Beginning in 303 AD, the Roman emperor Diocletian began a series of official persecutions of Christians, stripping them of legal status and resulting in death, torture, imprisonment, and loss of property for many Christians. Some Roman governors offered leniency to Christians if they would officially repudiate the faith – an attractive proposition to some when faced with the specter of torture and death. As a result, many Christians renounced the faith, including some clergy.
The Edict of Milan in 313 AD brought a winding down of the persecutions in the eastern empire, but it wasn’t until 324, when Constantine became sole emperor, that the persecutions were ended across the entire empire. As Christians resumed their regular lives, churches were split over how to handle those who repudiated the faith during the persecutions (they were called traditores). These disagreements became particularly acute when it came to the question of how to handle clergy who had repudiated the faith. Was their authority valid? Were their sacraments, both before and after the persecutions, valid?
Leading the argument that the sacraments of traditore clergy were invalid was a group in North Africa called Donatists, so named for one of their leaders, a Christian bishop named Donatus Magnus. Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be sinless in order for their sacraments to be valid, and renouncing the faith to avoid persecution was a grievous enough sin that any clergy having done so had forfeited their authority to perform sacraments, even if they repented. For Donatists, this even extended to bishops or priests who were secretly committing sin – any sacraments they perform would be invalid. It’s akin to thinking, in an LDS context, that the sacrament blessed by a sexually active priest is invalid because of his sin; or that a baptism performed by a secretly adulterous father is invalid.
Needless to say that the Donatist perspective was rejected by the early Christian church, which largely espoused the idea that the sacraments are from God and he alone renders them valid, and that has been the perspective of the church since that time. It is also the perspective of the LDS Church as well.
So, I was intrigued by a recent post at By Common Consent, written by JKC, discussing the fallibility of prophets and institutional revelation. The post is excellent and offers a thoughtful approach to the question of prophetic fallibility. The basic points, as I understood them, are:
- There are certain circumstances when the President of the LDS Church is speaking as a prophet, and most of the time those circumstances are dictated by the testimony of the Holy Spirit given to the members of the LDS Church.
- The closer to the basics (e.g., atonement, Jesus Christ, baptism, repentance), the more likely the statement is to be prophetic.
- Statements made by the unanimous Q15 are more likely to be prophetic.
- The President of the LDS Church can make mistakes – even big, theological ones, and still be a prophet.
- That, while the LDS Church may be wrong on things, it will never drift into apostasy and lose the restored priesthood authority.
These arguments are interesting to me because they are eerily similar to the arguments made for the Great Apostasy. Those arguments basically are:
- Apostles died, taking priesthood authority with them.
- Decisions were made by councils rather than by direct, angelic revelation from God.
- Church leaders made gross mistakes, including theological and doctrinal mistakes, leading the church astray.
There is a great deal of correlation between the arguments made by JKC and the reasons historically provided for the Great Apostasy. I mentioned this to JKC in the comments of his post:
First of all, great post. I particularly like your final paragraph in your third point. Much food for thought there.
Question though: how is this functionally different than the arguments put forth over the years for how the Great Apostasy occurred? I’m not arguing that the LDS Church has apostatized, rather I’m trying to figure out how a claim can be made (by the official narrative of the LDS Church) that Christianity apostatized for these reasons, but it’s different now. Don’t these arguments begin to invalidate the narrative regarding the Great Apostasy?
JKC kindly responded:
Cody: Thanks for the comment. Frankly, in my opinion, too often we talk about the apostasy as an issue of the church believing incorrect doctrine and losing knowledge. But I’m not sure that’s right. The restoration was primarily a call to repentance and a restoration of priesthood authority, not the restoration of a detailed systematic theology. In my view, God cares a lot more about whether we are repenting and exercising faith in Christ, and trying to receive the Holy Ghost than about whether we believe the correct doctrinal things.
Our theology has changed over the years on things like the precise details of the Godhead, and that’s fine. I go back to scriptures like 3 Ne. 11:31-35 and D&C 19:31. The essential doctrines are pretty few. There’s lots of room for variation and even error on other points of theology. [Emphasis mine]
JKC also linked to one of his previous posts addressing what he called “a limited view of the Great Apostasy”, where he discusses the importance of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in the context of some limited view of the Great Apostasy. He is attempting to deal with some of the weaknesses associated with the traditional LDS polemic regarding a Great Apostasy, especially given the scholarly evidence making such a perspective untenable indeed. For example:
- There were far more apostles than 12 in the ancient church.
- The apostles delegated authority to bishops responsible for geographic areas and empowered them to make autonomous decisions, call deacons and elders, etc.
- Ecumenical councils were used to decide important disagreements within the early church.
- The revelation and influence of the Holy Spirit was earnestly sought within those councils, and there are accounts of those present having powerful spiritual experiences and manifestations within those councils.
- Many people throughout the intervening centuries received revelation and spiritual manifestations, both individually and institutionally, to guide them.
- Apostolic succession was important for the church and played an important role in the ordination of bishops so as to maintain that succession (both via line-of-authority and maintenance of the apostolic teachings/tradition).
- The early church appears to have had no concept of priesthood authority along the lines of what the LDS Church claims.
- There were many doctrinal and theological differences from the get-go within the early church; so many that it is difficult to maintain the idea that there was one cohesive church with one established doctrine from which to apostatize. There was significant variation in theology and practice among the church from the very beginning.
Given the modern, scholarly understanding of the early church, the idea of a Great Apostasy becomes extremely difficult to maintain, and this becomes an acute problem for the restoration itself, for if there was no apostasy, why was a restoration needed?
JKC makes the following argument:
But when it comes to priesthood authority, the restoration makes a definite claim that priesthood authority was restored (and, by implication, that it needed to be restored, because it was lost). So that’s the view of the apostasy that I’ve come to. It was a loss of priesthood authority, and probably, of institutional revelation. But the other stuff (confusion over doctrine, doctrinal error, changing ordinances) is not so much proof of apostasy as it is a the natural effect human beings running a church, even with divine help, for more than a decade or two.
I’ve also noticed a similar argument being made by some of the newer brand of LDS apologists. They seem to play down all aspects of the Great Apostasy narrative and instead focus on the need for a restoration of priesthood authority. However, isn’t that just a Donatist argument? If we follow the LDS Church understanding that the validity of ordinances and sacraments is not contingent on the administrator’s personal sinfulness, then how, exactly, did early church leaders lose their authority? Is there some nuance to the LDS view of Donatism that I am missing?
Since I have left the LDS Church I understand I am skating on thin ice here; however, I intend no offense and would hope there is the possibility of having a thoughtful, respectful discussion because I am genuinely curious how faithful LDS members make sense of this. I would imagine that there is a contingent of readers here who espouse the traditional view of the Great Apostasy. For those folks, I would love to hear how you hold to that perspective given the overwhelming scholarly evidence against it.
For those holding a view similar to JKC’s – the “limited view of the Great Apostasy” – I would love to hear how you avoid Donatism. How was authority lost? Is it based on heresy from the original truth? How do you maintain that perspective in the face of scholarly evidence that no such “LDS-like” original existed from which to commit heresy?
I find the shifting narrative on the Great Apostasy to be fascinating so I am genuinely curious to hear the perspectives of our readers on this topic. Thanks for indulging me.
Wheat & Tares 
“However, isn’t that just a Donatist argument?”
No, it is just (or very similar to) a Donatist argument. The idea comes from “amen to the priesthood of that man”.
Doctrine and Covenants 121:37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
However, certain things like partaking of the Sacrament is more contingent (IMO) upon the partaker who is reviewing and renewing his or her covenants with God and if the sacrament turns out to have been blessed by an unworthy man, well, it might not be blessed. Whether you, taking the sacrament, still obtain its virtue is an entirely different matter because at that moment it is your faith and not that of another man that is acting.
An unworthy man performing a baptism is a bit more worrisome; and yet, all are unworthy to some degree; so there’s a justification principle — “worthy enough” and the atoning power of Jesus can fill in the gaps.
It is clear to me that a few people will need “fixups” in this life or the next. My stepbrother needed some fixups in this life; he entered the mission field using my surname but as he had never been adopted, it wasn’t actually his legal name and his baptism and everything were using my name rather than his actual name. Fixing it up was pretty easy but necessary.
“If we follow the LDS Church understanding that the validity of ordinances and sacraments is not contingent on the administrator’s personal sinfulness”
That’s the first I’ve heard of it. Seems to grant license to be a hypocrite.
“then how, exactly, did early church leaders lose their authority?”
Structure, in my opinion. Apostles can ordain other apostles, but bishops cannot ordain other bishops. I don’t know any particular reason why this is so but it helps reduce propagation and variation if the top leadership ability to create new top leadership is constrained.
“Is there some nuance to the LDS view of Donatism that I am missing?”
Probably, but as I likely also miss it I won’t present myself as Expert.
“Since I have left the LDS Church I understand I am skating on thin ice here”
Few faithful LDS be here it seems.
The key to all this is a part of the First Vision: “They draw near unto me with their lips but deny the power thereof”.
In other words, the great thing restored was revelation and acceptance that anyone, even a doubting 14 year old boy, can talk to God (many people did and do that), but God talks back (rare, but not as uncommon as was then and now believed).
What is important about revelation is learning about God and our relationship to him through Jesus.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Great post Cody. Michael 2, I appreciate your comments. One sincere question. If the person who ordained me an elder is sinful (and a hypocrite), does that make my ordination invalid?
Very thought provoking post.
To repeat back what you said so that I know I am understanding correctly… Within the early church there were significant amounts of Apostles and Bishops that were deeply devoted, religious, committed men. These men were experiencing spiritual manifestations as part of their church/group (and individual) lives. So if the priesthood was removed from them, it is hard to assign blame to them for not being worthy of their priesthood. They wanted with all their hearts to be worthy in the exact same way our leaders do today. And they had the exact same challenges as our leaders today (speaking as a man rather than a prophet, counsels making decisions (sometimes wrong) rather than God-in-a-burning-bush type revelation, theological/doctrinal errors). So then why did they lose their priesthood? Under these parameters, the only answer I can come up with is that God took it from them so that there would be a Great Apostasy that JS could then fix. Of course, that just feels all kinds of wrong.
Michael 2 seems to be arguing (and I think this is a very common belief) that they lost their priesthood because they weren’t righteous, but rather highly corrupt. If that was true then why would God be blessing corrupt groups of people with huge manifestations of the spirit? Or is Michael 2 arguing that those manifestations never really happened?
Then to throw a totally different idea out there… We have a very specific understanding of ‘priesthood’ today. But J.Stapley’s book (going to be honest and admit it’s sitting in my TBR pile so I’m going off of interviews with him, conversations about him – feel free to correct my understanding if I get this wrong) explores that JS’s understanding of priesthood was quite different from our modern one. Would any of our modern arguments really make sense with JS’s understanding of what it was he was actually restoring? Does going back to JS understanding of priesthood change the discussion on why the early church lost the priesthood? (I have no idea.) Then that leads to a question of which understanding of priesthood is correct – today’s, JSs, the Apostles of the early church?
Fascinating stuff!
This may be an exceedingly simplistic view, but I’ve always believed that sometime after the deaths of the Lord”s apostles, other priesthood holders simply passed away with fewer and fewer new priesthood holders being ordained until there were none left. I’ve never believed that living priesthood holders had lost the priesthood. Maybe they had lost power (due to sin) but not their ordination.
Nibley’s view seems the most popular. It’s worth engaging with. That view was that while the higher priesthood (the sealing power and the keys to use it) was present it wasn’t bestowed in a complete form on the bishops. That included the temple rites. Nibley argues on the basis of some of Clement’s writings for this. I don’t have my Nibley books in a place I can get to them easily anymore. However this is in several of his writings.
I think the idea that they just all died out is hard to support. However the idea that there were higher ordinances related to heavenly ascent texts and the temple seems defensible especially given gnostic uses.
I’d also be careful saying the Church didn’t conceive of structure/priesthood like the contemporary Church does. In a certain sense that’s trivially true of course. The structure today is different from Nauvoo, for instance. However our knowledge of the early Church is pretty slim with very few texts to draw from. Further none of our texts really address the inner circle at Jerusalem. (To such an extent that there’s even debate about who was in charge – Peter isn’t the only theory)
The analogy I usually bring up on these matters is to imagine Nauvoo with it’s inner circle that knew about the temple, higher ordinances, cosmological priesthood and a lot more. Now imagine that when Joseph dies, Brigham doesn’t take over and all the texts are lost outside of the RLDS version of the D&C from the mid 19th century and Book of Mormon. You also have the RLDS church from 100 years later. That’s kind of the situation we have with the early Christian Church, from a more LDS perspective. It’s easy to see how that lack of texts would radically change how one might look at Nauvoo Mormonism. In an analogous way that’s what I think happened to Palestinian Christianity from 30 AD – 90 AD.
ReTx I’m not sure Stapley is arguing JS understanding of priesthood was that different. Rather I think he’s arguing for two modes of priesthood – the ritualistic/managerial and the cosmological. Both elements remain today however members aren’t too clear about how they are related. Thus confusion over temple priesthood and regular day to day administrative priesthood with elders, bishops or the like. That’s not to deny differences and I do think Jonathan gets at those. But it’s not quite the divide you suggest.
To your other point about the “why” of the apostasy I don’t think we clearly know. I think the stereotype of shifty priests is wrong and is a remnant of anti-papist bigotry in 19th century America. However the eschatology of early Christianity does tend to see things as limited. That changes as Christianity slowly takes over the Roman empire. Nibley pushes the more traditional LDS view that the Church was led astray by perverters. I think Nibley unduly takes literal the early Christian eschatology without asking obvious questions about why that would happen. The eschatology of course pushes an apostasy view – especially relative to the gnostics. Of course the problem with this is that despite rejecting the extreme platonism of the gnostics, in many ways Mormons see the early church as closer to many aspects of gnosticism than Roman Catholicism. Even the platonic elements are more problematic than they appear at first glance given passages like D&C 93 and other evidence of neoplatonism in Joseph’s thought as noted by folks like Steve Flemming. Most of what comes out of the apostasy we tend to accept. The only real theological elements we reject is the union of the One of Platonism with God’s ousia and creation ex nihilo. Even the other elements such as baptism by immersion (likely changed due to misreadings of the Didiche’s acceptance of sprinkling when there wasn’t a pool or river nearby) are complicated.
Now as someone else noted bishops simply don’t have authority to call other bishops and I don’t think it’s clear they did in the 1st century either. I have to imagine the elders in Jerusalem would take exception to bishops calling each other – although again it’s not clear based upon Paul’s epistles. All of this ignores the question of why on earth God would allow an apostasy. Not just in Palestine & the Empire but in other locations like Bountiful. There’s simply no good answer for that.
A great book that analyzes the historical development of the LDS view of “the Great Apostasy” is Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy (OUP, 2014) by Miranda Wilcox and John D. Young.
The truth is that the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy is not a historical claim (one that is based on historical evidence), it is a derivative doctrinal claim. The Restoration doesn’t make sense without a Great Apostasy, so affirming the Restoration means likewise affirming a Great Apostasy. Most LDS writing on the subject is simply searching the historical record and early Christian writing for any evidence to support the predetermined conclusion that there was a Great Apostasy and carefully ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Mormons will affirm a Great Apostasy whether there is a lot of evidence, not much evidence, no evidence, or contrary evidence. Historical evidence has nothing to do with the LDS claim.
As for LDS Donatism, the Church certainly employs Donatist thinking when encouraging priesthood holders to be worthy of the office and in sometimes removing men from office for bad conduct. But the Church employs orthodox Christian thinking in not questioning the validity of any performed ordinances if it later emerges that the priesthood holder administering the ordinance was not worthy by LDS standards. Maybe you could call that watered down Donatism, but it actually seems like a reasonable compromise.
Dave, from the parts I’ve read (it’s in my to read pile in my Kindle app) Wilcox and Young have some good stuff. I can’t comment on the book too much since I’ve not read it. I am skeptical that the idea of apostasy isn’t an historic claim though. I do agree that in practice it’s complex. The main reasons for the claim seem the 1838 First Vision account and Nephi’s apocalypse. However I also think it undeniable that the shape it took was wrapped up in Protestant anti-papistry which was still rather virulent even in 19th century America.
That said, I think explaining why priesthood needed restored (and there were angels) needs to be answered. The apostasy is an obvious reason.
To your other point, while Donatist like elements do pop up in Mormonism, it tends to be complicated. For instance my mother had to get her Patriarchal Blessing redone due to issues with Patriarch. That’s the late 50’s so a while ago but not that long ago. The oft told story of German saints “Catholitizing” the sacrament when cut off from the main body of ecclesiastical authority also ties into this. Not really a corruption of authority, but shows that some things aren’t seen as authoritative even when there’s authority. In the more recent era (say 80’s through present) I don’t know of rites that are deemed invalid because of the state of the authority. I suspect there are many more earlier though.
How exact things need to be though seems one of those blurry boundaries so I don’t think we should be surprised that criteria shift with time. I’d also note that the Nephite sacrament prayer seems pretty different from the prayer recorded in the Didiche that almost certainly represents the use in Palestine. The Nephite prayer seems more tied to the evolution of Nephite thought out of Benjamin’s address. They’re similar yet (I’d argue) both are accepted. I mentioned how the acceptance of differing natures of baptism in the Didiche also likely led to Catholic sprinking. (It says living water is best, but stagnant if there’s no fresh, and sprinkling if there’s not even a pool – a big concern for a desert people) One can imagine the stories of using potatoes instead of bread in WWII for sacrament getting distorted into using potatoes in place of bread without someone keeping things on track.
I just knew I was going to dig myself a hole bringing in Stapley. I really need to get to reading his book. He might answer this in the book, but does he see ‘ the great apostasy’ as loss of both ritualistic and cosmological priesthood? Or perhaps I am reaching too far in trying to separate them in such a way.
Thank you for addressing my questions. So much for me to learn.
He mentions it a bit but largely just footnotes Wilcox and Young. He really doesn’t address conceptually the two notions of priesthood as tied to the apostasy. To the degree he addresses apostasy at all he’s usually focused on the era of Joseph’s life or worries in the contemporary church.
Great comments. Thank you for the feedback thus far.
A couple of comments have been made positing that bishops cannot ordain other bishops. I think this is a projection of LDS hierarchical beliefs onto early Christianity because I’m unaware of any statement to that fact from early Christianity. Ignatius and 1 Clement (~ 110-130 AD, possibly earlier for 1 Clement) both discuss the authority of the bishop as the ecclesiastical leader, and imply that bishops could be ordained (though they didn’t use that word – it didn’t begin to be used until later in the 2nd century) by several other bishops. There does not appear to be anything indicating that they could not do so. Nevertheless, the concept of some official church structure akin to the LDS concept is absent from the record. There were apostles who were not part of the 12, and there were leaders who were sent to other areas to establish churches without any intervention from the 12. The record simply does not bear out the concept that leaders had to be ordained by the 12.
As for Nibley’s argument that there was higher authority that remained with the 12 and was not passed to the bishops…well, as much as I can appreciate Nibley’s cultural critiques, his scholarship on this front is shaky at best and verging into an argument from silence (i.e., we know it was there because there was a restoration to Joseph Smith, they just didn’t say anything about it and, if they did, it was excised from the records by scribes). That type of thinking is not at all supported by mainstream scholarship or the record itself. And a retreat to the gnostics is riddled with problems: they enter the fray quite late; and you’d have to believe folks who could somehow, kind of, if you look at it just the right way, maintain tiny elements of later Masonic rites would somehow not understand the nature of God, Jesus, or any of the other LDS restoration theology? I fail to see how anyone could make claim that gnostics were the maintainers of the original, unvarnished truth.
Clark: Could I sum up your perspective with the following? Either….
– Apostasy happened because secret authority was never delegated to bishops and was lost with the death of the apostles, necessitating a restoration to Joseph Smith…or
– We simply don’t know.
Would you say that is accurate?
To me it just makes sense to say that bishops did not have the same authority as apostles. But that’s just an opinion, and unlike many of you, I can’t really reference anything to back that up.
What about John the Apostle and the Three Nephites? According to LDS beliefs, these four men–all ordained apostles by Christ himself–were blessed with the promise of immortality, and thus should have lived through the entire apostacy and are still alive today, now mostly hanging around southern Utah helping stranded motorists and such. If that’s true, then priesthood authority never really left the earth at all.
Jack Hughes writes “If that’s true, then priesthood authority never really left the earth at all.
Amen brother!
“I think this is a projection of LDS hierarchical beliefs onto early Christianity”
Ya think? 😉
Clark notes “the question of why on earth God would allow an apostasy.
God allows a great many things; some horrible. You might as well speculate along with everyone else why that is or might be so.
Cody,
The connections made in this post are brilliant. Our current apostasy narrative just doesn’t make much sense – for the reasons you’ve stated, plus about a hundred others. The narrative held up better before the past few decades, when the true messiness of our own church’s history was brought to light. “But the Catholics changed doctrines!” Yawn…so did we. “But the Catholics taught false doctrine!” Yawn…so did Brigham Young (Adam-God).
Once upon a time, I thought church authority was all important. Now. I believe that people in the wrong church, who got the wrong baptism, will probably end up accepting the correct stuff in the afterlife anyway. Does authority on Earth actually matter if good people are going to be accepting the Gospel afterwards anyway? So what if their baptism was by someone without authority? Is God seriously going to eternally punish a good person because their ordinances weren’t done correctly? So I’m left with the comforting view that “it will all work out eventually anyway,” which makes the stakes of the current priesthood authority not seem like a huge deal.
My currently favored, heretical view, is that the modern LDS church has a unique calling from God to restore temple ordinances, sealings, Nauvoo priesthood type stuff, as well as certain truths such as the pre-existence and nature of God. In these things, we really are special. In other things–baptizing people etc.–many other Christian churches do that too, and I would hope that God would accept these good faith efforts.
Cody Hatch “You seem to be suggesting that D&C 121 lists how early church leaders lost their authority.”
One moment while I check it out (doing this on Linux can be a challenge; glad to see this blog handles Linux no problem).
…the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. …
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. [seems to be true of women as well] …
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
This is a remarkably important passage. People demanding “priesthood” seem to want the power, as they suppose, that goes with it. Verse 41 clarifies that there is no power, it does not and cannot be used for “power or influence”; it just doesn’t work! Not for long anyway before people rebel against it. Power and authority might be used interchangeably but they really aren’t the same thing. Authority is to author; the creator of a policy or procedure. Poweris the ability to compel others to follow that policy or procedure. As you can see from this, it is very easy to create a policy or procedure, but difficult to compel anyone to anything.
I suggest also that “priesthood” has two distinct meanings (maybe more) as others have noted. One meaning is that light, essence or whatever it is that flows directly from God. This is the thing that vanishes instantly without ceremony for the above reasons; trying to hide sins, exercise unrighteous dominion (and it seems all dominion may be unrighteous).
Priesthood is also just a name for the government of the church, it is and has a hierarchy and thus also a dominion. This is why some ceremony attaches to it; a roomful of witnesses sees that Bob is ordained a Priest and can now bless the Sacrament. This kind of priesthood is necessarily social and its composition changeable with times and seasons according to expedience.
“Are you suggesting LDS Church leaders are immune from such a loss? Because the listed reasons have all occurred, some on a large scale, within the LDS Church’s leadership.”
It is entirely possible for church leadership to lose the real priesthood (power of God, light of Christ) but that is like the tide, it goes, it comes with reptentance and humility.
Ceremonial loss is also possible as for instance when the two popes excommunicated each other.
People such as Art Bulla display their Line of Authority as though it means his priesthood is effective. Better than nothing I suppose. But that’s ceremonial priesthood, the right to handle certain church government functions and perform certain ordinations.
“You also mentioned that bishops could not ordain other bishops in the early church. Do you have a source for that?”
No source. It is obvious that they DID ordain each other but it seems not to have been sufficient to prevent doctrinal drift as the special revelatory powers of apostles appear not manifest in bishops back then or even now.
“You implied that there are few faithful LDS here at Wheat & Tares; however, that is most definitely not the case.”
My mileage seems to vary and so does the meaning of “faithful”. Faithful LDS don’t complain about sluggish prophets not hearing the word of God in the time and manner this person or that thinks is more correct.
“I’m one of the very few permas who does not attend the LDS Church. Perhaps some people’s faith looks a bit different than your’s?”
I cannot see your faith; I see only your words and the words of others. Many people have faith in God but not in the church or prophets yet apparently still attend church and have influential callings. It has been a bit of an eye-opener living in Zion observing the teaching of these people.
“you’ll find that Joseph’s experience was in no way unique.”
Indeed, I have had essentially the exact same experience and so has my wife. Why exactly it was Joseph Smith and not Thaddeus McFarland I have no idea; were it so we’d be asking the same exact questions why was it Thaddeus McFarland and not Clifford Shultz?
It just is, it just was, it just will be. Eyes on the ball; the ultimate goal whatever for you it is.
I ought to stick in here somewhere that perhaps LDS assume too much revelation takes place. I read the biography of Spencer W Kimball; well, half of it anyway and there was a place in there so emotional that my eyes filled up with tears and became impossible to continue reading and that’s okay because what I had seen was what I probably needed to see; something that humanized the prophet and made me feel sympathy for him.
It is when he had been called to be an apostle and he went to Salt Lake City and climbed on a mountain. He did not feel worthy, he did not have a special witness of Christ (not yet anyway), and he was ready to test God. So he set out to throw himself off a cliff if he did not get a witness right then and there. Evidently God did not want to lose an apostle and future president of the church and gave him that witness right then and there.
My witness was not under such dramatic circumstances but was similarly indisputable and powerful.
But about SWK: it is a reminder to me that the *apostles* struggle sometimes to get any kind of answer from God. Why that should be so I have no answer. They are the special witnesses! Can it really be that I have a witness as great as some of them? It seems to be so, and it may be that many people have what is for them an irrefutable witness. So what is it about apostles?
Government. They are chosen to govern the *body* of the church and need only such revelation as is needed from time to time if the ship of the church needs a course correction. Revelation itself is given to every man, woman and child that seeks it and meets some very minimal requirements laid out in Alma 12: 9 if I remember right.
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. 10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
You, me, everyone! We don’t need to be told by an expert “what about God”, but we DO need an organization to protect us from the enemies of God and to achieve the social benefits described at the Waters of Mormon:
Mosiah 18:8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; 9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life
Fold of God. That is why we have bishops and all that, it is a social organization and could still exist with no God at all and I suspect he’d rather not be bothered continually night and day with trivial problems (not that he will accuse anyone or complain; if it seems serious to you then it is serious to him). When I was a teenager my problems were extremely serious, and God answered. Or, maybe not God per se but someone appointed to answer my question, an invisible apologist 🙂
ReTx writes “If that was true then why would God be blessing corrupt groups of people with huge manifestations of the spirit? Or is Michael 2 arguing that those manifestations never really happened?”
I tentatively accept pretty much all claims at face value and where it seems to be impossible such questions can wait to the next life if need be. That’s not to say I don’t arrive at a private interpretation, but I have mine and you have yours. There’s a lot more than just God in the invisible world; many spirits, some capable of manifestations and a bit more interested in theatrics.
Dark Traveler asks “If the person who ordained me an elder is sinful (and a hypocrite), does that make my ordination invalid?”
Ordination is a form, a procedure, a ceremony. As with Moses and the snakes, obedience to procedure brings blessing to you and doesn’t much depend on the righteousness of the person performing the ceremony (and a good thing, too).
Priesthood, as ordained, is a ceremonial thing. If you perform this procedure you are an Elder or whatever. Actually having the power of God to perform blessings and things like that really depend on your faith and humility and not the worthiness of someone else whose life you cannot control or force to be worthy.
This is exemplified in the article of faith about men being punished for their own sins and not that of Adam (or in this case, your unworthy priesthood holder).
If the man is threatening to excommunicate anyone that speaks of his adultery then he is linking his sin and his priesthood, and while he still has the church ceremonial priesthood, he won’t have any Godly priesthood. But ordinations are ceremonial so even in that extreme circumstance you have obeyed the form and the power of God comes through you to bless others and does not involve the unworthy priesthood holder.
Where it can make a bigger difference is things that are not ceremonial but do actually need the power of God, such as a blessing of healing or counsel. In that case it will sometimes be pretty obvious that the man has no functioning priesthood as he rambles on some platitudes and says nice things that don’t really answer your questions or meet your needs.
In my opinion it is easy enough to tell. When you put your hands on someone’s head, blank out all thoughts from your mind and call upon the name of Jesus Christ, you will then feel either nothing or you will be astonished at what happens next. Sometimes it is still nothing; God isn’t interested in saying something to that person and probably there’s a good reason for it. But often enough the thoughts come to mind faster than you can speak them, and for a few minutes you see something clearly, and afterward, you might not remember what you said, and the person you blessed might not remember, but something profound will have happened and you were privileged to be part of it.
Heretical To Be Sure writes “Once upon a time, I thought church authority was all important.”
As did I. Now I believe it is part of a complete breakfast.
“will probably end up accepting the correct stuff in the afterlife anyway.”
My experiences in the temple suggest that the spirits of dead people accept Mormonism at about the same rate as the living. After all, dying and discovering you are still somewhat alive is a feature of a great many religions and does not by itself prove Mormonism.
“Does authority on Earth actually matter if good people are going to be accepting the Gospel afterwards anyway?”
Here I invoke the story of the sand dollar or star fish. In my case, the man for whom I did temple work had such joy as I have not encountered in my mortal life; it mattered to him.
“Is God seriously going to eternally punish a good person because their ordinances weren’t done correctly?”
People tend to use the word “punish” in ways that are misleading. You won’t be punished; but you also won’t be rewarded. All blessings are predicated to obedience to a commandment of some sort. D&C130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
“So I’m left with the comforting view that “it will all work out eventually anyway,” which makes the stakes of the current priesthood authority not seem like a huge deal.”
It will indeed eventually “work out” and you can be a part of that process, or you can sit back, relax, and let others do it.
“In other things–baptizing people etc.–many other Christian churches do that too, and I would hope that God would accept these good faith efforts.”
I’m a little puzzled by this whole “God accepting” phrase. I think you have a vision of a schoolmaster grading students and you hope your Grade Point Average is good enough. I consider it very likely that the headhunters of Borneo, when they die, find themselves in the Borneo equivalent of Heaven and would probably be horrified at your or my idea of Heaven.
Well. When the pope and anti-pope excommunicated each other’’s lines, who had authority to do that? If both does that mean that they effectively ended each other’s authority? If neither, does that mean they both lacked authority?
Makes for a fun rhetorical logic game, but I’m not sure about the theology.
Stephen, that is an interesting question and I’d imagine it depends on who you ask. The only Christians who think the Pope has any authority over them would be the Roman Catholics. Prior to the Roman bishop’s power grab leading up to the split with Eastern Orthodox in 1054, bishops and territories were autocephalous, as they still are in Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and the Anglican Communion. So no bishop has the authority to excommunicate another.
Just power grabs. Similar to the actions of Brigham Young, James Strang, and Signey Rigdon during the LDS Succession Crisis. It’s a perennial feature of any human-run institution.
Yup. Only 1.2 billion catholics believe Pope Francis leads the Church.
Good point Cody. Maybe no one has authority to excommunicate.
My mom was Orthodox. Her father published papers similar to https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1057071172/inline
See also http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgajpd/Academic/Rome's%20Religious%20History.pdf
It is fascinating to look at pagan survivals in the modern churches.
Final link is:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&q=survival+of+pagan+rites+%22mylonas%22+christian+church&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihisXW_6vcAhVPAqwKHbnSDVkQ5t4CCC4wAQ&biw=375&bih=553#ip=1
But it is fascinating to study.
Quick test with Javascript disabled to see if it posts.
Michael 2,
Help me to see the importance of the proper authority performing an ordinance. I just no longer understand why it is important. Perhaps to help narrow the discussion, help me understand why the baptisms of other Christian churches do not “work” in some sense compared to LDS baptisms – assuming that the people being baptized are similarly worthy, earnest, etc.
The answer to “Why do you need authority?” often seems to be “Because you need authority!” In other words, the explanation just reiterates the proposition. I need something more substantive.
“Heretical” when you ask why do you need authority are you speaking from God’s perspective or ours? From our view it seems authority is needed so that things don’t get too far out of whack. That is there’s a set of check and balances to ensure people are trying to have some semblance of righteousness among leaders. Thus regular interviews and immediate release if they’re found to be doing inappropriate things. It’s also to allow those higher up in the hierarchy the ability to manage things somewhat.
Now of course if someone is more anarchic about religion that will seem a negative rather than a plus. However if we think God is outpouring his spirit but not everyone is listening then having those checks and balances is important. It’s still hard today with all the modern communication we have. Back in Paul’s time when you had the problem of impersonators going to congregations attempting to change the teachings, then authority matters even more. So authority ultimately is to ensure the rites are done properly, with a degree of checks on the people doing the rite to minimize abuses.
To see the analogy, imagine how well law enforcement would work if anyone could write a ticket or otherwise act as a police officer and anyone could act as a lawyer. How much abuse would there be? How well would the formal laws be followed?
Michael 2, while God allows horrible things, typically that’s because he gives people free will. In this case where the question is why doesn’t he inspire a prophet like Joseph Smith I don’t think that rejoinder works.
Cody, I’m not sure it was just secret authority (say an inner circle with higher ordinances like Nauvoo) that wasn’t passed on. It’s just not at all clear to me that the Elders in Jerusalem continued to call new Bishops. For that matter it’s not at all clear what happened to the Elders of Jerusalem when Jerusalem was destroyed – either the first razing or the final razing decades later when it was turned into Alia Capitolina. By and large we have no texts so all arguments are arguments from silence. However the implication of that is that is that those denying a structure somewhat like Mormonism are also speaking from silence. The reality is there’s no real evidence to make those claims.
My own view is we don’t know the details of the apostasy. However I think Nibley is correct that the early Christians expected some big apostasy even if I’m skeptical they all expected a total apostasy. However if one thinks Mormonism is correct, then it would follow that losing the apostles and elders of Jerusalem was pretty significant and would naturally lead to apostasy. The idea that the Bishop of Rome somehow got those keys seems problematic IMO. And if he didn’t get them then almost by definition there’s apostasy. That won’t convince a non-Mormon skeptic of course.
As for the gnostics, when they enter the fray seems debatable. While many date them to the second half of the first century there are reasons to think they’re earlier as a broad movement. Possibly even pre-dating Christianity. But again, there’s a lot of argument from silence here and the reality is we don’t really know. The gnostic texts we have aren’t terribly helpful on origins and it’s really the Pauline letters we get the most information from. But there’s really no consensus on the origins of gnosticism.
The idea of authority though is a stronger case than you suggest. So the Clementine Recognitions seem significant in showing a view of the time, even if it may not reflect Celement’s actual views. The strongest argument against authority might be the Didache where we have, “therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord,” That can easily be seen as independent near-democratic appointment of bishops. Certainly though by the 2cd century a hierarchal structure was in place. Whether that applies to the first century is difficult to establish given the limited data.
Clark, you state that those claiming there wasn’t an LDS-like structure in earlier Christianity are arguing from silence. I don’t think that’s the case. They aren’t making the claim – they are simply stating that the evidence shows X. The LDS view is claiming Y. The burden to furnish evidence is upon those making the claim of Y.
To recap, the LDS claim is that the first generation of Christians were structured as is the LDS Church; they understood and had a functioning priesthood like that of the LDS Church; they were practicing temple ordinances similar to those of the LDS Church; they practiced eternal marriage; etc. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Those who are unpersuaded by LDS claims need not provide evidence refuting the LDS claims; instead, those making the claims must provide evidence for said claims. The so-called “Hitchens Razor” applies here, I think.
I’ll also add that, throughout the first three centuries of Christianity we have many competing viewpoints, claims, doctrines, theologies, etc. – the Marcionites, Ebionites, Judaizers, Nestorians, Arians, proto-orthodox (to borrow the scholarly term for what became the orthodox position), etc. Not a single claim is made that early Christianity had moved away from some early structure and theology matching that of the LDS Church. It strains credulity to think that there was some pristine structure and theology matching the LDS model, from which *all Christianity* departed, and nobody made a fuss about it. Nobody made a claim of apostasy from that LDS structure.
And that’s the gist of my post – biblical scholarship is near unanimous in this understanding, so how do believing LDS, in the face of such evidence, make the claim of a Great Apostasy? Or if they accept the “limited view of the Great Apostasy”, how do they avoid Donatism? You seem to take the former view of a Great Apostasy, so is it your perspective that LDS claims would be there if we just had better documentation from 50-70 AD?
Heretical To Be Sure asks a very good question: “Help me to see the importance of the proper authority performing an ordinance.”
The ceremonial aspect is vital so as to insert oneself into the social and government structure of the church. It activates certain benefits and blessings; both tangible and intangible; and as you ascend the ladder you find yourself increasingly responsible to provide those tangible benefits to others (welfare, visits, service).
The spiritual aspect exists in two parts (IMO). One is that angels presumably observe your obedience to a ritual. It probably makes no difference what exactly is the ritual; it is the humility and obedience that gets you a stamp of approval. The second aspect is that you, yourself, know that you have fulfilled your part of a contract and now you have a right to expect the blessings that flow from obedience to that commandment.
I consider that perhaps most important. *I* know I have been baptized and ordained; I believe it and it helps shape my character and my sense of duty to God and my country and to help other people at all times (yes, Boy Scout stuff).
“help me understand why the baptisms of other Christian churches do not work in some sense compared to LDS baptisms”
In the here-and-now, baptism makes you a member of the church. If you are not baptized you are not a member of the church. You might still get some help from the church but you won’t have a right to demand it or expect it.
In a spiritual sense, I really don’t know. I have always believed, and still believe, that the Holy Ghost expects obedience now that baptism is available. At times when it isn’t the rules may well be different. Blessings come from obedience to laws; you don’t have to obey all of them and you shouldn’t feel compelled to!
The GIFT of the Holy Ghost is activated through baptism and the laying-on-of-hands; unbaptized people (including Joseph Smith) can still enjoy the Holy Ghost but it will be at the pleasure of the H.G. rather than the individual person. The gift of the holy ghost adds some whammy; so long as you are humble it seems you can demand the presence of the Holy Ghost and so it has always been for me. I might not get an answer but it is extremely rare that I cannot detect some sort of holy spirit (light of Christ maybe). Whether unbaptized persons differ significantly I do not know. The First Vision has God complaining about people “denying the power thereof” which suggests that a person of any Christian church that does NOT deny the power thereof will have the Holy Ghost (or a messenger appointed by HG). In the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith he asserts that the purpose of the HG in such cases is to guide that person toward the restored church.
In the foreknowledge of God this might not always happen for purposes and reasons known to God but not to me. Same as the promise in Mosiah of being answered about the truth of the Book of Mormon. Many people get no answer. For me it wasn’t sudden and glorious; took four years of seminary and about five years in the Navy to realize I didn’t need a glorious manifestation; I believed it and take it mostly at face value particularly the spiritual parts (2 Nephi about atonement and freedom, Alma 12:9 about revelation and the mysteries of God).
Cody, there is such an embarrassment of traditions that it is hard to say that anything was not represented in the first century ACE.
We have everything from sacred marriage texts and some sort of temple ritual to people making due without baptism or a complete godhead.
Though the council at Jerusalem claimed authority to regulate commandments, send out regulations and ordain.
You are familiar with the claims out of Rome and the Orthodox rejoinder.
And the biblical discussions of authority.
Makes almost for an ink blot where you can see what you are predisposed to see.
I think your argument proves too much. In a way it is a segue off Luther and his priesthood of all believers. Yet Paul’s regulation of churches and epistles reflects that authority is needed.
Been a fun discussion.
Stephen R Marsh “priesthood of all believers. Yet Paul’s regulation of churches and epistles reflects that authority is needed.”
A church needs order (regulation, regular) to exist as an entity, but it is also very likely that a type of priesthood of believers also exists.
Compare with Wicca. There is no authority, no leadership; it is whatever anyone says it is, and it is not what anyone says it is not. On one hand it is relatively immune to attack, on the other it is also powerless. My daughter assembled a book of spells. They don’t work of course and neither does prayer if you don’t combine it with some action.
I’m really enjoying the post and comments. Fun discussion!
Stephen, I too am enjoying the discussion. I really appreciate learning from the perspectives of others, and being challenged in mine. Thanks.
I still want to push though. I have not seen anyone here state how, if they subscribe to the traditional LDS narrative of the Great Apostasy, they deal with the mass of evidence against such a position. Do they wave it away? Assume better documentation would be available if we could find it from 50-70 AD? Or, if they subscribe to the “limited view of the Great Apostasy”, how do they avoid Donatism?
Several have stated that there were so many perspectives early on that we cannot pin down a common narrative, as if that somehow explains their position, but that is precisely my point. They are merely restating the evidence. There were a lot of competing perspectives, none of which were, or allude to, one similar to the LDS perspective. So how do you hold to the traditional narrative of the Great Apostasy? It seems there are two possibilities:
1) All of the evidence for what I’ll call the “primitive LDS model” is missing, but would be available were we to find original records from 50-70 AD.
2) LDS accept some level of Donatism, where original Christian leaders lost their authority through sin and changing doctrines.
Am I missing some other possibility?
Perhaps a third option is that LDS view Christian sacraments as valid but are *adding to* them through temple ordinances. Does anyone take that perspective?
I suppose this perspective conflicts with the traditional LDS narrative, but it seems defensible.
The LDS model assumes you need authority and delegation and that without authorized delegation authority does not transmit.
Kind of like if your next door neighbor in the priests’ quorum starts ordaining people. He may have the priesthood but not the authorization and thus not the authority to ordain them so it is ineffective.
All it takes for a failure of transmission is a loss of authority to deligate in such a position.
So no sin required to lose authority.
We don’t need to parse if the Borgia Popes were a step too far or not if the deligation that led to them failed well before.
Hmm… Are you saying the early apostles just didn’t deligate and thus authority was lost? So what caused the proper deligation to not happen?
Under your description above, deligation of authority seems SO important to an LDS understanding of God today, that it seems odd that from an LDS persepctive God just wouldn’t bother to teach the early apostles to deligate.
Just so I understand, Stephen, you’re saying that the 12 were the only ones with the authority to delegate authority? Once they died there was no authority to call another bishop? Once they died, the bishops were headless, so to speak, without the ability to call other bishops? I want to be sure I properly understand your position, which seems somewhat similar to Clark’s.
It seems, though, that a problem with this is that this would have been a common understanding, and indeed would need to be as a check against bishops ordaining other bishops. It seems that, as soon as a bishops-on-bishop ordination occurred, the rest would claim they are subverting the established order passed down from the apostles. It would be similar to if we had some stake presidents decide to ordain another stake president. We wouldn’t need a member of the Q15 to tell us that is a violation of protocol; we’d raise a stink and stymie any attempt to implement such a change because we know it violates the established order. We see no evidence of such a series of events occurring in early Christianity. Nobody claims that bishops ordaining other bishops (it took three to do so, by the way) was an innovation unsanctioned by the apostles; at least, I’m unaware of any source for such a claim.
And let’s consider 1 Clement here, which, along with the Didache, is quite early (70-140 AD). In the epistle to the Corinthians, Clement tells them that it was wrong for them to remove their presbyters simply for not liking them, for the presbyters had committed no sin that justified their removal and replacement with a different set of presbyters. Never does he imply that the new presbyters should have been ordained by one of the 12 apostles. Instead, the reason they should not be replaced is because they had not sinned. He also says the following:
This is a very early document referring to a process of calling bishops as if it is common knowledge. The author is not explaining some new innovation to the Corinthians, rather the author is referring to the established order to help them understand that it is no light thing to simply remove a bishop over a disagreement. Implied in his instructions is an established order of apostles having ordained bishops and now bishops able to continue the ministration. It’s early and clear what the established process was.
Cody, I appreciate your post. Tangential to the authority question, I also see a similarity between the LDS Great Apostasy narrative and the apparent absence of heavenly or angelic manifestations in the church today as opposed to the early days of the restoration when this line was penned: “The visions and blessings of old are returning, and angels are coming to visit the earth.” We still sing this, but frankly it has been a long time since we’ve had prophets speak of their visions and angelic visits.
I grew up on Mark E Peterson and LeGrand Richards style LDS polemics, and one of the arguments for the Great Apostasy was the dearth of these manifestations. The reality is, we are two years shy of the 200th anniversary of the first vision and we seem to be in the same position as the Church of the third century, a position we (LDS) have heavily critiqued.
The jump from “the Apostles called Bishops” to “For this cause therefore” doesn’t necessarily follow.
We do know that lots of things were done. You had people baptized to John’s baptism that did not receive the Holy Ghost and told Paul they didn’t even know what that was. It appears no one called them out until Paul. Lots of similar things going on.
Clement is trying to combine the concept of appointment by consent with a lack of right to remove by consent.
But his bottom line is an appeal to reason to support his position of succession of power, not an appeal to teaching or doctrine.
The “classic” great apostasy story is that the Apostles were eventually all killed without proper successors who were also apostles, and thereby the right of authority left, though many of those who remained who be doing the best they knew how. Now I realize that Cardinals are supposed to be equivalent to Apostles.
Cheating (that is, quoting from Wikipedia):
Early Christianity
Main article: History of early Christianity
c. 34: St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, is stoned to death in Jerusalem.
c. 50: Council of Jerusalem determines that Gentile converts to Christianity do not have to abide by Mosaic Laws. This begins the separation between Christianity and Judaism.[4]
c. 52: Traditional arrival of St. Thomas, the Apostle in India.
c. 64: Christian persecution begins under Emperor Nero after the great fire of Rome. Persecution continues intermittently until 313 AD.
c. 70: Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.
c. 72: Martyrdom of St. Thomas the Apostle at Mylapore.
c. 96: Traditional date of First Epistle of Clement attributed to Pope Clement I written to the church of Corinth.
c. 100: St. John, the last of the Apostles, dies in Ephesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Catholic_Church
Clement is arguing that they can do with apostles guiding the church and supporting it with logic, which is basically, “of course we have authority, that is what they meant all along”
But that begs the question. That he has to resort to that establishes the point.
Not to mention just how many local innovations become rather well accepted in a rather short period of time. It is fascinating just how much change can occur without anyone raising a meaningful challenge, in a period of five years or less.
You are getting to a place that is “consistent with” but not “required by.” The problem is that there are a lot of places “consistent with” to the degree your position is, and a real lack of “required by” positions, given the extreme variety in the source material. Not to mention that even Clement acknowledges the loss of things.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria
“Other known works exist in fragments alone, including the four eschatological works in the secret tradition: Hypotyposes, Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae Propheticae and the Adumbraetiones.[77] These cover Clement’s celestial hierarchy, a complex schema in which the universe is headed by the Face of God, below which lie seven protoctists, followed by archangels, angels and humans.[78] According to Jean Daniélou, this schema is inherited from a Judaeo-Christian esotericism, followed by the Apostles, which was only imparted orally to those Christians who could be trusted with such mysteries.”
We get into fun with more of Clement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark#Content_according_to_Clement’s_letter
The Mar Saba letter is addressed to one Theodore (Greek: Θεόδωρος, Theodoros), who seems to have asked if it is true that there is a gospel of Mark in which the words “naked man with naked man” and “other things” are present. Clement confirms that Mark wrote a second, longer, mystic and more spiritual version of his gospel, and that this gospel was “very securely kept” in the Alexandrian church, but that it contained no such words. Clement accuses the heterodox teacher Carpocrates for having obtained a copy by deceit and then polluted it with “utterly shameless lies”. To refute the teachings of the gnostic sect of Carpocratians, known for their sexual libertarianism,[81][82] and to show that these words are absent in the true Secret Gospel of Mark, Clement quoted two passages from it.[83][35]
There were accordingly three versions of Mark known to Clement, Original Mark, Secret Mark and Carpocratian Mark.[19] The Secret Gospel of Mark is described as a second “more spiritual” version of the Gospel of Mark composed by the evangelist himself.[23] The name derives from Smith’s translation of the phrase “mystikon euangelion”. However, Clement simply refers to the gospel as written by Mark. In order to distinguish between the longer and shorter versions of Mark’s gospel, he twice refers to the non-canonical gospel as a “mystikon euangelion”[84] (either a secret gospel whose existence was concealed, or a mystic gospel “pertaining to the mysteries”[85] with concealed meanings),[e] in the same way as he refers to it as “a more spiritual gospel”.[4] “To Clement, both versions were the Gospel of Mark”.[86] The purpose of the gospel was supposedly to encourage knowledge (gnosis) among more advanced Christians, and it is said to be in use in liturgies in Alexandria.[23]
Fragments
The letter includes two excerpts from the Secret Gospel. The first passage, Clement says, was inserted between Mark 10:34 and 35; after the paragraph where Jesus on his journey to Jerusalem with the disciples makes the third prediction of his death, and before Mark 10:35ff where the disciples James and John ask Jesus to grant them honor and glory.[87] It shows many similarities with the story in the Gospel of John 11:1–44 where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.[21][22] According to Clement the passage reads word for word (Greek: κατὰ λέξιν, kata lexin):[88]
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[17]
The second excerpt is very brief and was inserted in Mark 10:46. Clement says that “after the words, ‘And he comes into Jericho’ [and before “and as he went out of Jericho”] the secret Gospel adds only”:[17]
And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.[17]
Clement continues: “But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.”[17]
Not that Clement of Alexandria and Clement of Rome are the same person: https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/clement-of-rome-11629592.html
“I have not seen anyone here state how, if they subscribe to the traditional LDS narrative of the Great Apostasy, they deal with the mass of evidence against such a position.”
I have not see a mass of evidence against (or for) such a position.
Do we not claim that if all the Apostles died simultaneously, the quorum of 70 are equal in authority. If the original church had the identical structure, presumably it would have had the same provisions. Which might be another indication that they did not have the same structure or provisions. Though with the fall of Jerusalem and persecution from Rome, perhaps no group could meet to keep line of authority going.
Very interesting discussion.
Loved your comment Dave C. For me…that’s kinda/sorta the “bottom line” on this question and dialogue. Where are all of the miracles and manifestations? What we get are surveys and news releases from Mormon Newsroom. LDS Leadership hardly dares to take ownership of it’s own essays! Feels like just another large, lumbering corporation these days.
“One sincere question. If the person who ordained me an elder is sinful (and a hypocrite), does that make my ordination invalid?”
Haven’t read the other 50 responses, but I saw this and wanted to respond. No, it doesn’t make the ordinance invalid.
When I was in high school, a man in the ward came out as gay and left the church. During his marriage, before he came out, he had baptized his children, ordained his sons, and so on… while he was also stepping out on his wife with other men.
Naturally, they wondered if those ordinances were valid since he was committing some pretty major sin at the time. From what I understand from the rumor mill at the time, the question went to SLC and they were told yes, the ordinances were valid. His personal worthiness didn’t impact the legitimacy of the ordinance. My assumption is, based on the priesthood authority vs. priesthood power hairsplitting that some GAs engage in, that his unworthiness only impacted his “priesthood power” to receive revelation for any additional pronounced blessings and/or to have such pronouncements vindicated by God (although I wonder even then to what extent worthiness is necessary when you are the father and have the rights of being their patriarch), but saving ordinances and passing of priesthood authority would still be in effect.
From a practical standpoint, this is the only feasible way of running things. Otherwise, you have to start doing all sorts of line drawing exercises about when is sin “too much” sin to exercise priesthood authority. You also have to worry about knowledge obtained after the fact and the resulting logical consequences. For example, what if A baptized B, then C ordained B, then B baptized or ordained D. After all of this, you find out A was sinning “too much” before he baptized B and his priesthood authority was invalid. Well, then C ordained someone who wasn’t baptized. Does B have the priesthood or not? Now what if A wasn’t sinning too much but C was when he ordained B without valid priesthood authority. Is the baptism or ordination of D valid?
There are even more scenarios that you can consider involving the temple. But all of this is avoided by splitting the priesthood into power and authority, explain away scriptures referring to authority as meaning what we call today power, and having sin only negate power and not authority.
“This may be an exceedingly simplistic view, but I’ve always believed that sometime after the deaths of the Lord”s apostles, other priesthood holders simply passed away with fewer and fewer new priesthood holders being ordained until there were none left. I’ve never believed that living priesthood holders had lost the priesthood. Maybe they had lost power (due to sin) but not their ordination.”
I think another possible aspect of this would be the selling of the priesthood. Aside from tithing, if someone were to pay an apostle or priest, personally or to the church in such a way as would confer the benefits of the donation to the apostle or priest, to ordain them, then there could be some validity in saying that the priesthood would not actually be conferred. Because this is unlikely to be corrected, it would over time cause large errors as ordinances performed by the new priest or bishop being to pile up. I don’t know that God would respect the ordination and so any saving ordinances would need to be re-performed. Similar idea with any transgender / at one point physically female that joins the church and is ordained before church leaders know the full story, or anyone who obtains the priesthood under false pretenses (e.g. an anti-LDS man joining the church just to get the priesthood, even though they don’t believe in it). Note that I do not necessarily include being sinful as “false pretenses” but rather being deceitful as to your intentions with the priesthood. Men who didn’t confess to masturbating when they were 12 don’t need to worry about their priesthood being invalid.
So the decline in priesthood authority may not have been noticed, due to God not acknowledging it when it is falsely obtained, but man remaining unaware of this.
The “classic” LDS Great Apostasy narrative was the anti-Catholic rhetoric initially taken over from Protestants, that the excesses of the Medieval Church were evidence of apostasy and justified reforming the Church. As LDS thinking evolved, the key changes that constituted The Great Apostasy were held to be the emergence of the Imperial Church (a state church, in other words) in the fourth century. The current LDS view that The Great Apostasy happened when the apostles died is *not* the classical LDS view and did not emerge until well into the 20th century. As Cody notes above, that is a problematic claim in terms of the historical sources. But, as I noted above, the LDS claim never had much to do with historical sources; it’s a doctrinal claim to bolster the idea of Restoration. [The Standing Apart book is a great source for understanding the evolution of LDS views on The Great Apostasy.]