DiscussMormonism.com

I understand that this question presumes the original Mormon Church was true, but I hope that you will work with me on this as a thought exercise of sorts.

Mormons teach that the original Christian Church of the first century apostatized and point to the fact that the ordinances, doctrines and structure was changed over time as evidence.

I once read some Mormon scholar (John Gee?) say it was beyond dispute that the Christian Church entering the second century was very different from the Christian Church that exited the second century.

The issue, I think, is that one could say the same thing about the LDS Church; that it was a very different Church in the early 19th century from the LDS Church exiting the 20th century.

My question is whether this may be viewed as evidence that the current LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.

Or is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The standard answer is that the early church changed because of apostasy, while the modern church changes through revelation. The LDS church today is quite different from the one in the nineteenth century, or even when I was a young boy. I suppose one could consider that a good thing in many ways, and not such a good thing in others.

Runtu wrote:The standard answer is that the early church changed because of apostasy, while the modern church changes through revelation. The LDS church today is quite different from the one in the nineteenth century, or even when I was a young boy. I suppose one could consider that a good thing in many ways, and not such a good thing in others.

When was the New Testament written? Before or after the apostasy?

As noted the LDS church today is very different from what is was at JSs time as well as BYs time. Significant teachings that seemed to be preached as doctrine have come and gone. I know the defenders will argue that this is not so but some things that stand out are:

1: Plural Marrige essential for highest degree in heaven as well as something that if the church abandons it would be in apostasy.

2: Heavy emphasis on God once being a man and we become as God. This may be taught to some extent but it is very watered down. The last lesson we had a few weeks ago in HP group showed this. When we talk about exaltation the lessons don't even say we can become gods. They just skirt around it with things like having all god has or living the type of life god has and so on.

3: Adam God and blood atonement were abberitions that came and went but were taught as if doctrine. AG was part to the temple endowment in St George. How can that not be doctrinal?

4: Blacks and the preisthood. The fact that this changed is not that big of a issue as it was always expected to at some point. But it is nonesense to say the teachings used to justify the practice were not doctrine but simple speculation or folklore. They even made it into an FP statement.

5: Book of Mormon geographical issues have been all over the place though I think this one is minor. Wrap into this one the question of who are Lamanites as well.

6: The watering down of almost all that is taught as a result of an hyper active correlation committee. Maybe this is minor as well but it sure has changed the church from an organization that used to have robust and interesting curriculum to one that has lessons, topic and magazines that can simply be mind numbing at times.


These are a few that comes to mind.

I seem to recall something that (I think) Dr. Shades said:

Apostasy - When your church changes.
Modern-day Revelation - When my church changes.

In the late 80's (?), Pres Benson told us the whole church was under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon. We still don't read the Book of Mormon, so I doubt that has been rescinded. Like so many other things, no one talks about that anymore.

consiglieri wrote:I once read some Mormon scholar (John Gee?) say it was beyond dispute that the Christian Church entering the second century was very different from the Christian Church that exited the second century.

Having studied the history and theology of the early Christian church one of the things that struck me is that there really isn't any point where you can say, "OK, here's a dividing line, before this you have one thing, after it you have another." There was change and evolution, but no decisive break. As culture and circumstances changed, Christians naturally had to apply their scriptures and theology to the new culture and circumstances. The Christian church undeniably changed and evolved over time, but any date you set up for a demarcation line will be arbitrary.

consiglieri wrote:The issue, I think, is that one could say the same thing about the LDS Church; that it was a very different Church in the early 19th century from the LDS Church exiting the 20th century.

The funny thing here is that John Taylor did set up a demarcation line for determining apostasy. In a letter written to his apostle son, which I believe no historian disputes (correct me if I am wrong), he said if the LDS church gives up polygamy it is in apostasy. In this sense, I am very grateful that the LDS church is in apostasy according to John Taylor.

consiglieri wrote:My question is whether this may be viewed as evidence that the current LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.

I'm not really sure to what extent I could say that Joseph Smith was ever inspired to write and do what he did. Having said that, I do still appreciate the Book of Mormon and its teachings, though I no longer consider it a history of anything. Of course a believing LDS member would offer up that appreciation of the Book of Mormon as this Holy Ghost confirming the truth of the LDS church.

Call me stupid, but I think an appreciation of the teachings in the Book of Mormon is just that, an appreciation of its teachings, teachings which are for the most part either ignored or superseded in the modern LDS church. The Book of Mormon puts forward very different ideas on authority, ecclesiology, soteriology, grace, etc. than does the modern LDS church. Granted, Mormons have in recent years emphasized more of the basic doctrines in the Book of Mormon, and they love to proof text the Christianity of the LDS church by citing the Book of Mormon. But, I don't think the two can co-exist because so much of the modern LDS church flatly goes against the grain of the Book of Mormon. I concluded, ironically, that if you like the Book of Mormon, then you can find better matches for the teachings of the Book of Mormon outside the LDS church than you can find within it.

MsJack wrote:I seem to recall something that (I think) Dr. Shades said:

Apostasy - When your church changes.
Modern-day Revelation - When my church changes.

That sums it up very nicely.

Absolutely. Neither Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young would recognize the Church in its present day form. They'd both denounce it immediately unless they were given a six-figure salary.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Fence Sitter wrote:When was the New Testament written? Before or after the apostasy?

It depends on where you set up the arbitrary demarcation line.

If you say after the death of the original apostles, then I would say that at least some of the books of the New Testament were written after the apostasy.

If you give the arbitrary date of 100 A.D., then there is still a chance that a couple of the smaller books in the New Testament were written after the apostasy, 2 Peter would be a good candidate. Even more troubling would be the Didache, which most scholars would put between 90-100 A.D. and which teaches what Mormons would consider apostate views on baptism.

However, the New Testament canonical list of 27 books was put forward in 367 A.D. by Athanasius and was later accepted as the official canonical list at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Not only would this put the definition of the New Testament squarely in apostate hands, Athanasius was the most ardent proponent of Trinitarian Theology in the fourth century and would never have chosen those 27 books if he felt they contradicted the Council of Nicea. In other words, the New Testament was defined by a man who believed in "abominable creeds" and was by LDS standards as apostate as you can get.