Was there a Great Apostasy?
 

Mormons have long accepted as a cultural piece of truth that some "Great Apostasy" from original pristine truth occurred after the First Century. Seattle mockingly has pointed out the absurdities of the proposition.

Do you believe it's (a) still taught or (b) a correct principle?

The line of authority cannot be even agreed upon as to Pope Leo or Clement. Now I know the Catholic Church has designated one of the traditions for sake of convenience, but it seems rather unconvincing to me.

It is interesting that somebody such as Talmadge whom I generally like and respect would pen his "Great Apostasy". Even by his day, there was plenty of German research disabusing of the silly notion that Christianity had anything in bulk that was pure.

It seems to me that Christ spent the bulk of his adult life preaching faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. As no bureaucratic structure existed, it appears odd he would have spent much time delineating a future organizational structure, when the apostles couldn't even understand a physical resurrection. Agnostics believe Christ was more a failed apocalyptic Jewish preacher whom others held up to be the Messiah in light of political and social concerns.

These past three or four years I've spent not an inconsiderable time reading research into early Christianity, and discovered the traditional notions often purveyed within the Church to be misplaced or untrue. It seems we continue this false message because it creates a better contrast for our message, "you're wrong, we're right," because "they lost it all, and we got it all back" is the simple message we'd prefer to convey.

Arch, your answers are somewhat convoluted.

You characterize the apostasy as a loss of truth. The apostasy was a loss truth than it was a rejection of authority. Another common translation for the greek word "apostasia" is "mutiny." Rejection of truth would be better classified as "heresy."

I'll pass on this poll.

The notion of a great apostasy is a lot like when Hitchins says religion has no good purpose at all and just contaminates everything. How could a fair minded student of history not acknowledge that "Christianity" is a but for cause of Western Civilization? Is Western Civilization really such a thoroughly terrible thing? I know Hitchins doesn't believe that. Tom Paine is his idol. But though Tom Paine was an atheist, he was a product of the civilization that Christianity in many respects created.

Now, when we talk about "Christianity" in this context, we are talking about the very form of apostate Christianity condemned by Talmage. The problem is that if you pull one strand as important as Christianity from the tapestry of Western Civilization, maybe the whole things comes apart. Anyway, maybe you get something much worse. There are worse things than Western Civilization. Agreed?

There is this notion that some say has been supported by the Dead Sea scrolls that early on there were two branches of Christianity, one more Jewish and occult and ascetic (they didn't drink wine, etc.), and the other infused with Greek philosphy and culture, and projecting to gentiles. James (Jesus' brother) and Paul have been identified as the heads of each branch. The extinction of James' Christianity and the spectacular, world changing success of Paul's might be characterized by some as an apostasy from the original pure form of Christianity, I suppose. But what would the other Christianity, James' Christianity, have led us to? I shudder to think.

Anyway, as FARMS has noted, great apostasy=Hellenization of Christianity. I submit you can't take the Greek out of Christianity and wind up with the United States of America, just as you can't take Christianity out of Europe and wind up with the U.S.A.

The doctrine of great apostasy just doesn't make any sense from a non-eccliesiastical, historical perspective. It's gibberish. But I understand you had to have had an apostasy for a "restoration" to make any sense.

Nobody is trying to pull apart any strands from the tapestry of Western Civilization. This pet theory of yours, that Mormonism seeks to turn the clock back to the first Century AD through the "restoration", frankly doesn't make any sense to me. We're not Ahmish.

Methinks you're falling into the same trap as Arch, though perhaps in a different sense. I don't believe you are correctly identifying what we believe was lost, nor what it is that is being restored.

What do you believe? Cite please.

One correction: Thomas Paine was not an atheist. He was a deist. He spoke of God often but he didn't limit God to the definitions in the Bible. He claimed no knowledge of who or what God is, he but believed in a supreme being.

Paine was a product of the false Christian Dogmas taught in his era. He simply couldn't fall for the same stuff that Joseph Smith failed to grasp a generation later.

Who am I supposed to cite on the matter of what I believe? Am I not an expert enough in that particular field?

To me there was no Great Apostasy, just a loss of priesthood authority. That was my convoluted point, and I agree with you that Western Civilization is not what I was challenging.

What do you believe Church members actually mean or should mean when they use that misnomer?