The "Great Apostacy" problem

[creekster]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'm one of the stranger Mormons out there in that I have a deep and genuine respect for the Catholic Church. I don't ignore the unfortunate incidents that mar an otherwise good institution-- many of which the church has apologized for and has attempted to make amends to the extent possible. In learning the Latin language, one can almost hear the echoes of untold thousands for whom Latin was the language by which they came to Christ; a devotion that sanctifies those words. Their devotion to God included all that they had to offer-- I believe they lived the law of consecration in a sense that is lost upon many members of the LDS Church.

One needs only to hear the hymn, "Veni Veni Emmanuel," to recognize that there is doubtlessly something of the divine in the faith of those followers of the Savior. It is absolutely beautiful. The first time I really believed D&C 25:12 was when I heard that song with a translation in front of me; HERE, finally, was a prayer unto God.

It's all to easy to bash those of other faiths, and the tendency is unfortunate. There is much of good in other churches which we overlook. There is truth to be found everywhere, and a member of THIS church should be able to gather it in from any place it should be found.

Is that hymn O Come O Come Emmanuel? If it is , it is indeed beautiful. Every so often I sit in with a group of musicians in my ward at Christmas and we usually play an arrangemnt of that hymn (we are guiatr, violin, piano/harpsichoird and vibes). I should add that my comments about the unfrotunate state of chrisitian belief in the first millenium after Christ speaks to the overall organization and structure and certainyl not to any given individual. Nor does it mean to say that sacred music is degernrate, as much of the music from that and later periods is absolutely faith promoting and inducing and, on a stand alone basis, brings the spirit.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

To me Talmage's viewpoint obscures the enormous hand Christianity played in shaping our culture, and Mormons' failure to appreciate that (with the exception of an elite few such as yourself who can perform the mental gymnastics) is in a real way tragic.

You are very adept at making someone feel complimented but also feel sleighted. Elite? Given that I condemned what I called your elitist viewpoint not sure this is a good thing. Mental Gymnastics? I guess this is as close as I can expect you to get to acknowledging that I might actually believe my 'Klingon.' Finally, I think your statemnt reveals much: it is Talmadge's VIEWPOINT to which you object (e.g. his faith-based premise) as opposed to any given portion of his analysis.

[SeattleUte]

Wow. I'm attaching a link to a facinating permutation of this thread on FAIR Boards. I took my great apostasy schpeel over there (those guys have sharp knives; they ridicule you for spelling errors and every kind of minutia). I'm Charlemagne. Daniel Peterson did me the honor of drawing his long sword and taking a mace in hand and trying to bash my head in and behead me.

Here's the facinating part: What emerges is that the Great Apostacy occurred because Christianity was "Hellenized." This is interesting for two reasons: First, and this is somewhat beside the point of these threads, Peterson et al. seem to ignore that clearly Paul is the guilty party who Hellenized Christianity; his letters in many places practically copy Plato. He imported the idea of body and soul, of which Plato first wrote, and that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. Paul called himself a Hellenized Jew.

Second, mainstream scholars agree that the Hellenization of Christianity, i.e., the ancient Greeks ideals and philosphy transmitted to us through Catholicism, was a but for cause of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

In other words, the ideal Church in these FAIR board characters' cosmology was that hidebound Jewish spinoff claimed by James the Just (Jesus' brother, hostile to Paul) to be the only true Christian Church, which Church would not have begat our modern society. I learn new things about the church of my childhood all the time. Facinating.

The hostility expressed on Cougarboard for modern, liberal society is truly deep seated. Now I understand better than before why Harold Bloom associates Mormonism with the aesetic James the Just branch of early Christianity. He calls Joseph Smith a "religious genius" because he had an almost supernaturual understanding of that long extinct branch of Chistianity (as did Martin Luther and others, in my view).

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16061

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Wow. I'm attaching a link to a facinating permutation of this thread on FAIR Boards. I took my great apostasy schpeel over there (those guys have sharp knives; they ridicule you for spelling errors and every kind of minutia). I'm Charlemagne. Daniel Peterson did me the honor of drawing his long sword and taking a mace in hand and trying to bash my head in and behead me.

Here's the facinating part: What emerges is that the Great Apostacy occurred because Christianity was "Hellenized." This is interesting for two reasons: First, and this is somewhat beside the point of these threads, Peterson et al. seem to ignore that clearly Paul is the guilty party who Hellenized Christianity; his letters in many places practically copy Plato. He imported the idea of body and soul, of which Plato first wrote, and that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. Paul called himself a Hellenized Jew.

Second, mainstream scholars agree that the Hellenization of Christianity, i.e., the ancient Greeks ideals and philosphy transmitted to us through Catholicism, was a but for cause of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

In other words, the ideal Church in these FAIR board characters' cosmology was that hidebound Jewish spinoff claimed by James the Just (Jesus' brother, hostile to Paul) to be the only true Christian Church, which Church would not have begat our modern society. I learn new things about the church of my childhood all the time. Facinating.

The hostility expressed on Cougarboard for modern, liberal society is truly deep seated. Now I understand better than before why Harold Bloom associates Mormonism with the aesetic James the Just branch of early Christianity. He calls Joseph Smith a "religious genius" because he had an almost supernaturual understanding of that long extinct branch of Chistianity (as did Martin Luther and others, in my view).

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16061

Tough crowd over there. Good to see that you could get double use of your typionmg efforts, however.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by creekster

Tough crowd over there. Good to see that you could get double use of your typionmg efforts, however.

Why is it that the hardest place to find love and fellowship seems to be among those who profess to be the followers of Christ?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Why is it that the hardest place to find love and fellowship seems to be among those who profess to be the followers of Christ?

A mystery for the ages. I am always astonished to see that many of those who claim the highest devotion to a faith are among the most bigoted and intolerant in society.

[jbcoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Kudos to Robin. You posted what I was going to say but didn't have the energy. I find the whole notion of a "Great Apostacy" soooo vexing. To be blunt, it breeds untold blindness to history. This type of ignorance is particularly unfortunate becasue if you kiss off he last 2,000 years you turn a blind eye to discovering who you really are, i.e., the cultural and intellectual events that made your mind and your world view.

Within the alleged period of "Great Apostacy" you have Constantinople/Byzantium which continued to fourish culturally and intellectually, and along with it many contiguous areas including Arab kindgdoms. Indeed, the whole concept of a "fall of Rome" and ensuing "Dark Ages" is a Western conceit. The case can be made that Rome didn't really "fall" until about 1400 A.D., with the fall of Byzantium. Indeed, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" goes on describing another nearly 1,000 years of history after the Western half of the Empire became "extinct" in 476. It could be said that Rome simply changed the seat of its Empire. And by 1400 the Rennaisance was ready to take off, closely followed by the Enlightenment, which led to re-emergence of Republican ideals and the founding of the United States. Western Christians during the time of the Crusades originally sacked Byzantium (there's an irony) and recently scholars have started to say that what the Crusaders learned on their Eastern odysses was critical to the re-emergence of the West as dominant.

The Rennaisance was led by Catholics (yes, Rafael, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, et al. took their faith very seriously), and the Enlightnment was led primarily by atheists and agnostics, or people who almost by definition rejected the Judeo-Christian concept of God. The primary source of the inspiration for these latter two movements was most emphatically not the Protestant Reformation (which was a backlash against them, at its core), as is often suggested by Church "scolars," but a re-discovery of Classical values, preserved, paradoxically, by diligent Catholic monks. Thus, as T.S. Eliot once noted, a case could be made that Rome never fell, and we're still Roman citizens.

non-sequitor says he'd consider coming back into the fold if the beer ban were repealed. For me a big step in the right direction would be expunging this "Great Apostacy" nonsense from Church doctrine.

I'm with Creekster here--this is one of the dumbest posts on religion I've ever seen. The LDS claim of a Great Apostacy had NOTHING to do with disavowing any sort of cultural or artistic progress that transpired between the death of Christ and 1820. However, for one who so obviously worships culture more than God, you can't seem to make that distinction.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Wow. I'm attaching a link to a facinating permutation of this thread on FAIR Boards. I took my great apostasy schpeel over there (those guys have sharp knives; they ridicule you for spelling errors and every kind of minutia). I'm Charlemagne. Daniel Peterson did me the honor of drawing his long sword and taking a mace in hand and trying to bash my head in and behead me.

Here's the facinating part: What emerges is that the Great Apostacy occurred because Christianity was "Hellenized." This is interesting for two reasons: First, and this is somewhat beside the point of these threads, Peterson et al. seem to ignore that clearly Paul is the guilty party who Hellenized Christianity; his letters in many places practically copy Plato. He imported the idea of body and soul, of which Plato first wrote, and that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. Paul called himself a Hellenized Jew.

Second, mainstream scholars agree that the Hellenization of Christianity, i.e., the ancient Greeks ideals and philosphy transmitted to us through Catholicism, was a but for cause of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

In other words, the ideal Church in these FAIR board characters' cosmology was that hidebound Jewish spinoff claimed by James the Just (Jesus' brother, hostile to Paul) to be the only true Christian Church, which Church would not have begat our modern society. I learn new things about the church of my childhood all the time. Facinating.

The hostility expressed on Cougarboard for modern, liberal society is truly deep seated. Now I understand better than before why Harold Bloom associates Mormonism with the aesetic James the Just branch of early Christianity. He calls Joseph Smith a "religious genius" because he had an almost supernaturual understanding of that long extinct branch of Chistianity (as did Martin Luther and others, in my view).

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=16061

Interesting posts over there.

I have to say, I disagree with you on this topic. I think you are unnecessarily blending two distinct issues here:

1. The apostasy (meaning the removal of God's authority from the Earth) and

2. The view of many LDS members and leaders that little scientific and cultural progress occurred during the apostasy.

IMO, the apostasy did occur, though its impact on any cultural or scientific "demise" following the apostasy is hugely overstated by some. It seems to me that your issue should be more with the errors of many members and leaders about the "widespread" effects of the apostasy rather than on the occurrence of the apostasy itself.

In determining if there actually WAS an apostasy, the views of members and some leaders about its connection to the dark ages is irrelevant. That is all just fluff- one of those faith building rumors. The removal of that fluff does nothing to the underlying essential aspect of LDS theology: the apostasy.

Ask these two questions to determine if there was an apostasy: 1) Was the authority of God present on the Earth? 2) Was the authority of God removed from the Earth due to a rebellion?

If the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, then there was an apostasy (which has tremendous religious implications, most notably, was the authority restored at some point or does it need to be restored?).

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Aren't we the ones who get upset when others don't let us consider ourselves Christians?

The difference is obvious and I'm sure an intelligent, well thought out soul such as yourself can figure it out.

If someone believes that the Miracles of Christ are a myth. That what Christ did was a myth they are factually not a Christian. Yeah,,, just because someone happens to be a good person and lives a good life, doesn't make them anymore a Christian than I am a Buddhist.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

The difference is obvious and I'm sure an intelligent, well thought out soul such as yourself can figure it out.

If someone believes that the Miracles of Christ are a myth. That what Christ did was a myth they are factually not a Christian. Yeah,,, just because someone happens to be a good person and lives a good life, doesn't make them anymore a Christian than I am a Buddhist.

Back to disagreeing once again. Feels good.

I can't stand it when people try to define for others whether or not they are a "Christian." Let's let people decide that on their own.