Is the Modern Mormon Church in Apostasy?

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

I guess what I am asking is how can you claim an apostasy if the original records were written after the apostasy occurred? It may be too simplistic a view but how can you trust them to be accurate about their history and at the same time believe they were in some sort of apostasy?

Regarding the John Taylor revelation of 1886. When the younger Taylor presented it to the Church (he had found it while going through his deceased father's belongings) the response was that it was unsigned, had not been authenticated and had not been accepted by the Church as required by Mormon procedure. It is my understanding it has disappeared into the vaults of the Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

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.

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.

I think you make very good points. In fact many of the friends I have made that are more evangelical types tell me that for them most part they really like the Book of Mormon and even 1828-1835 Mormonism, again excluding some things. It is after that they have a problem.

When I was a very depressed 37 or 38 year old because I felt I could never perfect of save myself it was in the Book of Mormon (along with the New Testament and some early D&C sections) that I found Mormonism really did contain the idea of being born again, grace and lots of mercy. I think the LDS Church has turned back to that some but still has some distance to travel. But I do think a positive change in the Church at least since I was young is that the Church does talk about mercy, grace and the atonement of Jesus much more and I think it is more Christ focused than it was at least, again when I was young.

[_Black Moclips]

Good topic. One I've thought a lot about over the years (with no definite resolution). In the myriad of possibilities to consider, I definitely hold a door open for the idea that Joseph experienced something religious, good, pure, etc, but that it hasn't survived as intended in today's church. Nothing ever lasts when it comes to the work of humans (backed by a diety or not). I've always found David Whitmer's "An Address to All Believers in Christ" fascinating regarding this topic. It is funny that how the church praises Whitmer for his Book of Mormon testimony, yet when it comes to his other statements regarding the founding of the church, he was a biased, untrustworthy apostate.

I would love to have all members in the church answer this question in a poll - "If the church was in apostasy, how would you know?"

However, I think if you asked the modern members of the church the question "If the church was in apostasy, would you want to know?", a large majority would say "No."

[_ldsfaqs]

Is the Modern Mormon Church in Apostasy?

No, just you are in many issues.....

[_sock puppet]

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

And each a bevy of beauties to reconstitute his harem.

[_consiglieri]

Is the Modern Mormon Church in Apostasy?

No, just you are in many issues.....

Care to name one?

[_sock puppet]

In the way that Mormons castigate the Catholic Church as having apostatized, yes, COJCOLDS is an apostate remnant of what JSJr started.

In JSJr's day, the prophet's proclamation of revelations from God came rather fast and furiously. There was speaking in tongues. There was new 'doctrine' such as in the promulgation of the BoAbr. Apart from the veracity of those claims, it was ostensibly an organization filled with modern, ongoing revelation. It was the time when the rose was blossoming. New petals were emerging. It was vibrant. It would have been exciting to be part of the creation of that 'peculiar people' that had an oracle for messages from god.

The bloom is now off that rose. The petals have died, shrunken, turned a darker, ugly color and fallen off. What is left is the corporate bureaucracy that is only appealing as a social order.

In the way Mormons use the term apostasy, COJCOLDS is certainly long since apostatized from the organization that JSJr started.

[_Zelder]

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.

Point #1 is not correct. Section 132 in the D&C makes it very clear that a marriage covenant by God's law is necessary for salvation. It also makes it very clear that man can make covenants with multiple women and that's cool but not necessary. Verse 41 very subtely suggests that women in the covenant can be with another man and it's not adulterly. Verse 42 says that for women not in the covenant, it's adultery.

I agree with Point #2.

All the other points have no clear basis in scripture which I think might be why they have distanced themselved from this stuff.

[_Fence Sitter]

Point #1 is not correct. Section 132 in the D&C makes it very clear that a marriage covenant by God's law is necessary for salvation. It also makes it very clear that man can make covenants with multiple women and that's cool but not necessary. Verse 41 very subtely suggests that women in the covenant can be with another man and it's not adulterly. Verse 42 says that for women not in the covenant, it's adultery.

Here is what Joseph F. Smith had to say on the necessity of plural wives for exaltation.

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."

Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)
JD 20:28

Here is a quote from the journal of William Clayton on the same subject.

Jospeh continued his instructions, privately, on the doctrine, to myself and
others, and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever
together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining
that doctrine and principles connected with it. He appeared to enjoy
great liberty and freedom in his teachings, and also to find great
relief in having a few to whom he could unbosom his feelings on that
great and glorious subject.
From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage
is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the
earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever
attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory

[_zeezrom]

Zelder,

Heavenly Father was reacting to some of is personal issues when He claimed that marriage is needed to get to heaven (D&C132). Ironically, He and His army had just lost a major battle that year. Many casualties. Very sad.

The turmoil going on in heaven at the time made falling into apostasy inevitable.