No Schism, no Mormonism.

[_The Nehor]

This is silly in most cases. If Joseph Smith's grandfather had moved elsewhere his parents would never have met and (according to this logic) Mormonism would not exist.

You can play this game about everything back to minute differences in the origin of the Universe and snidely point out how unlikely anything is.

However, if there is a God who knew the end from the beginning this presents no difficulty to theism in general. It mostly serves as weak smug self-congratulation to atheists who do not understand what kind of God that their opponents profess. It's basically a cleverly disguised strawman.

[_Jason Bourne]

In 1054 papal legates visited Constantinople to demand that its patriarch, Michael Cerularius, recognize the universal authority of the Church of Rome, and the pope, over other churches. This resulted in the mutual excommunication of patriarch Cerularius and the legates and, ultimately, the Great schism between eastern and western Christianity. One of the primary points of contention was the pope's claim to authority over the eastern patriarchates. Obviously, much of European history would have changed had this schism not occurred. The eastern Roman empire may have resisted the rise of the Ottoman Turks, instead of being weakened by the fourth Crusade's sack of Constantinople. There would have been no Protestant Reformation. It would have taken longer for Europeans to discover and exploit the Americas.

All things considered, Mormonism would not exist today, had the pope not pressed the issue of his authority over the rest of Christendom.

Well of course God could have arranged all this to prepare for the restoration 766 years down the road.

You know, even as a TBM i used to wonder about the great apostasy. Why, I would think, would Jesus come, set up a Church and just let it all fall apart only a few short years down the road. It would sometimes just feel nonsensical to me.

[_Trevor]

This is silly in most cases. If Joseph Smith's grandfather had moved elsewhere his parents would never have met and (according to this logic) Mormonism would not exist.

And what is so silly about that? Maybe there's some truth to it.

You can play this game about everything back to minute differences in the origin of the Universe and snidely point out how unlikely anything is.

I suppose you can, but that does not mean that I was.

However, if there is a God who knew the end from the beginning this presents no difficulty to theism in general. It mostly serves as weak smug self-congratulation to atheists who do not understand what kind of God that their opponents profess. It's basically a cleverly disguised strawman.

I don't see why are you responding to this argument as though it were necessarily atheist to begin with. I think it is time for you to read a little more closely before you post a response.

[_Trevor]

You know, even as a TBM i used to wonder about the great apostasy. Why, I would think, would Jesus come, set up a Church and just let it all fall apart only a few short years down the road. It would sometimes just feel nonsensical to me.

I think the Great Apostasy is generally problematic. One major issue is the fact of the existence of an early Christian movement that most people who idealize the early Church would recognize. The search for a pure early Church is like the search for Romulus' Rome, in my opinion. When was it the right church and when did it cease to be? At the death of Peter? The Council of Nicea? I doubt anyone can present a truly compelling argument.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I think the Great Apostasy is generally problematic. One major issue is the fact of the existence of an early Christian movement that most people who idealize the early Church would recognize. The search for a pure early Church is like the search for Romulus' Rome, in my opinion. When was it the right church and when did it cease to be? At the death of Peter? The Council of Nicea? I doubt anyone can present a truly compelling argument.

I agree, there can't be a compelling argument, the dating of the sources don't allow there to be a compelling argument. A simple example shows why it can't be done.

If people claim that the apostasy started before 100 CE then the problem is that there are books in the New Testament that were written after 100 CE, which would clearly be apostate. Most scholars are agreed that 2 Peter was written in the second century, which would make it apostate by this standard. If you give up 2 Peter you have to give up things like "calling and election made sure." If you do that then you can't have Joseph Smith promising people that their calling and election were made sure.

But if you say that the apostasy was after 100 CE then you have to say that the Didache, which predates 100 CE represents standard non apostate Christian practice. And the Didache clearly shows that for early Christians baptism by immersion was not considered a requirement, sprinkling with water was just fine.

Of course, Mormons can argue that 2 Peter should be in the canon and the Didache is apostate Christianity because they say so. But then why talk about a Great Apostasy? It's not much of an argument to just say that certain things are apostate and other things are not just because Mormons say so.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The problem with that view for the typical Mormon, Trevor, is that it denies Mormonism's essential dispensationalism. If there never were a historical niche for modern Mormonism to fill, then there would be be none of the priesthood powers or ordinances requisite for man's salvation. That simply wouldn't do, from a Mormon's perspective. I guess Mormons believe less in free agency and more in historical determinism than they like to think.

Clearly the typical Mormon, like the typical anyone, won't follow this line of reasoning. Again, though, why do you think this denies the possibility of dispensationalism? I suppose the concept as such might not even exist in the circumstances I outlined, but, if it did, why could that dispensation not be expressed in quite a different way?

You seem to be backing away from your original claim of "No schism, no Mormonism" to the more pliable position "No schism, different Mormonism". The implications of this new thesis are narrower. We've gone from an idea that leads to disturbing conclusions (to Mormons) to a mere curious counterfactual. I guess I don't see the point of that.

[_The Nehor]

I agree, there can't be a compelling argument, the dating of the sources don't allow there to be a compelling argument. A simple example shows why it can't be done.

If people claim that the apostasy started before 100 CE then the problem is that there are books in the New Testament that were written after 100 CE, which would clearly be apostate. Most scholars are agreed that 2 Peter was written in the second century, which would make it apostate by this standard. If you give up 2 Peter you have to give up things like "calling and election made sure." If you do that then you can't have Joseph Smith promising people that their calling and election were made sure.

But if you say that the apostasy was after 100 CE then you have to say that the Didache, which predates 100 CE represents standard non apostate Christian practice. And the Didache clearly shows that for early Christians baptism by immersion was not considered a requirement, sprinkling with water was just fine.

Of course, Mormons can argue that 2 Peter should be in the canon and the Didache is apostate Christianity because they say so. But then why talk about a Great Apostasy? It's not much of an argument to just say that certain things are apostate and other things are not just because Mormons say so.

The issue to LDS is that the apostasy did not occur all at once. It started for the LDS when the apostles vanished but it didn't end. The church didn't really have a cohesive and authoritative structure after that (and sometimes before that) beyond individuals presiding over areas and doing whatever. Therefore, we can accept some things and reject others.

[_Trevor]

You seem to be backing away from your original claim of "No schism, no Mormonism" to the more pliable position "No schism, different Mormonism". The implications of this new thesis are narrower. We've gone from an idea that leads to disturbing conclusions (to Mormons) to a mere curious counterfactual. I guess I don't see the point of that.

I didn't see myself as doing so, no. Whether a Restoration by another name, or no Restoration at all, my suggestion leads to no Mormonism as founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. What this means, in my opinion, is that much of what is taken as indispensible to the Gospel (including Masonic temple rituals, polygamy, two priesthoods, etc., etc.) would probably not have become part of the Restored Church at all.

Is that merely a curious counterfactual, or something more substantive?

[_Trevor]

Therefore, we can accept some things and reject others.

As desired.

[_Trevor]

Of course, Mormons can argue that 2 Peter should be in the canon and the Didache is apostate Christianity because they say so. But then why talk about a Great Apostasy? It's not much of an argument to just say that certain things are apostate and other things are not just because Mormons say so.

Well, and what is worse is that by making such an argument, they would be relying on the canon as defined by a Church that was already apostate, by most Mormons' reckoning. The LDS vision of the early Church has little to do with a historical understanding of the first and second century CE and everything to do with later romanticization of Christ's ministry and the first decades of Christianity.