During my mission in the 1970’s, there were only two books we were allowed to read outside the Standard Works; “Jesus The Christ”, and “The Great Apostacy”, both by Talmage. The Great Apostacy is still in print by Desert Books. For anybody growing up in the Church, the idea of an apostacy is very familiar. In fact, the whole idea of a “restoration” is based on the idea that there was a falling away (apostacy). While some other Christian faiths believe in an apostasy, the LDS Church has elevated it to a whole other level.
From the LDS website:
Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.
While the idea of a “Great Apostacy” plays well in LDS circles, it can make it hard to do ecumenical outreach or conversion of our fellow Christians when the whole bases for our (LDS) existence is that fact that everybody else is so wrong! The Heavens were closed for 1800 years, and the dark ages were born.
Well it seems that there are some apologists trying to soften the the great apostasy, advancing a more conciliatory view of the Apostasy, disavowing the belief that God closed the heavens and asserting instead that open heavenly communication continued to bless Christian believers. They do this by quoting a 1873 statement by then apostle John Taylor, which depicts even the “dark ages” as a time when men of faith were graced with extraordinary visions and revelations. From the Sept 7, 1873 Journal Of Discourses:
There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world. There were men who could tell the destiny of the human family, and the events which would transpire throughout every subsequent period of time until the final winding-up scene. There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness.
This quote has been used to soften the blow of an apostasy. In the current issue of Dialogue (Vol 58, No 1, Spring 2025) Charles Harrel makes the case that Snow’s quote is being taken out of context. (I know, the very idea that an apologist would take a quote out of context to make their point just boggles the mind!)
What Harrel shows is that Taylor was referring to as “those dark ages” was the time before the Gospel of Christ was given to the world. Other preachers in Taylor’s time were making the argument that because these ancient prophets did not have the Gospel of Christ, “they were degraded and in darkness” (JofD, 16:198). So what John Taylor was doing was rebutting the argument that the ancient prophets of the Old Testament were without revelation in these “dark times”
(I highly recommend you read Harrel’s article in Dialogue. You will find all the details and references to the apologists articles and quotes. My post is based on this article)
The apologist know they can’t push too hard against the idea of a Great Apostasy. To do so then invalidates the need for a restoration, even a “continuing restoration”. Yet to make the Church more appealing to our brothers and sisters that reside in churches without any authority, lessening the harsh rhetoric of the past seems a worthy goal for them.
What are your thoughts on the Apostasy? Are you seeing less of an emphasis over your life? When was the last time you heard a talk dedicated to that subject? (BTW, the book “The Great Apostacy” has been taken off the missionary approved reading list)
Wheat & Tares 
We shouldn’t forget about John the beloved and the 3 nephites.
That used to be my world view as I was taught by the LDS church. From the death of the apostles to The Gutenberg press, the world was lost. (100ish AD/CE-1450 AD/CE). From the LDS church’s own website: “Civilization was retarded and for centuries was practically halted in its course. The period of retrogression is known in history as the Dark Ages. The fifteenth century witnessed the movement known as the Renaissance or Revival of Learning; there was a general significantly rapid awakening among men, and a determined effort to shake off the stupor of indolence and ignorance.”
This correlated statement is beyond inaccurate!!! First, Bi Sheng invented moving type in China in 1000 AD, long before the Gutenberg press. This is a list of only a few of the inventions during the “dark ages”: Chinese Seismometer, Roman sawmill, Indian Crystallized sugar, Roman Water turbine, suspension bridge South America/Pakistan, China Fishing reel. China oil well, Roman paddle wheel boat, Indian iron pillar, China horse collar, Roman pointed arch bridge, Indian spinning wheel, Turkey Pendentive dome , China sulfur matches, China toilet paper, China toothbrush, China banknote, China porcelain, China gunpowder, China fireworks, Egypt fountain pen, China moveable type, German buttons, Inuit sunglasses, Italy eyeglasses. Inca road system, Inca masonry, etc.
If the heavens were closed and God was not communicating with mankind, please explain the above list. Does God take or not take credit for our advancements?
The Q15 need to see the world and actually know there is a whole world besides the interior of a LDS chapel, temple, and an airplane cabin. It is more about the narrow view that, I used to hold, that all human history revolves around the LDS church.
I know that the LDS church goes through periods of emphasizing distinctiveness of LDS beliefs and periods of emphasizing similarity to other Christian traditions’ beliefs, but I think that a lot of other Christians don’t often want to play along.
I think that there are some enduringly different beliefs in the LDS formulation of Christianity, if we’re open to admitting that.
Even though I don’t think all of these ideas cleanly align or originate with ancient ideas, I like the concept of trying to situate these with ideas deemed heretical by traditional Christianity. I think the LDS view on the great apostasy, rejection of the traditional creeds, and emphasis on need for restoration work thematically together as a “no u” to traditional Christians claiming LDS folks are heretical or “worship another Jesus”.
I also served my mission in the 70’s. The books that we were encou9raged to read were Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith both by Talmage. I may be wrong but I think the Great Apostacy was rwitten by Alvin R. Dyer. As i have gotten older and gotten more interested in the history if early christianity I have come to reject the premise of the great apostacy. From what I have read from historians, christianity theology developed over time and the various christologies developed by different people in different places and time in an effort figure what the christian message is and what it means in response to the circumstances those people found them selves in. The earliest example is the New Testament gospels. In those gospels each author presents their own ideas as to who Jesus was and what he taught and the meaning of those teachings. The Gospels were four to six decades after Jesus’ death so the process of development happended quickly.
Thanks for the write-up. My thought is that what was restored was the idea that the Christian church is an on-going project with false starts, dead ends and some successes. The question a restoration poses is what is worth keeping and what is worth adding.
Thanks for the write-up. My thought is, what was restored was an idea that the Christian church is an on-going project with false starts, dead ends and some successes. The question in a restoration is what is worth keeping and what is worth adding.
What was restored? Nothing. Except the rocks in a box con. Ooops! Meant “gold” rocks in a box. Nothing to see here. Move along.
The key point to know is that the LDS doctrine of the great apostasy is not based on historical facts. It is a doctrine derived from the Mormon conviction that “the Gospel was restored!” If it was restored, then it was *lost* at some earlier time. So there was a great apostasy (which also assumes God or Jesus at some point *established* a church with some sort of authority, and that this authority was somehow lost).
Apologists retrofit some historical facts, real or imagined, to fit that narrative, but it’s a game of “fit the facts to the predetermined conclusion.” Repeat: it is a doctrinal claim dressed up to look like a historical claim. It’s something affirmed by the LDS religion faculty, not the LDS historical faculty.
Bill, I think someone forgot to tell the editor of the Topics and Questions section of the Church website/app about this kindler, gentler apostasy:
“One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel.”
It would seem Church leaders are trying to make room for a “Less Great Apostasy” while still repeating the party line for the benefit of the membership who take the Great Apostasy as a foundational principle of the Restoration.
What I don’t quite have a grasp on is the reasons for the shift. Sure, President Nelson seems concerned with not just having cordial relations with other Christian traditions but also having at least something approaching respect. Maybe this helps a little, but our rejection of the trinity and affinity for the Book of Mormon and revelation mean we’re never really going to be a part of the “real Christians” club.
On the other hand, if this is simply a reaction to a growing consensus that the “Great Apostasy” narrative is ahistorical, color me somewhat impressed that the Church is willing to pivot even a little bit on such a foundational issue (even it is likely doing so unwillingly).
David B.
You bring up a great point. I wonder how long it took for the apostasy to take root and how long it lasted. People, I’m sure, have tried to point to things that indicate an apostasy that started right after Christ was crucified but again, they are creating something with a predetermined conclusion. When I read the book during my mission in the 1970s, the only thing I could think about was whether it would happen again in modern times.
Change is inevitable, I get that. But what constitutes change that qualifies as an apostasy? Incorporating the church, billions in investment accounts or real estate, 380 plus temples, but chapels being torn down, numbers that don’t reflect reality, or not even being able to call yourself Mormon anymore.
Just like there are Apologists for creating a history of the great apostasy, Apologists are creating a narrative for every change that happens in the church today. Who’s to say a change won’t be retracked as well? Did God do that or man with the change and the retraction?
Now I don’t worry so much about the Apostasy in the past. I wonder more about an Apostasy today, and how we would know? The church would never say anything. Where would you be if you ended up thinking it on your own?
The clencher is the loss of the priesthood. Without it the Kingdom is not present on the earth–and it wouldn’t’ve mattered if the canon had survived untainted. “The redemption of Zion must needs come by power.”
Instereo has a point that I have long held as well. In many ways, the way the LDS Church describes the “Great Apostacy” can describe how the church operates today. Men have made changes they ascribed to a revelation, but without any authority. SEC debacle, changes in Tithing requirements, changes to the great commandment, POX, then reversal of POX and on and on and on. For some time I have felt as though we are undergoing a further “undoing” of the Saviors great work. Isn’t that an apostacy?
@Faith makes a good point. The Great Apostasy seems much less consequential when you consider that, even during non-apostasy times, most of humanity has never had access to the gospel.
In the Old Testament, true religion was confined to a tiny Middle Eastern country. And while the BoM used to be interpreted as teaching that the Church flourished in the Americas until 400 AD, it now appears that the Nephites were an insignificant drop in the bucket of pre-Columbians.
Even today, most people live in countries where the Church has essentially zero presence. For such people, there was never a true church to be lost or restored.
I read “The Great Apostasy” several times and believed it wholeheartedly until I read Diarmaid McCullough’s monumental book about the history of Christianity. So much of what I’d been taught throughout my life suddenly didn’t make sense anymore. In desperation I read every book that I could find about the history and practices of Christianity. Many of these books were written by faithful, believing historians.
What I read over and over again about the early years of Christianity didn’t jibe with what the church taught. How could so many highly trained and VERY thorough religious historians be wrong and Joseph Smith be correct? Granted, there were changes made in early Christianity, especially when Constantine made it the chief religion of the Roman Empire. In fact, church leadership titles and offices such as “bishop” were taken directly from the Roman government and not scripture.
After much thought, discussion with others and after even more research I realized that “The Restoration” that JS claimed to have made in founding the Mormon church just wasn’t credible. As this was over 20 years ago it became one of the first and biggest cracks in my belief in the church. At the time of the church’s founding most people didn’t have access to scholarship regarding early Christianity. If they’d had it JS would’ve had a much more difficult time convincing people to join the church.
What I also find fascinating is that if we use the church’s own definition of apostasy (changes in doctrines, leadership becoming too powerful while the rank and file members are forgotten, a love of money and ostentation, forgetting our responsibility to the poor, trying to destroy the reputations of truth tellers and subjecting them to public shame and censure (at least we don’t burn them at the stake anymore!), narrowing the scope of the gospel to only apply to “the right kind of member”, knowingly breaking the law (the SEC scandal and sexual abuse coverups) without showing any kind of remorse and refusing to change while choosing to continue the coverups, constant demands for unthinking obedience to the leaders, leaders being chosen for who they know or how much money they make rather than their spiritual grounding in Christ’s gospel and more) it becomes apparent that the church itself is in a state of apostasy. I find this extremely disturbing and ironic.
@Jack, loss of priesthood is essentially what the “great apostasy” has had to be reduced to because nothing else about it holds water. That is the foundation we’ve built the restoration on–something had to be lost for something to be restore. Without some kind of loss, the restoration really means nothing. And it appears that the history of the restoration of the priesthood is murky at best.
There was no Great Apostasy. Simply a fragmentation of opinions and movements not long after Jesus died. The Book of John is a manifestation of this fragmentation. It is the only book among the four gospels to portray Jesus as God. The Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles make mention of different groups. Christianity was a religion that was attempting to fuse elements of Greek religious culture and Jewish religious culture. One the biggest questions that the Christian community continually agonized over was the question of the nature of God. Greek religious culture was simply more open to a multiplicity of gods governing different aspects of nature and having patron communities, whereas Jewish religious culture, although once polytheistic, eventually post-exile came to see YHWH as the only God who was transcendent above all. Christianity would continue on an evolutionary path. And in the early 1800s, Mormonism would evolve from what Christianity was in upstate New York. The idea of this pristine, original, pure Christianity is an illusion. What is interesting is not what Christianity was early on. But how originalism has driven continued evolution.
I am less concerned about when or even how the apostacy occurred than I am with the fact that is did occur. As long as I am going to call myself Christian, I have to disassociate myself from the various historical outrages perpetrated in the name of Christ. Insisting that they were perpetrated by apostate Christians and not true Christians is the cleanest way to do that. So whether the apostacy happened immediately after the crucifixion or post-Constantine, it definitely happened before the crusades (and probably earlier).
According to Bart Ehrman, the scholar who wrote the book, “How Jesus became God” the great apostasy actually happened when John declared Jesus to be God, rather than just a son of God, or maybe it was when other apostles claimed him to be *the* son of God instead of just a great rabbi and we are all children of God. Then after accepting Jesus as God, and kind of also the son of God, as the Bible claims, the Christians had to figure out how that conundrum worked when the Jews only believed in one God, so just who was Jesus, the son, a son, of God himself? After arguing about it for 300 years, the Catholic church invented the doctrine of the Trinity. But the first apostasy was declaring him God in the first place.
Brad D – I like your approach of equating restoration to an evolutionary path. Things are always falling apart and coming together, falling apart and coming together again. That’s just how things are. The apostasy, as a historical event and from an LDS perspective is a necessary interpretation to validate the exclusive, latter day, marketing campaign, “We are the one and only true church”. The creation of a “competitive advantage” is a necessarily zero-sum game, somebody must lose in order for the LDS church to win. I guess I find it difficult these days to understand why my chosen spiritual path must find its value by devaluing the rest of the religious world. How does religion continuously repeat the inclination to make “rightness” (dogmatic, correct thinking) the goal, instead of righteousness (right relationship). Jesus, as a divine philosopher, seems to suggest the object is to transcend the walls of tribalism.
Also for the other post “I See Dead People”
RMN April 2024 – “Priesthood keys distinguish The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from any other organization on earth. Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death.”
My thoughts –
What is “lost” these days is all the people (including yours truly) tired of the shell game created by one of Vermont’s most infamous/New York glass looker.
Maybe Hinckley was apostate and a double agent for Satan when he celebrated “Mormons.”
A version of Elder Poelman’s 1984 talk was miraculously “restored” including with real coughing!
I began wrestling with this concept because of (of all things) a primary lesson I taught about the Apostasy. The manual spelled out for the children the truths that Joseph Smith restored, and I realized for the first time that this list was…underwhelming at best.
The suggested activity was to construct a paper church out of pieces labeled with the missing truths. It struck me as a bad analogy, implying that Joseph Smith (not, say, Christ) constructed Christianity from the ground up — as if not baptizing infants, the Book of Mormon, the metaphysical nature of the Godhead, and the physical line of priesthood authority were the whole of Christianity.
So instead I made a different model church, labeling some “bricks” with universal Christian concepts like Jesus, the atonement, and love. Then I added labels to some bricks related to the things the lesson spelled out as lost, and removed them from the church in front of the class to illustrate the Apostasy. (Notably, the church building is still mostly in tact after these removals; with Jesus as the “chief cornerstone” and “love” also close to the base.) We’d have some fun hiding them for a volunteer to find and “restore.” Aside from teaching about the Apostasy, it’s a way to show that we have more in common with other Christian churches, while still explaining the distinctions, than is usually emphasized. I’ve ended up using the same object lesson a lot over the years with various primary classes, and I admit to the hubris of feeling like it was possibly inspired.
In order for there to have been A “Great Apostasy” there has to been A Great Original Church started by Jesus around 30 CE. Unfortunately, this idea simply does not hold up to the scrutiny of critical scholarship. While LDS apologists may be trying to posit a less hostile account of the Apostasy (Patrick Mason has one of the more tenable models of a “soft Apostasy” IMO), the institutional church is still very much set on the “hard” Apostasy model. It’s in the missionary lessons and other official publications, as others have pointed out. It does seem to come up in lessons, much less often, however.
I don’t have any insight into to this, but a get the feeling there is as a small PR oriented faction in Church leadership that would just like to talk about Jesus, and another led by RMN that really wants to push the Restoration all the Restoration events in the official church history. I haven’t heard about Adam-ondi-Ahman, walking to Missouri and all that stuff in a while, though. That was big in the 80s and 90s.
Personally, I don’t give the great Apostasy or Restoration much thought. I am very much a religious pluralist who believes every faith/wisdom tradition (including the LDS church and other Mormonisms) has something to contribute to our understanding of the Universe beyond what we can see. We’re all just “circling the elephant,” to quote John Thatamanil. I guess that approach doesn’t incentivise conversions, but who knows, maybe the Church should try it and see.
mat,
I think the elephant that we’re circling around is the priesthood. As is stated in Section 84, without the priesthood the power of godliness is not manifest to us in the flesh. In other words, we could not become fully transformed by the power of the Savior’s atonement without the gifts that he bestows upon us by virtue of his priesthood.
Jack – So, is Christs Atonement, as you understand it, dependent on another layer of mediation? Are you saying that the “infinite” nature of Christs Atonement is constrained by whether mankind has the priesthood? It’s strange that we perpetuate this idea and hold the BOM as the foundation of our beliefs and ignore the fact that the depths and lengths of Christs mercy is not beholden to another human being getting between that relationship. Transformation, according to the New Testament and BOM are “direct”, without any other middlemen. This is an inconvenient problem we seem to ignore to maintain our competitive advantage of “Priesthood” power, supposedly especially owned solely by the LDS church. At some point, as a believer, you must wrestle with these extreme contradictions made by our own canonized text.
toddsmithson,
That’s a great question. And while I agree that the atonement is sufficient in and of itself–as per the Book of Mormon–I think it’s important to consider the lengths to which Mormon goes to include those teachings that have to do with positioning ourselves properly to receive the blessings of Christ’s sufferings. We must have faith in Christ and repent of our sins–and then we must enter the gospel covenant by receiving the ordinances of baptism by water and of the Holy Ghost.
But the real clencher–as per the OP–is that without the priesthood these salvific ordinances cannot be performed.
And so we may ask ourselves: why does the Lord require us to take these steps in order to access the full blessings of his atonement? First off, I think it’s important to remember that the priesthood belongs to the Savior–and we’re not dealing with something that inserts itself into the program from the outside. The priesthood is part of the program–or better said: it is the mechanism by which the program is carried off. Indeed, it is an investiture of the Savior’s divine power and authority on the earth that makes possible our entrance into the gospel covenant and our reception of all the blessings that flow to us as we strive to be faithful to that covenant.
That said, I don’t know the answer to all of the whys and wherefores of the priesthood. But one thing that seems evident (to me) is that the Book of Mormon is clear on the necessity of receiving salvific ordinances. Nephi, preaches that necessity by showing how even the Savior himself received them–there are no exceptions. And then, of course, the Lord himself teaches the necessity of receiving the ordinances when he appears to the Nephites.
Another thing that seems evident is what Nephi terms as the “strait and narrow path.” Making the ordinances available through the authority of presiding high priests serves to both open and protect the way into sacred space. And it is only there–in a higher degree of sacred space–that we are able to take full advantage of the power of Christ’s atonement.
Jack, the salvific ordinances thing just doesn’t fly when you realize that the big, important ordinances are warmed-over freemasonry with nothing ancient or “restored” about them. Nice try, though.
“The temple is there to call us back to our senses, to tell us where our real existence lies, to save us from ourselves. So let us go there often and face the reality, brethren and sisters.”
–Hugh Nibley–
Yeah, that’s very nice. It doesn’t change the fact that the temple isn’t a restoration of anything.
The premise of the great apostasy is that the “primitive church” had it right, and Joseph Smith restored all that had been lost from that era. But the primitive church didn’t perform Masonic ceremonies that were created in the Middle Ages. Peter and Paul never learned the signs and tokens that we now insist are salvific and essential to get into heaven.
Like it or not, it’s undeniable that the “Restoration” is a jumbled mishmash of stuff Joseph Smith either stole or made up.
Jack and Mike – I believe whatever is meant by “restoration” is lost by the fact that we focus on restoring things that, either did not exist during Jesus’ ministry, focus on restoring things he specifically critiqued, or fail to restore and prioritize the parts Jesus most emphasized. Taken from an excerpt of an article written by Michael Huston on By Common Consent, he does a brilliant job at highlighting our failure to restore the parts that “define” discipleship.
“Perhaps the most direct and clear teaching on this subject is found at the end of Matthew 25, in what is often called the parable of the sheep and the goats. In this parable, the third in that chapter, Jesus describes the moment of his[5] return when he will “come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory” (Matthew 25:31). Then, Jesus says, all nations will be gathered before him and he will separate the sheep (we later learn they are reward with “life eternal”) from the goats (we later learn they are sent “into everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46)).[6] As Jesus is separating sheep from goat, he only uses one metric. It is not piety, nor religious rigor, nor participation at religious services, nor Temple donations/tithes, nor Sabbath day observance, nor time spent studying religious texts, nor adherence to dietary or sacrificial laws, nor compliance with dress/grooming conventions, nor any of the things that seemed to fill the vision of religious folks in Jesus’s day (and in our day, if we’re being honest). The only metric Jesus uses is relational in nature: Did you help the hungry? Did you help the thirsty? Did you help the stranger? Did you help the naked? Did you help the sick? Did you help the imprisoned?
I’m not sure that Jesus would be singing praises to an organization which calls themselves “His” Church, while their efforts to uphold his most important metric is less than 1% of their overall wealth. And that 1% has been severely manipulated by overstating humanitarian efforts by adding “fast offerings” to what’s reported as well as assessing a dollar value for ALL volunteer hours given by LDS members. In other words, the LDS church has figured out very subtle and clever way to “appear” far better than they are, without actually giving real dollars from their bank accounts.
toddsmithson,
I think you know where I stand with respect to the church–but for the purposes of this particular argument I think it might be more useful to look at the members rather than the organization. How do they fare with respect to the parable of the sheep and the goats? My sense is that they do pretty well–at least comparatively speaking. And if so, then we might ask if the organization plays a part in molding them into a compassionate people.
Also, I think we have to remember that the Savior taught three parables in Matthew 25 with respect to the end times and his return in glory. The parable of the Ten Virgins, the parable of the Talents, and the parable of the Sheep and the Goats. And while I agree that how we love and serve one another is finally the most important measure by which we will be judged–there are other important measures that must be taken into account. And the elements in the first two parables are the very things that will enable us to love others in the way that the Savior loves them.
Mike Spendlove,
I respectfully disagree.
Jack – While I don’t dismiss the value of the organization shaping quality people and helping them uphold Jesus’ core philosophies, I really get uncomfortable when we find ways to excuse the “institution” from any responsibility, especially considering the “institution” seems intently interested in our proclaiming it truth. I do know your position on the church and respect your devotion, I however, think the organization has done a splendid job of insulating itself from internal scrutiny, which I think will contribute more to its struggles than helping its growth.
Jack,
The only functional definition of the Priesthood that I know is a body of priests to whom a particular religious community have given the authority to administer the various rites and rituals that said community deams vital to their identity. It’s not enough for a self -appointed “priest” to claim he has the “power of godliness.” If he can’t get enough people to believe this claim and convince them to follow him, then he’s just a preacher yelling on a street corner. Without a community consenting to priesthood authority, said authority is meaningful.
Peter apparently convinced enough people that Christ had passed the baton directly to him (or later Christians thought this was the case and wrote it back into the gospels), but it just as easily could have been Paul, James, Mary, or any number of disciples we don’t know about. The Peter faction, simply won out by sheer numbers of followers – large enough to support a large body of priests, or “Priesthood,” which still exists today in the Roman Catholic Church (or so goes the claim). What exactly was Joseph Smith “restoring” when it comes to Priesthood? Can one “hold” or “possess” the power of God? He made claims that the tenants of “the original church” had been lost, (so did many of his near contemporaries such as Alexander Campbell, William Miller, and Ann Lee btw), and enough people consented to those claims to support a new body of priests, or “priesthood.” Unique in some ways, but still a body of priests who exist by virtue of the common consent of the religious community. It’s a bottom up, not too down state of affairs.
mat,
I hear what you’re saying–and I think the true test of the powers of the priesthood have to do with opening the heavens. While we don’t want to seek for miracles in order to establish our witness of the restoration the opening of the heavens in some measure will be the inevitable fruit of coming to the priesthood.
That said, I understand that many folks outside the church can make the claim that they have experienced the powers of heaven–and I’m convinced that many of those claims are true. Even so, the life blood of the church is the spirit of revelation–and just about every active member could recite story after story of how they were influenced and guided by the Holy Spirit. And many could, if they were permitted, tell of even greater manifestations.
And so the real question–IMO–is: are we being enlightened, edified, and transformed by the presence of the holy ghost in our lives? And I think most active members of the church could testify that such has been and continues to be their ongoing experience–even if that influence is no more than subtle wisps of manna at times.
So I point out that the modern temple ceremony is not a restoration of anything and has its origins in the Middle Ages, and you “respectfully disagree.”
Here’s the thing, Jack. Disagreeing about opinions is great and totally legit. Disagreeing about facts demonstrates the ignorance of the person who is wrong on the facts.
If you want to argue that the temple is great, and that it brings you joy, and that it has blessed your life beyond measure and everything about it is wonderful, then good for you! That’s an entirely legitimate opinion to have.
If you want to argue that the temple ceremony is a restoration of something ancient, and that the ceremony and the signs and tokens were part of Solomon’s Temple and/or the Second Temple at the time of Christ, you are wrong on the facts. Respectfully disagreeing is another way of saying that you are objectively incorrect.
Mike Spendlove,
On the one hand, the forms could–in theory–be perfectly preserved. But without the proper authority of the priesthood they’d have no power in and of themselves to unlock the heavens–they would be hollow and empty. On the other hand, I can imagine a scenario wherein the forms are modern inventions. And yet, because of the restoration of the priesthood they (the forms) would become useful tools in pointing the soul of the initiate towards great light and knowledge–and I mean a real connection with the upper world.
That said, I’m of the opinion that it is impossible to know how old the masonic forms are. Some have dated the inception of Masonry to just a few hundred years ago–and while there may be some truth in that dating in terms of the organization coming out of the wilderness, so to speak, it doesn’t explain the complexity of their ceremonies, IMO.
There’s been some good work done recently on the ancient roots that *both* Freemasonry and the temple rites have in common:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-important-new-study-of-freemasonry-and-the-latter-day-saints-whats-good-whats-questionable-and-whats-missing-in-method-infinite/
There are some (many?) Latter-day Saint who improvidently use presentism to see Solomon’s Temple (and the Tabernacle and the Second Temple) as a proto-LDS temple. They err in doing so.
The Old Testament temple was wholly an Aaronic Priesthood temple — there was no Melchizedek Priesthood or Melchizedek Priesthood holder involved, and no Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances were performed — no sealings, no endowments, no washings & anointings. The people never even entered the temple, but stayed outside after delivering their animal offerings to the gate. The high priest was a holder of the Aaronic Priesthood. These are facts.
Jesus never entered the actual temple, neither as a 12-y-o nor later as a teacher if the people. Rather, he entered the temple precincts, or the grounds, so to speak. These are facts.
The pull of presentism is strong, but it is a common error. However, one can accept these facts without lessening his or her testimony of the restoration.
Re: Jack’s post on Jun25 @ 5:48pm:
“And so the real question–IMO–is: are we being enlightened, edified, and transformed by the presence of the holy ghost in our lives? And I think most active members of the church could testify that such has been and continues to be their ongoing experience–even if that influence is no more than subtle wisps of manna at times.”
Honestly, I think many (most?) people could answer yes to this question, including Buddhists, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, even proud white Christian Nationalists. They may or may not use the same or similar labels, and their experiences may look very different than yours, but I think it’s essential to paraphrase a quote I read once: “The way God works thru others may be different that the way he works thru me. In fact, it may even be a way that I don’t think God works at all.”
Allie,
This is the paragraph that precedes the one you quoted:
“That said, I understand that many folks outside the church can make the claim that they have experienced the powers of heaven–and I’m convinced that many of those claims are true. Even so, the life blood of the church is the spirit of revelation–and just about every active member could recite story after story of how they were influenced and guided by the Holy Spirit. And many could, if they were permitted, tell of even greater manifestations.”
And so I agree that folks from other religious traditions are influenced by the powers of heaven. Only I’d say — and this is a hard doctrine for a lot of folks these days — entering the gospel covenant allows the initiate to receive more revelation than she would otherwise. And continuing faithfully in the covenant will ultimately allow her to enter into the rest of the Lord–his presence if you will.
Jack – any data on this “entering the gospel covenant allows the initiate to receive more revelation than she would otherwise.”
My Methodist relatives in Kansas/Missouri would beg to differ. And what is your definition of revelation? Personal? Nelson’s program adjustments?
Chet,
The data in question is hard to come by because it involves very personal experiences–and so what we get as evidence tends to be very anecdotal. Even so, after being in the church for as long as I have I’m convinced that the saints, generally speaking, experience much more heavenly influence than they let on to.
As to the doctrine involved–here’s a verse from Mosiah 18 that clarifies what I’m trying to say:
10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?
Jack, you said, “I’m convinced that the saints, generally speaking, experience much more heavenly influence than they let on to.”
I’m going to push back on that a bit. First, you are assuming that Church members are great at keeping secrets they are supposed to keep. That is the opposite of my experience. Gossip–things that members should absolutely keep to themselves–spreads like wildfire through any ward that I’ve ever been a part of. Why would members keep their heavenly experiences a secret if they can’t keep their mouths shut about who cheated on who, who stopped wearing garments, whose kid can’t go on a mission because he confessed to masturbating, whose husband has a “porn problem”, etc.? A very large percentage of Mormons (much like the general population) simply don’t keep secrets very well. If members were having these experiences on a regular basis, as you believe, they’d be sharing them left and right. But they aren’t sharing them, which really makes me think they aren’t happening.
Second, when people leave the Church, it is very unusual for them to say something like, “I had all these miraculous heavenly experiences, but I decided to leave the Church anyway.” What you much more frequently hear is, “The Church convinced me that my emotional experiences originated from God. When I finally sat down and evaluated them myself, I decided that they were likely just emotional experiences that either originated from inside of my (not God) and/or these are the exact same experiences that people from other religions claim to have–and I continue to have them after leaving the Church. Being a Church member and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost didn’t give me any spiritual advantage over any other human being.” If someone decides to leave the Church, then they generally wouldn’t feel like they were under any obligation to keep their spiritual experiences private or secret, yet when people leave, the most common thing I’ve heard is that they didn’t feel like they’d had such experiences to begin with (and many of these people were “all in” members before leaving).
mountainclimber479,
You’re one of my favorite sparring partners–so I hope what I say doesn’t come across as a sucker punch. Both major points of your argument seem to be products of the current exmo counternarrative–at least that’s how they come across to me. Having said that, there’s no question that there’s gossip in the church–as there is in any tight-knit organization–though I’ve experienced very little of it during my 60+ years. Plus, those who are mature in the faith–again according to my protracted experience with the saints–speak of the influence of the spirit as something that is more total or complete than just emotions. It has to do with the mind as well as the heart and with transformation as well as conversion.
All of that said, though the more common influences of the spirit are subtle that’s not to say that the saints don’t experience greater manifestations from time to time–they do. And many also receive knowledge that is more sacred than any miracle they might experience. I like to say that there are folks who don’t know the mysteries and folks who do know them–and both produce the same result: very little open dialogue on the subject.
***
I hope I don’t get in trouble for commenting so much on this thread. I’ve gotten a lot of thoughtful responses–and its hard for me not to respond to them.
mountainclimber479,
I should add: however much the saints may or may not gossip I have never heard and active member reveal the sacred rites of the temple–never. And so that may speak to how faithful members might reverence sacred knowledge in spite of whatever weakness they may have for gossip.