Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Limnor]

Concerning the shifting back and forth between the brush strokes and the big picture. I think this is a Mormon thing to do and a typical marketing strategy.

When to claim that you stand out from the crowd and when to claim that nobody fits into the crowd better? Lately, if you believe MG, there's no reason to be Mormon because all Mormons do is talk about Jesus and nothing is at all controversial, he won't even admit to the Great Apostasy. I had two religion teachers at BYU who were converts. They were quite different as individuals, one was a very conservative believer and the other quite liberal, but the one thing they had in common was they both became interested in the Church because of the teachings about the apostasy and restoration. Both had theology degrees and disagreed with philosophized Christianity.

The more I look at early Christianity, the harder it is to see what the Restorationists think “apostatized.”

In the first century there wasn’t really a “single” Church as we’d think about it today. I think the Restoration mindset was that the Church was more like a corporation, but it was more like small gatherings in houses with local leaders, with what read like differing interpretations of Jesus’s message.

Paul even calls the church a “body,” not an institution, more like a set of relationships, not a corporation that could later “go bad.” So the idea of a “Great Apostasy” seems to define organization that simply didn’t yet exist. Even if you count the meeting in Acts as a form of heirarchy, Paul states that James and Peter “seemed” like pillars, he didn’t acknowledge that such a structure existed.

When people point to Constantine or the Nicene Creed as the moment Christianity “apostatized,” it still assumes something that didn’t exist before the 4th century. Granted, Constantine did introduce what are probably better seen as political and administrative, but the core ideas didn’t change. Once Christianity had legal status and imperial interest, it articulated its theology in ways that functioned within that environment, sometimes “philosophized” for the worse. But even the council at Nicaea didn’t replace some earlier organizational structure, it adjudicated disputes among those “house churches” and traditions to suit its new legal status.

So what happened during that timeline was more along the lines of an initial attempt to create the kind of top-down church that Restorationism imagines. It wasn’t an apostasy away from some ancient uniform system, it was more like the beginning of one. If anything, it shows the opposite of a Great Apostasy. That means Mormonism’s premise of an early “church organization” that later fell doesn’t match the actual historical data.

[Limnor]

All that writ, I’d rather talk about this sort of thing, maybe early Christian history, textual issues in the Book of Mormon, or the inconsistencies of claiming biblical foundation before veering wildly and with contradiction away from that foundation. Those types of conversations are much more satisfying than conversations about Magic Eyes and Monet.

[Morley]

When people point to Constantine or the Nicene Creed as the moment Christianity “apostatized,” it still assumes something that didn’t exist before the 4th century. Granted, Constantine did introduce what are probably better seen as political and administrative, but the core ideas didn’t change. Once Christianity had legal status and imperial interest, it articulated its theology in ways that functioned within that environment, sometimes “philosophized” for the worse. But even the council at Nicaea didn’t replace some earlier organizational structure, it adjudicated disputes among those “house churches” and traditions to suit its new legal status.

So what happened during that timeline was more along the lines of an initial attempt to create the kind of top-down church that Restorationism imagines. It wasn’t an apostasy away from some ancient uniform system, it was more like the beginning of one. If anything, it shows the opposite of a Great Apostasy. That means Mormonism’s premise of an early “church organization” that later fell doesn’t match the actual historical data.

Well said. Very happy to have you here.

[Res Ipsa]

When people point to Constantine or the Nicene Creed as the moment Christianity “apostatized,” it still assumes something that didn’t exist before the 4th century. Granted, Constantine did introduce what are probably better seen as political and administrative, but the core ideas didn’t change. Once Christianity had legal status and imperial interest, it articulated its theology in ways that functioned within that environment, sometimes “philosophized” for the worse. But even the council at Nicaea didn’t replace some earlier organizational structure, it adjudicated disputes among those “house churches” and traditions to suit its new legal status.

So what happened during that timeline was more along the lines of an initial attempt to create the kind of top-down church that Restorationism imagines. It wasn’t an apostasy away from some ancient uniform system, it was more like the beginning of one. If anything, it shows the opposite of a Great Apostasy. That means Mormonism’s premise of an early “church organization” that later fell doesn’t match the actual historical data.

Well said. Very happy to have you here.

That’s something that has bothered me over the years — the discontent the LDS claim of apostasy and the history of the early Christian church. Well stated, Limnor. Except for some brush strokes that I’m sure you are ignoring.

[Limnor]

When people point to Constantine or the Nicene Creed as the moment Christianity “apostatized,” it still assumes something that didn’t exist before the 4th century. Granted, Constantine did introduce what are probably better seen as political and administrative, but the core ideas didn’t change. Once Christianity had legal status and imperial interest, it articulated its theology in ways that functioned within that environment, sometimes “philosophized” for the worse. But even the council at Nicaea didn’t replace some earlier organizational structure, it adjudicated disputes among those “house churches” and traditions to suit its new legal status.

So what happened during that timeline was more along the lines of an initial attempt to create the kind of top-down church that Restorationism imagines. It wasn’t an apostasy away from some ancient uniform system, it was more like the beginning of one. If anything, it shows the opposite of a Great Apostasy. That means Mormonism’s premise of an early “church organization” that later fell doesn’t match the actual historical data.

Well said. Very happy to have you here.

Thank you! Glad to be here and happy to contribute my small part to the discussion.

[Limnor]

Well said. Very happy to have you here.

That’s something that has bothered me over the years — the discontent the LDS claim of apostasy and the history of the early Christian church. Well stated, Limnor. Except for some brush strokes that I’m sure you are ignoring.

You know, there are some brush strokes I’ve neglected to explore, to be sure . But that’s mostly because the more I squint to see the haystacks, the more I see, well… not haystacks.

[malkie]

See: "The Artificial Intelligence MEGATHREAD" for further entertainment and enlightenment.

Further responses from me on this topic will be found there where it is considered 'legal' to do so.

Or is it? If not, I will cease and desist. The problem is, what if Limnor is doing the same thing?

Regards,
MG

Is this a tacit admission that in this thread also you've been using an AI - perhaps reasoning that if (in your opinion) Limnor was doing so, it was justified for you also?

[Limnor]

Well said. Very happy to have you here.

That’s something that has bothered me over the years — the discontent the LDS claim of apostasy and the history of the early Christian church. Well stated, Limnor. Except for some brush strokes that I’m sure you are ignoring.

To continue the part of the discussion that Gad introduced about the Great Apostasy, I do think that there is something there worth considering. Once the church became a more political entity, controlling the sacraments became far more important than the “Christ in you” idea Paul treated as essential. But the moment leaders gained political standing, sacraments turned into tools of power, who may receive them, who may administer them, and who has the authority to say yes or no, that sort of thing.

[Limnor]

See: "The Artificial Intelligence MEGATHREAD" for further entertainment and enlightenment.

Further responses from me on this topic will be found there where it is considered 'legal' to do so.

Or is it? If not, I will cease and desist. The problem is, what if Limnor is doing the same thing?

Regards,
MG

Is this a tacit admission that in this thread also you've been using an AI - perhaps reasoning that if (in your opinion) Limnor was doing so, it was justified for you also?

The disappointing part of this saga is I’ve been periodically checking in all day, ready to continue our game.

[I Have Questions]

That’s something that has bothered me over the years — the discontent the LDS claim of apostasy and the history of the early Christian church. Well stated, Limnor. Except for some brush strokes that I’m sure you are ignoring.

To continue the part of the discussion that Gad introduced about the Great Apostasy, I do think that there is something there worth considering. Once the church became a more political entity, controlling the sacraments became far more important than the “Christ in you” idea Paul treated as essential. But the moment leaders gained political standing, sacraments turned into tools of power, who may receive them, who may administer them, and who has the authority to say yes or no, that sort of thing.

There is a significant difference between how the Church explains “the Great Apostasy” now…

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost.

…and how Joseph Smith said God explained it…

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

The current leadership of the Church has significantly softened God’s words and feelings about it.