The Great Apostacy
- canadiangirl
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 16 Apr 2010, 23:15
The Great Apostacy
I've been reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong and learning so much about the history of Christianity. I do have a question that I'm hoping one of you can answer. When in history do we believe the great apostacy happened? Was it with the Nicean Creed or after Paul died? I'm very confused about it. It seems to me that all sorts of beliefs were had by the different groups of Christians from the time Christ died and I'm not sure when the priesthood would have been taken from the earth. Also where did the proper priesthood authority come from in ancient times? Was it through John the Baptist (and where did he get it?) or through Christ. (Guess I should listen better in Sunday School. Maybe if I attended more that would help!!LOL)
Any help would be appreciated.
Any help would be appreciated.
Re: The Great Apostacy
It was already starting at the time the Book of Acts is said, but is supposed to have been in full swing once all of the original apostles and disciples were murdered.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."
- mormonheretic
- Site Admin
- Posts: 805
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 13:53
- Contact:
Re: The Great Apostacy
This is one of my favorite topics--I've posted about various early Christian movements on my blog. I don't know if you've ever heard of Gnostic Christianity--it is a competing form of Christianity that had some very unusual beliefs. Gnosticism is an umbrella term, much like Protestantism. Not all Protestants believe exactly the same things, but they do share some broad similarities. Gnosticism works the same way. Gnosis is a greek work that means "secret knowledge." Gnostic Christians believe they had secret knowledge of Jesus.
For example, the Gospel of Judas was first mentioned by St Irenaeus in the 2nd century (100-200 AD). (The Egyptian version discovered by National Geographic isn't quite that old--it dates to the 4th Century.) Irenaeus declared the Gospel of Judas a pungent heresy. In this gospel, Judas is seen as smarter than all the other apostles. Judas was asked by Jesus to betray him. Gnostics believe that the body and resurrection is a bad thing. Judas helped Jesus rid himself of his earthly, corruptible body. Gnostics believe in a good God (his name escapes me), and the bad god's name is Jehovah. In Gnostic belief, Cain is good, because he slew Abel, Judas is good because he helped Jesus. According to the Jewish encyclopedia, Jewish Gnosticism predates Christianity. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... z0s7YSrPiH
The New Testament Canon wasn't established until the 4th Century. Gnostic Christians rivaled Orthodox Christians in size. (There was no such thing as a Catholic Church until at least the 7th century, and the formal schism with the Orthodox Church occured in 1050 AD.) Constantine sided with the Orthodox Christians, and started persecuting Gnostic Christians. These Gnostic Christians existed until the 7th or 8th century AD. Constantine wanted the church to establish a canon. Prior to this, the New Testament did not exist, and there was much debate about what scriptures should be added.
The Gospel of John has gnostic elements. The Gospel of Judas and Gospel of Thomas are well-known gnostic Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas pre-dates all of the biblical gospels, and some scholars have wondered if it is the source Q. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain identical Greek translations of Jesus’ sayings, and these sayings bear striking resemblances to Thomas.
Furthermore, from my readings of Paul, it seems to me that Paul was referring to these “apostate” gnostic teachings. Some examples:
Galatians 1:8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
2 Thess 2:3, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
This last scripture is a common missionary scripture to describe the apostasy, which we claim had already begun in Paul’s day. He seems to be addressing apostate teachings. Certainly Gnostics would be considered apostate teachings by Paul, especially if Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity. From my understanding of early Christian history, Gnosticism often encompasses beliefs from Jewish, Christian, and pagan religious sources.
Long answer to your question, but in short, the apostasy was well under way while the early apostles were all still living. I'd say it began at Jesus death. (Or I guess if you consider apostasy as any falling away, it can easily be traced to the time of Moses. Jews often had difficulty with polytheism. Heck, you could even start with Cain and Abel.)
For example, the Gospel of Judas was first mentioned by St Irenaeus in the 2nd century (100-200 AD). (The Egyptian version discovered by National Geographic isn't quite that old--it dates to the 4th Century.) Irenaeus declared the Gospel of Judas a pungent heresy. In this gospel, Judas is seen as smarter than all the other apostles. Judas was asked by Jesus to betray him. Gnostics believe that the body and resurrection is a bad thing. Judas helped Jesus rid himself of his earthly, corruptible body. Gnostics believe in a good God (his name escapes me), and the bad god's name is Jehovah. In Gnostic belief, Cain is good, because he slew Abel, Judas is good because he helped Jesus. According to the Jewish encyclopedia, Jewish Gnosticism predates Christianity. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... z0s7YSrPiH
The New Testament Canon wasn't established until the 4th Century. Gnostic Christians rivaled Orthodox Christians in size. (There was no such thing as a Catholic Church until at least the 7th century, and the formal schism with the Orthodox Church occured in 1050 AD.) Constantine sided with the Orthodox Christians, and started persecuting Gnostic Christians. These Gnostic Christians existed until the 7th or 8th century AD. Constantine wanted the church to establish a canon. Prior to this, the New Testament did not exist, and there was much debate about what scriptures should be added.
The Gospel of John has gnostic elements. The Gospel of Judas and Gospel of Thomas are well-known gnostic Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas pre-dates all of the biblical gospels, and some scholars have wondered if it is the source Q. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain identical Greek translations of Jesus’ sayings, and these sayings bear striking resemblances to Thomas.
Furthermore, from my readings of Paul, it seems to me that Paul was referring to these “apostate” gnostic teachings. Some examples:
Galatians 1:8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
2 Thess 2:3, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
This last scripture is a common missionary scripture to describe the apostasy, which we claim had already begun in Paul’s day. He seems to be addressing apostate teachings. Certainly Gnostics would be considered apostate teachings by Paul, especially if Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity. From my understanding of early Christian history, Gnosticism often encompasses beliefs from Jewish, Christian, and pagan religious sources.
Long answer to your question, but in short, the apostasy was well under way while the early apostles were all still living. I'd say it began at Jesus death. (Or I guess if you consider apostasy as any falling away, it can easily be traced to the time of Moses. Jews often had difficulty with polytheism. Heck, you could even start with Cain and Abel.)
Re: The Great Apostacy
People talk about gnosticism as if it were a unified movement. From the material on gnosticism I've read, they were also at one another's throats (a house divided against itself) and their scriptures and ideas contradicted each other even more than our own.
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."
- canadiangirl
- Posts: 228
- Joined: 16 Apr 2010, 23:15
Re: The Great Apostacy
Mormonheretic,
Thank you so much for taking the time to help me understand. I read the term Gnosticism in Karen Armstrong's book but you have really helped me understand that term much better.
I find this all very fascinating. I still don't understand why the need for the priesthood to be restored. Any takers on that one? If the apostasy was beginning while Paul was alive and had more to do with competing sects of Christianity, my mind has a difficult time following the logic that says that the priesthood was taken from the earth. Did Paul hold the priesthood?
I hope I am not showing my ignorance by asking these questions. Thanks again for spending the time needed to answer me.
Canadiangirl
Thank you so much for taking the time to help me understand. I read the term Gnosticism in Karen Armstrong's book but you have really helped me understand that term much better.
I find this all very fascinating. I still don't understand why the need for the priesthood to be restored. Any takers on that one? If the apostasy was beginning while Paul was alive and had more to do with competing sects of Christianity, my mind has a difficult time following the logic that says that the priesthood was taken from the earth. Did Paul hold the priesthood?
I hope I am not showing my ignorance by asking these questions. Thanks again for spending the time needed to answer me.
Canadiangirl
- mormonheretic
- Site Admin
- Posts: 805
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 13:53
- Contact:
Re: The Great Apostacy
Yes Sambee, I agree completely that Gnosticism was not unified, and neither is Protestantism. I remember a funny line from the movie A River Runs Through It where the minister said that Baptists were like Presbyterians, but dumber. While we are all familiar with anti-Mormon rhetoric, certainly Protestants say impolite things about each other as well.
There is much debate about whether Paul was a member of the Quorum of Twelve. After Judas betrayal and suicide, he is replaced in the quorum by Matthias in Acts chapter 1. In chapter 7, Paul is there consenting (if not actually organizing) the stoning of the apostle Stephen in Acts Chapter 7. It is generally assumed in the LDS church, though not explicitly stated in the Bible that apostles were supposed to continue to be called. There are several verses where Paul states things like "am I not an apostle?", but it is not clear if he was a member of the quorum or not. Certainly, he spoke (and argued) with other apostles, such as Peter on various issues, such as circumcision. Through his letters (such as Galatians, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc), he certainly seems to have been overseeing several congregations.
In about 54 AD, there was a great fire in Rome that burned for about a week. While most people then and now believe the Emporer Nero set the fire, he blamed the Christians and killed many, including Peter and Paul around this time period. Due to persecution, it seems that the apostles basically were hunted down and killed. LDS scriptures state that John never tasted death. The Book of Mormon shows that Jesus called apostles (though they are called Disciples) among the Nephites.
The whole question of priesthood is interesting--every denomination has different answers. Mormons and Catholics believe that priesthood is the ability to perform ordinances in the name of God, and these ordinances are binding on earth and in heaven. We both literally trace this priesthood power to Peter, of whom Jesus said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church." However, Protestants, in rejecting Catholicism don't believe that priesthood authority is necessary. If they did believe it was necessary, it would completely undercut all of their arguments. So, the question of authority comes down to which argument you believe.
As an LDS person, we believe that the power to bind on earth and in heaven is the priesthood power. Since the apostles were hunted and killed, this power had to be restored. Certainly the Jews maintained a priesthood line through the Levite tribe. Jesus went to John the Baptist, a Levite to obtain his baptism. In D&C 13, John the Baptist came back and restored this Levitical (or Aaronic) Priesthood and baptism came back on May 15, 1829. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored a short time later.
Of course, Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope, and believe their priesthood dates to then as well. Eastern Orthodox Christians don't use the title of Pope, but generally follow this as well. Protestants believe that priesthood is not necessary, and that anyone needs simply to follow Christ.
There is much debate about whether Paul was a member of the Quorum of Twelve. After Judas betrayal and suicide, he is replaced in the quorum by Matthias in Acts chapter 1. In chapter 7, Paul is there consenting (if not actually organizing) the stoning of the apostle Stephen in Acts Chapter 7. It is generally assumed in the LDS church, though not explicitly stated in the Bible that apostles were supposed to continue to be called. There are several verses where Paul states things like "am I not an apostle?", but it is not clear if he was a member of the quorum or not. Certainly, he spoke (and argued) with other apostles, such as Peter on various issues, such as circumcision. Through his letters (such as Galatians, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc), he certainly seems to have been overseeing several congregations.
In about 54 AD, there was a great fire in Rome that burned for about a week. While most people then and now believe the Emporer Nero set the fire, he blamed the Christians and killed many, including Peter and Paul around this time period. Due to persecution, it seems that the apostles basically were hunted down and killed. LDS scriptures state that John never tasted death. The Book of Mormon shows that Jesus called apostles (though they are called Disciples) among the Nephites.
The whole question of priesthood is interesting--every denomination has different answers. Mormons and Catholics believe that priesthood is the ability to perform ordinances in the name of God, and these ordinances are binding on earth and in heaven. We both literally trace this priesthood power to Peter, of whom Jesus said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church." However, Protestants, in rejecting Catholicism don't believe that priesthood authority is necessary. If they did believe it was necessary, it would completely undercut all of their arguments. So, the question of authority comes down to which argument you believe.
As an LDS person, we believe that the power to bind on earth and in heaven is the priesthood power. Since the apostles were hunted and killed, this power had to be restored. Certainly the Jews maintained a priesthood line through the Levite tribe. Jesus went to John the Baptist, a Levite to obtain his baptism. In D&C 13, John the Baptist came back and restored this Levitical (or Aaronic) Priesthood and baptism came back on May 15, 1829. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored a short time later.
Of course, Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope, and believe their priesthood dates to then as well. Eastern Orthodox Christians don't use the title of Pope, but generally follow this as well. Protestants believe that priesthood is not necessary, and that anyone needs simply to follow Christ.
Re: The Great Apostacy
However, Protestants, in rejecting Catholicism don't believe that priesthood authority is necessary. If they did believe it was necessary, it would completely undercut all of their arguments.
Just to add a bit of depth and clarification about "pure Mormonism" as I see it:
Martin Luther and the other Protestant leaders of the Reformation realized very clearly that they did not have "The Priesthood" as it was understood to be at that time. In rejecting Catholicism, they also rejected the idea that God's authority was vested exclusively and totally in a few people through an ordination process (who were the only people required to read and know the word of God, and, therefore, stood as intermediaries between the people and God [Jesus]) - replacing that concept with the idea that God's authority was vested purely in His word (The Bible) and all true believers had the ability to read His word and act according to their own understanding of it ("the priesthood of believers"). Of course, this has been limited over time to be only those understandings of the Bible that don't contradict their own interpretations - which is ironic, given the foundation of the Reformation. Thus, in their construction, all who are "true believers" (not Mormons, JW's, Catholics, and other deluded cultists) have the right to act in God's name (as true Christians), but God's actual authority lies only in the Bible.
So, the overall Mormon view of authority is kind of a combination of Catholic and Protestant views - since we maintain a formal, capital "P" Priesthood for the performance of binding ordinances but couple it with the general idea of a lower case "p" priesthood of believers who can read and act according to God's universal word, even though we don't talk about it in those terms. The "additional" aspect within Mormonism is that it posits that "His universal word" includes more than just the Bible - that it includes whatever he has said to all (truly universally) - and that individual believers actually can receive His unique word to them, even if it contradicts, occasionally, His universal word to all.
Therefore, in a nutshell, the Great Apostasy as it is defined within Mormonism, began when the apostles no longer were able to gather and replace those who were being killed (to continue the ordinance-performing Priesthood) and was further entrenched when the priesthood of believers was eliminated by the Catholic Priesthood organization that removed from them the right and ability to read God's word and interact with God directly within their own spheres. The Reformation addressed the foundation of the second of these issues (allowing regular believers to interact directly with God through exposure to His word), while the Restoration addressed the the extension of the second issue (re-establishing truly personal revelation as a universal right) and the first issue (re-establishing binding Priesthood ordinances) - a kind of "last shall be first, first shall be last" approach, if you will.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)
Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
Re: The Great Apostacy
I've come to a personal conclusion. I don't believe Priesthood means what I was taught it means in primary and I don't believe that the priesthood was "taken" from the earth, like we have been told in primary. I'm quite convince in my delusional mind that god has had "priesthood" on various parts of the earth since history began. It was probably LOST, or perhaps hidden, from the general population, perhaps even "hidden" within the Catholic church? I don't know, maybe the Catholics DO have the priesthood authority? IF god was going to "restore" some "truth" to the people on this planet through JS - than it really wouldn't have mattered WHERE the priesthood was at at that time - he still could have given JS "authority" to do the work. Maybe there are groups on the earth (besides the LDS ) who have the true priesthood today? Why not? After all, if we believe (I guess I should say, if I believe) that the LDS church is a divine institution, probably one of many, that god uses to fulfill his purposes - than it would make sense that, yeah, somebody else probably does have the "priesthood" besides just us????canadiangirl wrote: I still don't understand why the need for the priesthood to be restored. Any takers on that one? If the apostasy was beginning while Paul was alive and had more to do with competing sects of Christianity, my mind has a difficult time following the logic that says that the priesthood was taken from the earth. Did Paul hold the priesthood?
Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn't participate enthusiastically. - Robert Kirby
Re: The Great Apostacy
Maybe the Quakers have it, but they're keeping quiet about it...
DASH1730 "An Area Authority...[was] asked...who...would go to the Telestial kingdom. His answer: "murderers, adulterers and a lot of surprised Mormons!"'
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."
1ST PRES 1978 "[LDS] believe...there is truth in many religions and philosophies...good and great religious leaders... have raised the spiritual, moral, and ethical awareness of their people. When we speak of The [LDS] as the only true church...it is...authorized to administer the ordinances...by Jesus Christ... we do not mean... it is the only teacher of truth."
- Brian Johnston
- Posts: 3499
- Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 06:17
- Location: Washington DC
Re: The Great Apostacy
To add more to the excellent historical background of Priesthood authority others already answered:
Many members of the Church try to think of "the Priesthood" throughout history (in the scriptures) as always being what they experience today. This simply isn't the case. Until modern times, Priesthood was held by a minority. Prior to Moses, it seems like only a few people had "authority." These people, such as Melchizedek, lived in some remote area. People went to them occasionally, but it wasn't like all "worthy males" held the priesthood. Then comes Moses and the tribes of Israel. ONLY the tribe of Levi functioned in the Priesthood. It seemed to become a heredity thing. They split into two factions later -- Jerusalem (descendants of Aaron) and Shiloh (descendants of Moses).
Then comes Christ. Christ only preached to the Jews. Paul later took the message to the "gentiles" over the strong objections of Peter and James. So still ... it was only a select group.
Even in early LDS Church history, there was a GREAT deal of difference. There were 3 distinct sources of priesthood authority: Ordination, Charismatic and Lineage-based. There were a couple of early members that were called "Apostles" that had not been ordained, but nonetheless held priesthood authority. They had seen Christ, so that gave them the "authority" to be a special witness (aka Charismatic, meaning a spiritual manifestation of God). We normally think of those who are ordained by the laying on of hands, but there was a third route -- patriarchal priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed that he (and more importantly his father, Joseph Sr, the first Church patriarch) had the priesthood based on being direct descendants, having a form of natural-born, inherited, priesthood authority.
There were also different centers of organizational power. Apostles were lower in authority than the two presiding Bishops in the 1830's-1850's. Apostles in our Church only had authority in areas OUTSIDE the geographical boundaries of the Stakes. They were missionaries, in essence, being "special witnesses" for Christ. That's just one example. Strange, but true.
So my whole point is this -- it helps me to think of the Great Apostasy, and the loss or regaining of priesthood authority, with all this information in mind. What we know of today, the organizational structure of the priesthood, does NOT have to be consistent in the past. We don't have to force the past to conform to our current view of how we expect it to be. It just hasn't been that way in the past.
Many members of the Church try to think of "the Priesthood" throughout history (in the scriptures) as always being what they experience today. This simply isn't the case. Until modern times, Priesthood was held by a minority. Prior to Moses, it seems like only a few people had "authority." These people, such as Melchizedek, lived in some remote area. People went to them occasionally, but it wasn't like all "worthy males" held the priesthood. Then comes Moses and the tribes of Israel. ONLY the tribe of Levi functioned in the Priesthood. It seemed to become a heredity thing. They split into two factions later -- Jerusalem (descendants of Aaron) and Shiloh (descendants of Moses).
Then comes Christ. Christ only preached to the Jews. Paul later took the message to the "gentiles" over the strong objections of Peter and James. So still ... it was only a select group.
Even in early LDS Church history, there was a GREAT deal of difference. There were 3 distinct sources of priesthood authority: Ordination, Charismatic and Lineage-based. There were a couple of early members that were called "Apostles" that had not been ordained, but nonetheless held priesthood authority. They had seen Christ, so that gave them the "authority" to be a special witness (aka Charismatic, meaning a spiritual manifestation of God). We normally think of those who are ordained by the laying on of hands, but there was a third route -- patriarchal priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed that he (and more importantly his father, Joseph Sr, the first Church patriarch) had the priesthood based on being direct descendants, having a form of natural-born, inherited, priesthood authority.
There were also different centers of organizational power. Apostles were lower in authority than the two presiding Bishops in the 1830's-1850's. Apostles in our Church only had authority in areas OUTSIDE the geographical boundaries of the Stakes. They were missionaries, in essence, being "special witnesses" for Christ. That's just one example. Strange, but true.
So my whole point is this -- it helps me to think of the Great Apostasy, and the loss or regaining of priesthood authority, with all this information in mind. What we know of today, the organizational structure of the priesthood, does NOT have to be consistent in the past. We don't have to force the past to conform to our current view of how we expect it to be. It just hasn't been that way in the past.
"It's strange to be here. The mystery never leaves you alone." -John O'Donohue, Anam Cara, speaking of experiencing life.