arguing from their base belief that even if we go with what their narrative says 100%, it doesn't make sense.
---------
"Even though He is not physically on the earth, Jesus Christ leads and guides His Apostles through revelation. Under the leadership of His Apostles, the ancient Church spread quickly and thousands were baptized. Elders, bishops, deacons, priests, teachers, and evangelists (patriarchs) were called and given priesthood authority by the Apostles."
"Following the deaths of the Savior’s Apostles, the principles of the gospel were corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and to priesthood ordinances."
[LINK=Great Apostasy]
“The Apostles, after the Ascension of Christ, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode ‘the Apostasy’” (Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 21).
So, wait, were the priesthood keys passed on or not? The organization of the church as it is today doesn't need all twelve apostles in order to find out who next becomes an apostle or prophet. The keys aren't completely lost when some of them die because the remaining men with the authority have the power to call new men to fill these important slots and positions. So, as long as the Apostles called men into the priesthood(which this seminary lesson said that they did), then they don't need to actively appoint a successor.
How were unauthorized changes made when the Apostles passed on the keys of the priesthood? If Jesus Christ leads His Apostles through revelation, then why did those who received the priesthood from the Apostles not get revelation after those men died?
There is no historical evidence of this Apostasy. First, I can't find anywhere a specific date or document that shows when the Christianity preached by the Apostles went off course. We have all these documents from archaeologists and historians that were letters and sermons given by the Apostles. Not in any of them is there reference to uniquely Mormon doctrine or ordinances. Considering the fact that the Apostles went in several different directions to go and preach the word, the conspiracy of Satan's evil plan to destroy all trace of the precise rituals and doctrines, this cabal would need to have power and access in these different parts of the world. The records would need to have been destroyed early, because the books now in the Bible can be translated back and match some of the oldest versions of these books that we have. If someone was editing Mormon doctrine out of these papers, they needed to have gotten to the documents right in the Apostles hands or right after they died.
Second, several scriptures get referenced as pointing to a Great Apostasy foretold or currently happening at the time these documents and letters were written. So...this agent of Satan went to all of this trouble to eliminate every trace of the TRUE gospel of Christ right out of the hands of the Apostles themselves but he left in all these clues that point to this message being tainted or tampered with? Could it be that the Great Apostasy hasn't happened yet? Or possibly these scriptures weren't referencing a big event but apostasy in general?
Third, if it's a Restoration, then that means putting things back to how they originally were. Yet there is no evidence put forth by the LDS church that Jesus Christ's church was run the way the Mormon church is. Even if we go with just how the church was set up while JS was alive, there is no evidence that Christ organized things in that manner or taught these uniquely Mormon doctrines. There is no evidence that the Apostles set up a First Presidency with a Prophet at the head; there is no evidence that the Apostles built sacred temples and preached about genealogy; there is no evidence that the Apostles preached about spirits existing before birth nor is there evidence of the different kingdoms of glory after death. There are a lot of very unique and specific doctrines that a lot of evidence would have to be destroyed to eradicate any trace of. Which do you think would be easier? Going in and editing a document or destroying all of the papers that preach of Christ? If the editing was going to be so thorough, why leave any trace of Christianity being taught at all?
If we don't have any examples of the twelve Apostles staying together to call a Prophet and set up a firm leadership of the church, then couldn't we say that the Great Apostasy actually occurred right when Christ ascended? I mean, if the directive was to keep his church on the earth exactly as he organized it, then weren't the Apostles a part of the corruption by splitting up and going to preach as teachers and missionaries instead? Couldn't it be said that the reason we have no examples of Christ establishing this organization is because the Apostles left out those details or edited them out themselves? *gasp* All twelve were Judas!!!
"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. "
[LINK="Preach My Gospel"]
There's a huge flaw in this because most people understand that Christ signalled an end to the way things were done before. No longer did folks need to follow the Law of Moses because Christ made this ultimate sacrifice for us. If we're going by that metric that we no longer need to sacrifice animals and crops, then why do they assume we need another prophet after Christ's death? Why would we assume that apostles were still needed when the first we heard of them was as the counsel and lead disciples for Christ himself? If you called a prophet and put him in that middle position, with apostles around him...wouldn't that seem like you're trying to replace Christ?
Mormons try to point to Ephesians 4:11-14 to say "See? Christ's church was organized the exact same way the Mormon church set it up." First of all, the list of offices and priests in those verses is not ranked in the order that the LDS church ranks them; prophet is supposed to be above apostle. Second, the LDS church doesn't use all of those names for offices(evangelists) and they have inserted new office ranks in there(Patriarch).
Third, those offices such as deacon and teacher were meant for adult men. Even in the Mormon scriptures in D&C describe the duties for these offices as stuff you couldn't reasonably expect 12 and 15 year old young men to do. So, when you then give these offices to twelve year olds, as the modern church does, to say that this is how Christ dictated it should be set up is ignoring all the changes that have been made in just the past 130 years. Fourth, this comes across as a casual reference to these stations, to encompass those who might speak Christ's word. It's not a manual or an outline for how Christ's church should be run.
"While commentators, ancient and modern, have been divided regarding the meaning of Jesus’s statement to Peter about John’s fate at the end of the Gospel (see John 21:20–23), Joseph Smith received a revelation confirming that John’s mission will continue as a translated being until the Savior’s return (see Doctrine and Covenants 7:1–6). In other words, he not only prophesied of the end times, but his mission includes helping fulfill these prophecies as well as witnessing the fulfillment of the things that were revealed to him."
[LINK="John, the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved"]
"The Savior told John that he would “prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people” and become “as flaming fire and a ministering angel [and] minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth” (D&C 7:3, 6; see also John 21:20–23). Mormon said that the Three Nephites would be among the Gentiles and Jews, who would “know them not” (3 Nephi 28:27–28).
We don’t know anything more specific about the activities of these men. We know only that they have been transfigured so that they will not taste of death and that, whatever they are doing, it is for the purpose of bringing people to the Savior."
[LINK="Are John the Beloved…"]
So, if the 3 Nephites and John the Beloved were on the Earth, holding Priesthood authority, ministering and teaching the true gospel ordinances and principles, for 1,800 years...why was a Restoration of Christ's true church necessary? Why did John and the three Nephites allow the world to forget these truths? Wasn't that their mission? Didn't they have authority and keys? Why couldn't they have called new apostles and such? Why didn't they build temples?
This follows the flawed logic that the Great Apostasy was foretold, thus, a Restoration of the gospel was needed. Because the guy who made that prophecy(John) was one of the ones with the power to stop it from happening.
In any case, it's a blaring contradiction in the theology that LDS believe that John has been here this whole time, even came with Peter and James to give those exact keys and authority to JS and Oliver Cowdery. So, he still had them. Why he hadn't called someone and handed them to someone before JS is the big mystery. I guess the real ministry of these four translated beings is to simply allow billions of souls for almost 2,000 years to lose their way and just wander in darkness.
Thanks, John! We're really glad you stayed!
And it's not just that these four disciples of Christ failed but the premise that Christ himself failed.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Really? So, right after he died, all the truths he laid down and the work he did...it got corrupted and destroyed almost immediately? He might as well have never come, then.
---------
"Even though He is not physically on the earth, Jesus Christ leads and guides His Apostles through revelation. Under the leadership of His Apostles, the ancient Church spread quickly and thousands were baptized. Elders, bishops, deacons, priests, teachers, and evangelists (patriarchs) were called and given priesthood authority by the Apostles."
"Following the deaths of the Savior’s Apostles, the principles of the gospel were corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and to priesthood ordinances."
[LINK=Great Apostasy]
“The Apostles, after the Ascension of Christ, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode ‘the Apostasy’” (Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 21).
So, wait, were the priesthood keys passed on or not? The organization of the church as it is today doesn't need all twelve apostles in order to find out who next becomes an apostle or prophet. The keys aren't completely lost when some of them die because the remaining men with the authority have the power to call new men to fill these important slots and positions. So, as long as the Apostles called men into the priesthood(which this seminary lesson said that they did), then they don't need to actively appoint a successor.
How were unauthorized changes made when the Apostles passed on the keys of the priesthood? If Jesus Christ leads His Apostles through revelation, then why did those who received the priesthood from the Apostles not get revelation after those men died?
There is no historical evidence of this Apostasy. First, I can't find anywhere a specific date or document that shows when the Christianity preached by the Apostles went off course. We have all these documents from archaeologists and historians that were letters and sermons given by the Apostles. Not in any of them is there reference to uniquely Mormon doctrine or ordinances. Considering the fact that the Apostles went in several different directions to go and preach the word, the conspiracy of Satan's evil plan to destroy all trace of the precise rituals and doctrines, this cabal would need to have power and access in these different parts of the world. The records would need to have been destroyed early, because the books now in the Bible can be translated back and match some of the oldest versions of these books that we have. If someone was editing Mormon doctrine out of these papers, they needed to have gotten to the documents right in the Apostles hands or right after they died.
Second, several scriptures get referenced as pointing to a Great Apostasy foretold or currently happening at the time these documents and letters were written. So...this agent of Satan went to all of this trouble to eliminate every trace of the TRUE gospel of Christ right out of the hands of the Apostles themselves but he left in all these clues that point to this message being tainted or tampered with? Could it be that the Great Apostasy hasn't happened yet? Or possibly these scriptures weren't referencing a big event but apostasy in general?
Third, if it's a Restoration, then that means putting things back to how they originally were. Yet there is no evidence put forth by the LDS church that Jesus Christ's church was run the way the Mormon church is. Even if we go with just how the church was set up while JS was alive, there is no evidence that Christ organized things in that manner or taught these uniquely Mormon doctrines. There is no evidence that the Apostles set up a First Presidency with a Prophet at the head; there is no evidence that the Apostles built sacred temples and preached about genealogy; there is no evidence that the Apostles preached about spirits existing before birth nor is there evidence of the different kingdoms of glory after death. There are a lot of very unique and specific doctrines that a lot of evidence would have to be destroyed to eradicate any trace of. Which do you think would be easier? Going in and editing a document or destroying all of the papers that preach of Christ? If the editing was going to be so thorough, why leave any trace of Christianity being taught at all?
If we don't have any examples of the twelve Apostles staying together to call a Prophet and set up a firm leadership of the church, then couldn't we say that the Great Apostasy actually occurred right when Christ ascended? I mean, if the directive was to keep his church on the earth exactly as he organized it, then weren't the Apostles a part of the corruption by splitting up and going to preach as teachers and missionaries instead? Couldn't it be said that the reason we have no examples of Christ establishing this organization is because the Apostles left out those details or edited them out themselves? *gasp* All twelve were Judas!!!
"Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. "
[LINK="Preach My Gospel"]
There's a huge flaw in this because most people understand that Christ signalled an end to the way things were done before. No longer did folks need to follow the Law of Moses because Christ made this ultimate sacrifice for us. If we're going by that metric that we no longer need to sacrifice animals and crops, then why do they assume we need another prophet after Christ's death? Why would we assume that apostles were still needed when the first we heard of them was as the counsel and lead disciples for Christ himself? If you called a prophet and put him in that middle position, with apostles around him...wouldn't that seem like you're trying to replace Christ?
Mormons try to point to Ephesians 4:11-14 to say "See? Christ's church was organized the exact same way the Mormon church set it up." First of all, the list of offices and priests in those verses is not ranked in the order that the LDS church ranks them; prophet is supposed to be above apostle. Second, the LDS church doesn't use all of those names for offices(evangelists) and they have inserted new office ranks in there(Patriarch).
Third, those offices such as deacon and teacher were meant for adult men. Even in the Mormon scriptures in D&C describe the duties for these offices as stuff you couldn't reasonably expect 12 and 15 year old young men to do. So, when you then give these offices to twelve year olds, as the modern church does, to say that this is how Christ dictated it should be set up is ignoring all the changes that have been made in just the past 130 years. Fourth, this comes across as a casual reference to these stations, to encompass those who might speak Christ's word. It's not a manual or an outline for how Christ's church should be run.
"While commentators, ancient and modern, have been divided regarding the meaning of Jesus’s statement to Peter about John’s fate at the end of the Gospel (see John 21:20–23), Joseph Smith received a revelation confirming that John’s mission will continue as a translated being until the Savior’s return (see Doctrine and Covenants 7:1–6). In other words, he not only prophesied of the end times, but his mission includes helping fulfill these prophecies as well as witnessing the fulfillment of the things that were revealed to him."
[LINK="John, the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved"]
"The Savior told John that he would “prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people” and become “as flaming fire and a ministering angel [and] minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth” (D&C 7:3, 6; see also John 21:20–23). Mormon said that the Three Nephites would be among the Gentiles and Jews, who would “know them not” (3 Nephi 28:27–28).
We don’t know anything more specific about the activities of these men. We know only that they have been transfigured so that they will not taste of death and that, whatever they are doing, it is for the purpose of bringing people to the Savior."
[LINK="Are John the Beloved…"]
So, if the 3 Nephites and John the Beloved were on the Earth, holding Priesthood authority, ministering and teaching the true gospel ordinances and principles, for 1,800 years...why was a Restoration of Christ's true church necessary? Why did John and the three Nephites allow the world to forget these truths? Wasn't that their mission? Didn't they have authority and keys? Why couldn't they have called new apostles and such? Why didn't they build temples?
This follows the flawed logic that the Great Apostasy was foretold, thus, a Restoration of the gospel was needed. Because the guy who made that prophecy(John) was one of the ones with the power to stop it from happening.
In any case, it's a blaring contradiction in the theology that LDS believe that John has been here this whole time, even came with Peter and James to give those exact keys and authority to JS and Oliver Cowdery. So, he still had them. Why he hadn't called someone and handed them to someone before JS is the big mystery. I guess the real ministry of these four translated beings is to simply allow billions of souls for almost 2,000 years to lose their way and just wander in darkness.
Thanks, John! We're really glad you stayed!
And it's not just that these four disciples of Christ failed but the premise that Christ himself failed.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Really? So, right after he died, all the truths he laid down and the work he did...it got corrupted and destroyed almost immediately? He might as well have never come, then.