I’d be interested in some scholarly input on this article on a Catholic blog. Interesting to note that April 6 is mentioned as an important date.
The Millennial Star
I’d be interested in some scholarly input on this article on a Catholic blog. Interesting to note that April 6 is mentioned as an important date.
I recommend Kevin’s post on this:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/12/april-sixth-and-the-conception-of-jesus/
No. Actually I’m extremely clear that it is not important whether or not the early Christians got the date of Jesus’ birth right.
What I’m defending is the reality that the early church was not at all interested in deriving its revelation from pagan sources. It would, to be sure, sometimes fill pagan forms with Christian content (easter eggs, wedding rings, Christmas trees). But it had a complete disregard for the notion of receiving its revelation from paganism. It was all about Jewish and Christian scripture and tradition.
This is one of the reasons the Mormon Myth of the Great Apostasy is such utter rubbish.
Mark, thanks for coming by to clarify. As for the reality or unreality of the Apostasy, I would suggest that is another debate for another time.
Ah, Mr. Shea, you may relax. I don’t recall ever hearing the dating of Christmas cited as one of the signs of the Great Apostasy. And I likewise fail to see anything in Geoff’s initial post that questioned either your faith or your intelligence.
I didn’t say or imply that Geoff had questioned my faith or intelligence. I wrote to correct mis misimpression that I was defending Dec. 25 as Christ’s actual birthday. I’m not. I’m arguing against the common claim that Christianity (and, in particular, Catholic faith) is just warmed over paganism.
Given that a variant of the “Catholicism is a pagan corruption” theme is what undergirds the Mormon myth of the Great Apostasy (without which there is no need at all for a re-establishment of the Church and therefore no need at all for Mormonism) I thought that point would be rather germane to a Mormon look at my piece. The Great Apostasy is, in fact, a completely unhistorical myth. Therefore, there is simply no foundation for Mormonism.
Mark Shea clearly knows how to be a gracious guest. I wonder if he would appreciate someone coming to his blog and saying similar things about Catholicism (especially since his one sentence description of the Mormon concept of the Apostasy is so wildly inaccurate as to be laughable).
To be fair, if the only exposure Mark Shea has is to works like Talmage’s book “The Great Apostasy” and other similar works (such as “Mormon Doctrine” by McConkie), then his comments are bit more understandable, though inaccurate and rather rude (not that I’m any great saint at being civil online).
Mr. Shea, I agree with you on the issue of Dec. 25, and apologize, if I may, for the title of the post.
You are correct also that if the Apostacy did not happen, then either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church can trace themselves back all the way to Christ’s handing out of Authority. We believe differently, of course, but I very much love the Catholic Fath, and all faith for that matter, which lends itself to following true christian precepts like charity, mercy, love and peace.
We believe what we believe, and you believe what you believe. May we continue to do so with respect and love until we come before our father in heaven and he sets us all straight as to how it is going to be.
That said, your piece is very similar to what J. Stapley has already sited in comment #1. I’d say, as fellow christians, we are mainly on the same page.
The Mormon idea of Apostasy relies on the central idea that once the Apostles died off, the prophetic link between man and God was severed. After that, it was only a matter of time before the established Church parted ways with God’s will in any number of ways.
You can play with that idea all day without ever even touching the notion of pagan ritual. That some Mormon commentators have decided to make hay out of the pagan thing doesn’t mean that’s all the Mormon argument is based on.
I don’t care if you disagree with the Mormon doctrine of the Great Apostasy. But be sure you understand what it is you’re disagreeing with. Kay?
And this, I think, is what happens when you ask for “scholarly” input, Geoff. Sigh.
I’m not a huge fan of the tone Mr. Shea takes (either here or on the original post you linked to) but I agree that the issue that ought to be of relevance in this discussion — the “origination of the Christian observances held on 25th December” one, I mean — is what was on the minds of the people who first held it on that date, as well as what’s on our minds when we hold similar observances today. If they, and we, are commemorating the advent of Christ on the earth, rather than any other event (e.g. the many sales that crop up on Boxing Day, the acquisition of gifts, and even the winter solstice) then I think we’re all good.
Similarly, I think it would be unfortunate if an individual Mormon decided to only hold Christmas on April 6th, primarily on the grounds that it’s such a nice tie-in with the church’s birthday. The point is our attitude towards Christ’s advent, and not the date or any other concurrent celebrations. For example, though I will be celebrating the anniversary of Gorbachev’s resignation on this upcoming December 25th, it’ll be very clearly separate from any Christmas observances I undertake. ^_^
Matt W, before you apologize for the title, you may want to go back and re-read the blog post and then the comments. Commenters, including the Catholics on his site, have universally seen it as an attempt to justify the Dec. 25 date.
Sarah, #10, now you know why I spend a lot of time sighing, just like you. I would have loved this thread to be a highbrow discussion of early Christian traditions, pagan rituals and sun worship, including the writings of early church fathers and Roman commentators. Instead, we get an attempted threadjack into the apostasy and insults. Good to see none of the Mormons took the bait, at least.
I think if we move our celebration of the birth of Christ to his actual birth, we’d have a more accurate and more fitting celebration of the Savior, because not only would we be celebrating his birth, but also his resurrection, as also his death and atonement. The gift-giving is part of the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. Keep it going and still call it Christmas to your hearts content, but I like the idea of switching celebrating the birth of Christ to his actual birthday.
‘t would be foolish of me to celebrate my birthday four months before it actually occurs, would it not?
April 6 as Christ’s birth is actually not LDS doctrine, so much as tradition. Just as it is LDS tradition to celebrate Christmas on December 25.
I think an error we naively take on is that Christmas is a celebration of Christ’s Birthday. It is actaully a celebration of Christ’s Birth.
The Question to me is what brought the idea that Christ’s Conception needed to synch with his death in the first place?
And Geoff, sorry for apologizing for the title, this all seemed to read somewhat differently last night. I guess I was really apologizing for any offense to Catholicism, where I am sure none was intended.
Matt, agreed that it’s a good idea to remind everybody, as many of the posters above do, that this post was NEVER intended as some kind of slap at Catholicism. I am truly interested in the scholarly debate and was hoping to stimulate some conversation. I’d love to know what St. Augustine wrote about the date of Christ’s birth, if anything, for example.
I’ll have to look around a bit, on short notice, here is why Augustine (allegedly) said Christ was born…
Man’s Maker was made man
that the Bread might be hungry,
the Fountain thirst,
the Light sleep,
the Way be tired from the journey;
that Strength might be made weak,
that Life might die.
More St. Augistine (from a sermon given on Dec. 25):
“Rejoice you who are just. It is the birthday of him who justifies. Rejoice you who are weak and sick. It is the birthday of him who makes people well. Rejoice you who are in captivity. It is the birthday of the Redeemer. Rejoice you who are slaves. It is the birthday of the Master. Rejoice you who are free. It is the birthday of him who makes us free. Rejoice all you Christians. It is Christ’s birthday.”
— Sermon 184, 2
Ok, for a really good catholic take on the origin of the Christmas holiday, see the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is an excellent source for all things Catholic.
Here’s the link, sorry, the a href tag doesn’t appear to be working…
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
Matt,
your St. Augustine quote directly refutes this. The sermon he gave was on Dec. 25 and he says to rejoice in the birthday of the Lord.
His conception wouldn’t have happened around the time of his death if his birthday was two days after his death.
From all the literature I’ve read, to this point, I am satisfied that the Savior was born on April 6, probably 6 B.C. He died two days before his 34th birthday and rose on his birthday. Until I see hard conclusive evidence to the contrary (from the things I’ve read to this point), that’s my belief.
Dan,
The evidence from 3rd Nephi suggests that the crucifixion occurred three days after the thirty-third anniversary of Christ’s birth:
III Ne. 8:5 And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.
The sign of Christ’s birth occurred on the first day of the year, thirty-three years had passed, and the great storm Nephi reports was the sign of his crucifixion. Thus, he died three days after his 33rd birthday.
This conclusion requires only one assumption: that the Nephite record keepers began keeping their calendars from the date the sign was given, and that that date became the first day of the new year. (An alternative, which leaves the date of birth/resurrection unconnected, would be to follow the Japanese custom. There, the new year begins on January 1, but a new series begins when a new emperor ascends the throne. So, Showa 48 began on January 1, 1973, even though the Emperor Showa (Hirohito) began his reign on a day other than January 1, 1926. (Actually, it was December 25, 1926–so Taisho 15 lasted 358 days and Showa 1 lasted only 7 days.))
You can start another thread to discuss the significance if any, of Showa’s ascension to the throne on December 25.
You are correct also that if the Apostacy did not happen, then either the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church can trace themselves back all the way to Christ’s handing out of Authority. We believe differently, of course, but I very much love the Catholic Fath, and all faith for that matter, which lends itself to following true christian precepts like charity, mercy, love and peace.
Thanks for that kind word of respect. I know some fine Mormon folk too and there is much in Mormonism that encourages the practice of the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love. May those virtues grow and flourish among all Mormons.
We believe what we believe, and you believe what you believe.
The difference, of course, is that there is actual data which supports the fact of the continuity of the Catholic faith from the apostles to today. There is simply no evidence for the Mormon myth of the Great Apostasy. Newman wrote (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/characteristics/part4-1.html) over a century ago about the impossibility of finding a Protestant Church in early Christianity.
Of course, Mormonism will argue that it is not Protestant. A Catholic fails to be convinced. It is far more accurate to say that Mormonism is an extreme species of Protestantism than to say it is the Church of Jesus Restored. It borrows from the Protestant founding myth of a Great Apostasy necessitating restoration, then adds to the Protestant idea that we must interpret Scripture without the interference of the Catholic Church the notion that we can *write* Scripture without the interference of the Church. From there, it moves off into the notion of new revelation and, ultimately, polytheism.
But it all goes back to the Protestant Founding Myth that the early Church was *really* constituted according to the notions of Me and My Sect, until the Catholic Church somehow screwed everything up and made it necessary for God to start all over again.
This is simply false. The early Church, as any reasonable study of the matter will show, was essentially a young Catholic Church. It has matured over time, with perfectly traceable continuity, into the Catholic Church that still exists today. There never was any such thing as a Great Apostasy and all attempt to show there was are doomed. That is why, as nice as the Mormons are that I know, I cannot agree with them on the fact claims Mormonism makes about that alleged Apostasy. There is simply no There there. I would scarcely be speaking honestly if I did not point that out.
The early Church, as any reasonable study of the matter will show, was essentially a young Catholic Church. It has matured over time, with perfectly traceable continuity, into the Catholic Church that still exists today
I don’t have time to join into this discussion. I’d just note that this appeal to continuity seems problematic logically. Consider someone who has their hairs slowly plucked out in time. There will be, of course, perfect continuity with the person with a full head of hair. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a time we can say they are bald, even if we can’t point to a time and say, “he went bald then.”
Mark –
you are attempting to claim certainty by controlling the definitions in the debate, when the definitions of “Apostasy” and “continuity” and “authority” in this debate aren’t agreed upon by you and by us. But since you insist on defining terms in ways many Mormons wouldn’t – well, it isn’t “honest” of you (even if you think it is), it’s just plain dogmatic.
It’s clear you have no desire to actually debate the subject, but I’ll just give one example where your definition is way off: A “perfectly traceable continuity” does not preclude a loss of authority. The issue at hand isn’t the through continuity, but whether God withdrew the authority to act in his name at some point along the line.
So, you’re engaging in a bit of misdirection, intentionally or not. But the main problem here isn’t one of “honesty” – it’s one of definition. And you’re acting like the terms for debate are stable and agreed upon by all sides, when in fact they are being used differently by the various groups in the debate.
And until we all realize that, the discussion is rather pointless.
In fact, I’m puzzled by your insistence on coming on here. Rather than appearing honest, you appear to be trying to pick a fight.
Actually, although D&C 20:1 may not make Jesus’ birth date entirely clear (after all, it could simply be a timekeeping method being used here, and not intended to mean exactly 1,830 years from Christ’s birth), we find in other places mention of April 6 being the actual date of His birth, given by revelation:
Hope this was helpful.
Oh yes, and if I might put in a word for Roman Catholics, I have many close Catholic friends, and have engaged a number of them in discussion on the topic of the Great Apostasy, and was treated very respectfully by them, unlike this individual. I urge you, brother, to alter your tone to one of greater humility. You need not compromise your convictions in doing so; I never for once believed that my friends had any doubts about their beliefs, indeed it gave me a great respect for them that I probably would not have had had they used the tone you are using now.
Mark,
The falling away was prophesied by Paul on several occasions, most notably in Thessalonians. The problem the early church ran into was the infusion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with gnosticism and other Greek philosophies that altered the Gospel, transformed the Knowable God into an Unknowable, mysterious Being, as was not proclaimed in the Gospel by the Son Himself (read John 17 for example). Gnosticism could not comprehend a Diety. I don’t really know why the early Christians thought gnosticism would be a great match with the gospel of Jesus Christ. See the Gospel was a very clear and simple theology. Gnosticism is a muddled convoluted ideology that did not like (and still does not like) simplicity.
Now, as to whether or not this introduction led to an apostasy, well I guess that would depend on what we each think God would accept as His church. Catholics will have a hard time selling the point that Popes during the 700-1000 AD period were really God’s spokesmen. The issue of worthiness is an important one. Can God really speak to the world through a tainted vessel? Or does He withdraw His power and support from that body and let it run on its own, corrupted and tainted?
Gnosticism was actually a competing “brand” of Christianity with what we now know as Catholicism, but was not Catholicism itself. Although we LDS folk might argue that even the Catholics in their resistance to gnosticism were influenced by it, the religious leaders of the time openly denounced gnostics as heretics. Gnosticism is more deeply and openly rooted in Greek philosophy than any other brand of Christianity, for certain. Gnosticism itself had many different variations, although most followed the same basic vein. Gnostics believed in an extremely elaborate separation between the mortal and the divine, involving an array of angels, archangels, veritable demigods, and ultimately God himself. This was largely due to the gnostic belief that flesh is inherently evil (and of course, different) than spirit. (This is one reason why one might argue that the Catholic belief that Christ was not half man, half God, but instead 100% man and 100% God, with what would seem a vast rift between mortal man and immortal God, is of gnostic origin.) Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Judas (wherein is contained the idea that Judas was actually helping Jesus by freeing Him from His corrupt, mortal prison), bear an unmistakable brand of gnostic thought, with historic events extremely skewed and distorted to support gnostic ideas. The relationship between gnosticism and Catholicism is more comparable to the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy; they may have started out the same, but they ended up branching off at some point. Ergo neither one is a root of the other, but a roughly parallel branch.
The “falling away” that’s spoken of in the epistle to the Thessalonians is not the “falling away of the church”, rather it is a “falling away from the church”.
In fact, in the same epistle, Paul gives the Thessalonians a promise that the Lord will establish them and keep them from evil:
Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. (2 Thess 3:1-3)
It doesn’t make sense for Paul to prophesy that the Church will fall away, and then in another epistle to the same people promise that God will keep them from evil. However, it does make sense that Christians can fall away from the church while the church remains on earth in accordance with God’s promises.
Sometimes, reading the scriptures in their proper context lead to a more accurate understanding of what their authors really intended to say.
Sol –
as with many on this thread (including the Mormons), you seem to think the mere quoting of a scripture will produce what you see as an obvious interpretation. When I read that scripture, I see nothing more than a promise that the Lord will “keep” those who are faithful, not the entire church organization.
As I said above, this debate can’t go anywhere until we all stop acting like the terms we each use are stable and agreed upon. But Mormons and Catholics basically have different ways of defining the same terms. It may seem clear to you (or to Dan or Mark or whoever) but it doesn’t seem clear to the people you’re debating, since the filter is different.
And merely because you believe your filter to be correct doesn’t make it any less of a filter.
#24
First of all, as a compliment, great work in finding references in official, correlated publications where leaders have taught that April 6th is an actual birth date. That makes the idea doctrinal, albeit rather low on the doctrinal spectrum. Not everything that is taught and written in the church is true or binding. I am at a loss why you would refer to such statements as revelation, when a more parsimonious explanation is that those leaders simply interpreted D&C 20:1 that particular way.
Sol (and other Catholic friends) –
I first heard of the great apostasy when becoming involved with the Jesus movement in the early 1970’s. This is not a unique Mormon doctrine.
Individuals have fallen away from the faith in many times and places. But the Bible speaks of a definite historical event which involves church leadership. Paul writes of a definite day (2 Thess 2:3). Peter says that it shall happen soon (2 Peter 2:1-3). Jude (probably the last book of the New Testament to be written) says that it has already begun (Jude 1:4)! So this event took place quite early in church history. Eusebius, for instance, writing in the fourth century, described how some of the elders would turn and worship the sun god before entering the church building.
I learned, as a Presbyterian, that the birth of Christ was probably in April. Again, not a unique Mormon idea. It has to do with April (still!) being the time of taxation (Luke 2:3), and shepherds keeping watch over presumably young lambs at night (Luke 2:8). But is the exact date really important?
There is no denying that there was going to be a great falling away. But to say that this great falling away is the falling away of the entire church will simply not cut out with the rest of the scriptures.
For one, the Church is not just an organization. Some may narrowly think that apostles and prophets alone consist the Church; so that if you lose them, you’ve lost the whole church. The Church is more than just prophets and apostles.
And remember, Christ himself promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. He himself built in upon a rock, and not upon a sandy foundation. If someone says that the powers of Hell prevailed against the Church in some distant past, then he would have to concede that Christ failed to build his church on a foundation of rock.
Now that creates some theological problems. For how can Christ exhort people to build their faith upon good and solid foundations, yet he himself fail to practice what he preached when it comes to building his church?
If God preserves the faithful, and the faithful are part of the Church, then how does that show that the Church has totally apostatized? It doesn’t. You can lose the entire organization but you can’t lose the Church because the Church isn’t confined to an organization.
If there is a problem understanding terms, then why not do the obvious, ie, ask a question? Since this isn’t a formal debate, we can always ask questions at any point when we don’t understand something, can’t we?
I don’t think we have to agree on the definition of terms to be able to carry a decent dialogue. Right now, I don’t think we even share the same understanding of the term “Church”. But it’s the discussion that should help us see the differences, so let’s just carry on…
Sol –
I think that’s exactly part of the problem. We have differing definitions of the term Church. Not only that, we don’t seem to agree with y’all when to use the term.
For example:
And remember, Christ himself promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. He himself built in upon a rock, and not upon a sandy foundation. If someone says that the powers of Hell prevailed against the Church in some distant past, then he would have to concede that Christ failed to build his church on a foundation of rock.
See, Mormons believe the scripture you are referencing does not refer to the Church at all, so your exegesis doesn’t fly. The scripture goes like this:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
To Mormon, the rock is not necessarily Peter, but more about the revelation Peter received. Therefore, when it says “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” it means “shall not prevail against direct revelation from God” like Peter received.
Therefore, saying there was an Apostasy, to Mormons, means that the revelation went away. So your exegesis of those scriptures fails to mean much to most Mormons. Undoubtedly, my (not fully developed) exegesis here will fail to convince any Catholics. But my main point is, we can quote scripture all millennium long, but since we parse them differently, it won’t mean much to either side.
And what happens if all the faithful did go away for awhile (i.e. died off and no one replaced them)?
There’s no question about a definite day on that great falling away. The New Testament is filled with references to it. The question is whether it was a “falling away from” the church or a “falling away of” the church. A closer look at the NT references show that it is really the former rather than the latter.
I’ve already pointed out how it would be out of context, if not illogical, for Paul in 2 Thess 2:3 to refer to a total apostasy of the Church when he himself affirms the promise of God to preserve and establish those who are faithful (2 Thess 3:1-3). There can’t be a total apostasy if God preserves a faithful remnant.
As for 2 Peter 2:1-3, let’s look at some verses that precede and follow those lines:
“The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” (2 Peter 2:9)
“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19)
These verses teach two important principles:
1. God knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations.
2. The word of prophecy is a light that shines in a dark place until the day dawns.
The first principle is pretty much self-explanatory. If God doesn’t know how to deliver the godly from temptations then we have a big problem. Either he is not God, or the author is not telling the truth about God. But we know that saintly men and women have lived in the Church throughout the ages, inspiring the others to live Christ-like lives. It would be hard to deny this fact and say that God didn’t preserve them.
As for the second principle, it’s quite obvious also that the word of prophecy is not a light that’s dies out when darkness falls, and then relighted when the day breaks. That’s not the way to use a light. In fact, didn’t Jesus say that no man lights a candle and puts it under a bushel? But that is what a total apostasy would mean. It would mean that after establishing the Church to be a light to the gentile nations, God would allow the forces of darkness to cover its light as a bushel covers a candle. That just won’t cut. The word of prophecy is a light that remains shining in a dark place until the darkness has passed, and the day begins to dawn. That is rather clear from the verse.
Jude 1:5 is also interesting, especially when we read some of the verses that precede and follow it:
“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” (Jude 1:5)
It’s true that God destroyed the disobedient Israelites by making them wander the desert for 40 years. But he only did that to the disobedient ones. A remnant was saved, and that remnant entered the promised land. God knows how to save a remnant for his purposes. About the only time God almost wiped out everyone was during Noah’s flood, and even then he preserved Noah’s family in the ark.
“Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” (Jude 1:29,30)
God the Savior is able to keep his faithful from falling. That idea agrees very well with the idea that God knows how to save the godly from temptations. That also fits well with what Jesus said about how the Church is built on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Now if God knows how to do these things, how can a total apostasy of the Church happen? It can’t.
Ivan,
Well you can interpret it that way, but at the end of the day, you will have to reckon whether Christ built the church on a foundation of rock, or a sandy foundation.
But since you believe the Church fell, then Christ must have failed to build it on a genuine rock. You can say that that rock was the “rock of revelation” but how good a foundation was it if the Church collapsed anyway? It must have been a fake rock.
Ultimately, the more serious question is: What kind of builder is Christ if his structures can’t stand the gates of hell?
Sol – your entire argument depends on the logical fallacy that if God is perfect, and God built the Church, the Church is perfect and cannot fall. The Church is a vehicle for God to teach His truths to His children. He has built the Church on the shoulders of his servants. Unfortunately, since His servants are human, they are prone to mistakes and eventually to death. If there are not enough faithful to keep the Church together – especially in times where transportation and communication were so difficult – the Church cannot stand, no matter how sure of a foundation it was originally built on. In other words, he can build a perfect structure, but if his only timbers rot or fall away, the structure will also fall.
But, you might say that God wouldn’t use faulty timbers. Unfortunately again, that may be all he has to work with. Eventually even the best timbers rot if they are not continually upkept (in this case, through revelation.)
Putting that issue aside, there is another reason why the Church might fall, even if the people are trying their very best to follow God’s precepts.
Have you ever played the Whisper game? It’s a game where one person whispers something in a person’s ear, who then whispers it to the next person and so on down the line. The last person in line says what he hears. Usually, the sentence is unbelievably changed from first to last. This is what happens when one loses Apostles and Prophets. They are the only ones authorized to receive revelations for the Church. Revelations are like minute course corrections that can be made each time a ship goes astray – or as if the first person in the line could speak directly to each person down the line. If you have no way of making these corrections as you go, eventually you’re so far off course, you get a very garbled message at the end. (I know, mixed analogy.) There is precedent in the scriptures for God allowing the truth of the Gospel to disappear from the earth.
We believe this scripture to not only foretell the apostasy, but to also foretell how the Lord will end the apostasy – by bringing a “marvellous work and a wonder” to light – in other words, the Book of Mormon.
This verse also indicates that more than just a falling away of a few people from an unchanged church was to take place. Rather, the entire earth is defiled because the ordinances have been changed and the covenants broken.
Again – a gross darkness covers the earth – not just the eyes of a portion of the people.
Again – the word famine is used to describe the absence of the word. It is not something that comes to some – it is an overall devastation that touches everybody.
None of these scriptures will prove the total apostasy to one who does not wish to believe in it. But they are a few scriptures that support the idea of a total apostasy. To say that the Church cannot fall because God built it is to take away the basic law of human agency.
UnicornMom,
That would be a straw man argument because I didn’t say that the Church is perfect. What I did say is that God knows how to keep his promises, and knows how to save those who are faithful, strengthening them against the forces of darkness. If the Church doesn’t fall, it isn’t because the Church is perfect; rather, it is because God is God. God does whatever he says he will do.
That’s why Jesus gave this promise to his disciples:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt 28:19-20)
If he promised that he will always be with them, then that means he will not abandon them, even if they are prone to mistakes and eventually die. The only time the Church will die is if it is cut off and abandoned by God. But such an idea is never taught by Jesus nor his disciples after him.
This argument is based on the premise that “there are not enough faithful to keep the Church together”.
The problem with that reasoning is that God always keeps enough of the faithful for his own purposes. He never allows a shortage, even if it may not be obvious to human eyes. There is always a remnant preserved by God. This is what Paul taught in Romans:
“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:1-5)
This explanation by Paul is remarkable in that he pointed out how the prophet Elias (or Elijah) thought that he was the only living survivor after the Israelites killed their prophets. He thought that all the faithful have been murdered. Until God told him that He had kept to himself 7,000 men who have not worshipped Baal. Then Paul points out the obvious: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
The idea of a faithful remnant preserved by God is a recurring theme in Isaiah:
“Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. [Isaiah 1:7-9]
“And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this.” (Isaiah 37:31-32)
The problem with this reasoning is that it goes against the grain of whatever Jesus had taught elsewhere. Jesus established the Church so that it will remain:
“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain …” (John 15:16)
Jesus’ intention in choosing his disciples, or raising up a Church of disciples, is for the purpose of bearing fruit, and also so that their fruits “will remain”. If the Church had totally apostatized and abandoned Christ, then none of its fruits would have remained. That means Christ’s purpose was defeated. Remember, the Church is not only the fruit of Christ’s disciples, it is also the fruit of Christ himself.
Now even if Christ didn’t teach this, the idea of letting the Church collapse because some of its parts have begun to rot and fritter away goes beyond common sense. If you own a house, and you see some of its parts badly needing repairs, wouldn’t you use your equity to get funds just to save the house? Would you really allow your house to collapse while you do nothing? You wouldn’t.
Likewise, it doesn’t make sense for God to do nothing while the Church verges on collapse, especially when the life of his Son was paid to put up that Church.
At best, this is a straw man argument simply because I never would reason that way. But even if we accomodate such reasoning, we would be forced to conclude that God simply watched while his Church collapsed.
But the scriptures teach that God is not like that. The scriptures are unanimous in saying that God will save his own and preserve a faithful remnant to himself. If one understands the message of the scriptures, then the idea of a total apostasy by the Church can be a bit hard to swallow.
Sol (and any other Roman Catholic friends) –
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my scripture references. It seems that you agree that there was an actual great apostasy – just not a total apostasy involving every single believer. This all comes down to our definition of the church.
There are three basic definitions: 1) the local congregation, where three or more are gathered in his name, 2) the mystical body of Christ, the sum total of all believers past, present, and future, both living and dead, a great cloud of witnesses, and 3) an actual organization on the face of of the earth that one could join, run by a plural ministry of apostles, prophets, teachers and others.
When I talk about about the great apostasy of the church, I am speaking of definition #3. That church disappeared very early on. And that is the church that was restored in 1830, and is now, once again, a multinational organization. Of course, definition #2 could never disappear, and definition #1 could not disappear as long as even one believer existed on the earth.
Please note that I use the word “I” since I’m not attempting to speak for the LDS church. By the way, the scripture references and interpretations I referred to earlier come, not from a Mormon publication, but from an outstanding volume called “The Bible Book By Book” by G. Coleman Luck of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Not exactly a LDS institution!
Correction to comment #38, paragraph 3. It should read “…as long as MORE than one believer…”
Dion,
There is a problem with this idea of a church as an organization of apostles, prophets, etc.
It presupposes that the organization is the body, and that it has pre-eminence over the whole body. The problem with this is that the facts of scripture show Jesus started a movement and in the evolutionary process of that movement, a church organization came into being. The church body began with Christ, but the hierarchical structure followed later.
In other words, the church preceded its table of organization. Apart from the body, the hierarchy has very little importance. It is rather hard to imagine that while Jesus was hanging on the cross, that he was actually suffering for some organizational chart.
No, Jesus suffered and died on behalf of his people. The church organization is just a means to attain an end; it is not an end to itself. Even without an organizational chart, the church will still be “The Church”. Hence, the Church can lose its organization and it won’t need restoring. The Church can make another organization as it wishes. Or even several organizations.
What’s more important is for the Church not to lose its soul. To paraphrase the scripture: What does it profit the Church to have an organization but lose its own soul?
To Sol (and anyone else still following this tortuous dialogue) –
It seems we have come a long way since the discussion of the date of Christmas (by the way, hope everyone had a good one)!
I used to say that the church is an organism (a living body) not an organization (a structure, a building). But I think I really knew all along that it is both.
Peter calls it a “spiritual house” and calls its members “lively stones” – note spiritual/lively suggests an organism and house/stones suggests an organization (I Peter 2:5). It is both.
He goes on to say that members are a “priesthood” and a “nation” suggesting organization and structure – including rules and regulations (1 Peter 2:9). He speaks of the church as “the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17).
The church organization is important because it provides for community, guidance, mission – in a way we couldn’t do alone. And in the case of the LDS church it provides a way to achieve exaltation, that “ye might be partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
I for one am thankful that this building, house, structure, organization has been restored to the earth.
Dion,
Rules, regulation, structure, organization, priesthood… these all came later in the Church’s evolution. The Church preceded all of that. So when you speak of a total apostasy of the church’s organization (definition #3 according to your previous post), do you lose the entire Church on earth? No you don’t.
As a lively organism, the Church may lose its parts, but through God’s grace it is able to revitalize itself without having to disappear from the earth. Again, that’s not caused by the Church’s perfection, but rather caused by God who promised that he will not abandon the Church.
While church organization may be important, losing that organization does not necessarily mean that all of the Church is lost. Otherwise, God is not God. And of all men, we are to be most pitied since we are left believing a God who cannot keep his promises.