Talk:Great Apostasy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This started as a strong LDS POV advocacy; I think I may have just "balanced" it by adding a strong dose of my own POV towards the end. Help, corrections or additions are sought and welcomed; I'll try think of ways to balance it further as well. Thanks. Wesley

I suspect the article was originally created to provide a definition to link to from the LDS page. I too have been concerned that it was far too narrow, so I'm glad you have done some work on broadening it. User:Quintessent:Q
Q's suspicion is correct. It was one of my first contributions and I had no ID at the time. No intent to be NPOV just merely to get the article going. Thanks to you and clutch for helping to broaden it out. Had I a better understanding of naming conventions at the time, I likely would have designated the page "Great Apostasy (LDS/Mormon)" but maybe no need to creat separate page at this point. BoNoMoJo

JW's also believe in the Great Apostacy, but have a slightly different take on it (since they don't see the Mormon priesthood as valid). The article was so strongly based on the LDS point of view, I was relucant to leap in and NPOV it; it looked like a lot of work. --Clutch 18:54 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Well, why don't you just add a separate paragraph somewhere after the LDS one that describes how the JW take on it is similar, and how it is different. Maybe this will work and come out half-way neutral if we just cover the different angles without having wikipedia advocate any of them? It may be good to have a very short introductory paragraph that covers whatever most or all have in common, or just describes the topic in a very general way, then subheadings for the different viewpoints with more details. What do you think? Wesley
That is exactly what I hope for. I don't have time today to do it, but I see we agree on the general form this article should take. Really, the whole concept of a Great Apostasy belongs to the Protestant Reformation as a whole, and it's offspring, and that should be expressed primarily. Once the commonalities are put at the front, the LDS view of it should fit in a fairly small paragraph, possibly in the same paragraph that describes, in a sentence or two, the JW's take on it. --Clutch 21:08 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I've added a short introductory paragraph. There are probably more commonalities; I just didn't want to dig into the long LDS paragraph. Feel free to expand, reorganize, add the JW take, etc. This is still a work in progress. Wesley

Why was "Christian tradition" changed to "mainstream Christianity"? Just wondering... Wesley

Wesley please see my full post on Talk:Christianity. I repost part of it here to explain the change: BoNoMoJo 04:05 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)
...The use of history or tradition without qualification is controversial...LDS is based on the Christianity of "history" (or "tradition" for that matter): LDS trace their religion to every period (from Adam to the present) when God's church or people were present on the earth. LDS, for example, maintain that God's people also worshipped in ancient America around 2000 BC to 600 AD and their record is the Book of Mormon. LDS also await the scriptural records of other yet unrevealed peoples in other parts of the world. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's not a part of history or tradition.

I'm not sure which post you're referring to on Talk:Christianity; must have been under a different username. I can see that an unqualified reference to "tradition" may be controversial, but history... if the LDS believes they're in line with the early church up until the 3rd or 4th century, and the ancient Americans up until around 600AD, then by their own account they are not part of history between 600AD and sometime in the 1800s when Joseph Smith came to prominence. The religion generally referred to as "Christianity" does have a history that includes that time frame. Wesley 16:52 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

True, Christian history includes the time period you referred to above, but now then you have qualified what part of history to which you are referring. Neither "Christian history" nor "Christian tradition" should be used without qualification when referring to either mainstream or minority groups. Otherwise, the usage will improperly exlude/include various Christian groups as was the case with the unedited phrase which started this dialogue. Further, even if the assumption that LDS make no claim to a presence of members for that time on earth, what about LDS members in heaven during that time? Is there absolutely no LDS-Christian history for that time period? For example, Jesus, Peter, etc. (from whom LDS claim their authority) were some where during that time... You can find my quote on Talk:Christianity with the ole' find function of Internet Explorer. BoNoMoJo 18:05 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
An interesting aside, and maybe beyond the scope of this article is the account in the Book of Mormon of Christian truth and authority lasting until around 400 AD in the Americas. Q
Ok, I finally found the post you were talking about. Glad you've started signing. :-) I'll briefly restate that I think 'recorded history' is a reasonable definition of history to use, that shouldn't be inherently biased. There's a written historical record of what people calling themselves Christians believed on various subjects down through the centuries. As for what Jesus or Peter believed in this timeframe, I heartily agree personally that they were somewhere. You and I can disagree about what they thought and said in this time with nothing to back up either of us aside from whose visions we choose to trust. Wesley 22:20 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
There are some arguments (maybe trifling or petty) that could be made against 'recorded history' too but it seems to be a fair enough qualification. Without too much thought to it I don't feel particularly strong against that usage. BoNoMoJo 23:07 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

The text of the article had a query asking for a Reformation perspective from the Lutherans and Calvinists. I have done my best to supply it. It may well have POV problems; please bear in mind that I have not been one quarter as vehement as folks were back then. --- User:Ihcoyc

I was the one that put that in. Thanks for stepping in and filling up the breach! --Clutch 10:20 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly object to the deletion of the following text:

However, accounts of martyred Christian soldiers from the 200s suggest that the original church may not have been as anti-militarist as Ellul supposes. Ignatius of Antioch's letters from the 100s suggest that it was anything but anarchist.

A prominent theme of most of Ignatius' writings is that every Christian should obey his bishop; it's what he is most know for. I'll look up a couple of more precise references this weekend. The church's emphasis on order can also be seen in the New Testament in the apostles' appointing seven deacons to oversee the food distribution in the book of Acts; and in many of Paul's epistles, particularly the pastoral epistles directed to Timothy and Titus. They clearly had bishops/overseers, elders/presbyters, and deacons from almost the very beginning. What evidence does Ellul offer of the early Church's anarchy?

Some early saints who were also soldiers, with links, include: the Holy Martyr Hermas (http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/may/may-31.html); The Holy Martyr Hieron and the 33 Martyrs of Melitene (http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/november/nov-07.html); Saint Mauricios, a military commander of Syrian Apameia, suffered in the year 305 under the emperor Maximian Galerius (305-311) together with his son Photinos and 70 soldiers under his command (http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/feasts-and-saints/february/feb-22.html). These saints suffered because they were Christians, or because they would not sacrifice to the pagan gods when ordered to do so, but did not voluntarily cease their military service because they were Christians. All of them predate Ellul's "dramatic shift". What evidence does Ellul give that the earlier church was decidedly anti-military? Wesley 17:36 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

My impression of Jacques Ellul is that he has anarchist tendencies himself, which evidently determines his view of things. If his views are cited, in my opinion it should be as an alternative view - not the standard. If he really does think that the church was anarchistic in the beginning, in my opinion, he is a nut on that issue. Mkmcconn 19:56 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Ignatius recommended listening to ones bishop only in spiritual things. Even in anarchy, groups have leaders. The early church was definately anti-statist and didn't allow military service. Therefore Jacques Ellul was perfectly correct in stating what he did. He wrote a whole book on the anarchistic tendencies of early Christianity, which is well researched. He even quoted Ignatius. Check it out from your local library Anarchy and Christianity by Jacques Ellul. I can see why that would be an uncomfortable revelation for people who view the church as the hand-maiden of the state.

As for the military Christians, they became Christians while in the military, and didn't have the option of just dropping out. They were in it for their 20 year spell. Even today, desertion is punishable by death. It was worse back then. And when time came that they had to violate their Christian consciences by killing someone, they refused. That is why they were martyred in the first place, and why they were recorded. Ellul discusses this in detail.

--Clutch 00:12 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the point is that the word "anarchy" is not accurate. There was, and to a large extent still is a strong suspicion of state power, in the church - as you might expect especially in those times in which Christians were accused of being a threat to the Empire. Even in those traditions which strongly identify the kingdom of God with the Christian state, as Eastern Orthodoxy can be interpreted to do, there is a significant thread of counter-culture and suspicion of the state, in the monastic movement; and it is basically the same in the West. This just isn't the same thing as "anarchy". Likewise regarding the military, when the Roman army was the strongest bastion of the official religion in the Empire, and so many of the persecutors of Christians made their names as opponents of the Christians while they were generals, you would hardly expect the Christians to approve of military service. However, this is not the same thing as pacifism or anarchy. Your source is connecting the dots in a creative way, apparently in order to promote his own agenda. It's not without some credibility, but it is a position that must be maintained against a lot of evidence against it. The teaching of the church, beginning in the Scriptures, mandates submission to civil rulers, and calls them "ordinances of God"; it's for that reason that Christians generally have opposed anarchy, rather than the cynical view that whoever disagrees with anarchy "view the church as the hand-maiden of the state". That's just the point from the mainstream view: that the church is the hand-maiden of God and not of the state, and that the state also is subject to God, not equal to God or master over the Church. This is still the Christian teaching. And, it was on account of that, that Christians have expressed and still do express anti-statist views, and on a few occasions have been and still are persecuted by rulers possessing pretensions of being above or alongside of God. Mkmcconn 03:52 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
Of course the early church allowed military service. If it had forbidden military service, than it would have required soldiers to drop out of the military before being baptized, and you would only find former soldiers who were Christians, not Christian Roman soldiers. If you read the accounts of early Christian soldiers, you will find that they did obey their commanders and went to battle against the Gauls and other 'barbarians', in some cases killing many of their enemies. They drew the line when they were ordered to sacrifice to the Roman gods. Read the stories of the martyrs for yourself.
Now regarding anarchy, I think I may have misunderstood what you meant. If you meant church anarchy, then Ignatius' requirement of obedience to the bishop in spiritual things still stands in opposition to church anarchy; what other sort of order would you expect within the church? If you mean civil anarchy, how is this different from anti-statism? On this point I think I largely agree with Mkmcconn's observations. I'll see if I can find time to look at the book, but it sounds like it's a revisionist view at odds with the primary historical sources. Wesley 19:24 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I have a couple issues regarding the Latter-Day Saints section as it stands right now, particularly with the way it presents history. I don't mind the article presenting the LDS view when it's labeled as such, but right now it seems to take for granted a number of events as facts that, well, differ from how I and I think a number of others see that period of history. First, those who argued in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity believed that they were defending and existing doctrine, and that Arius' doctrine was the new innovation that should be rejected. Thus, to say that the First Ecumenical Council adopted the doctrine is to present the Arian position as historically factual; that's how I read the article at present. Second, regarding the persecutions, it seems clear from most of the accounts of martyrdoms that the Roman authorities didn't care much about Christian theology so long as they would still offer sacrifices to the Roman gods. They made no attempt to get Christians to compromise, other than to persuade them to offer these sacrifices, or at least that's how the martyrologies that I've read seem to present it. When the Romans wanted to flush all the Christians out of a city, they would just require everyone in town to register and offer sacrifices at a specific time, so they could more easily identify the Christians and arrest or kill them.

I see that the same concern regarding how the Trinity and the First Council of Nicaea is discussed also applies to the Adventist section. I'm uncertain of exactly how the article should be changed to reflect the two rather different views of what happened. Any suggestions? Wesley 21:35 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Which denominations use this actual term? Or are we just coining a term to cover a range of interpretations? - which we should not do. My concern is raised because this page is being used as justification on the Christianity article but nowhere off Wikipedia can I find anyone using this definition. Rmhermen 14:58 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's a surprise, if this very term can't be found off Wikipedia. It's practically the central creed of some groups, that there has been at one time a "Great Apostasy". The Mormons and Millerites use this precise phrase repeatedly in their literature. Dispensationalists and some other groups more often use the phrase to refer to the future, coming "great apostasy" - but if it's used to speak of Roman Catholic history, the terminology is not confusing. Mkmcconn 16:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I can find Mormon, anti-Mormon and future-related sites refering to this. What I can't find is what our definition says: that this is the name of a common belief in most Protestant denominations. Rmhermen 17:10 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The phrase "great apostasy" appears in the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, in the notes of Junius on Revelations (which replace the original Whittington notes from earlier editions starting with this one.) It does not appear to be used as a specific title, though it is a handy name for the phenomenon.
I've found a number of sites that use the phrase within the framework of general (usu. fundamentalist - Calvinist) Protestantism, inc.
Not at all sure that these sites represent the views of major denominations, though.
-- IHCOYC 18:51 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The first represents the future apostasy (or current apostasy) school. I can't identify the second. The third claims that he is an independent. I can find lots of these sort of links but I can't find any that identify this title with any denomination. Rmhermen 19:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Is there another name for this belief that's more widely used? Or do most denominations not have a specific word or phrase they use to refer to it? If the latter is true, then perhaps "Great Apostasy" is as good as any? Or would you suggest a different title to talk about it? Wesley 19:45 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Most of the non-Mormon Protestants who keep the notion of the Great Apostasy alive seem to be independent and small fundamentalist churches. Some seem to have made the independence of individual congregations without any hierarchical structure above the local pastor/bishop/elders an article of faith in their theology of the church. Others may just not have many followers. -- IHCOYC 20:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The article currently claims that some form of this notion is shared among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans and Episcopalians, as well as by Anabaptists. These are not all independent, small fundamentalist churches. Is the article that far off the mark? Wesley 21:48 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's only off the mark in that allows the reader to leave with the impression that all non-Catholic groups use this term in the same way - and obviously, that's a false impression. Mkmcconn 01:16 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
My concern is that this is a "religiously" charged word coined or co-opted by certain groups. It needs to be a more neutral term. It is the same problem I have with the only Wikipedia article on Lord's Supper/communion residing at Eucharist. I know people who would never read that article because the Eucharist is still considered a heresy. And so they will not find any information on the subject. I am afraid although not certain that this title has the same flaw. Rmhermen 22:13 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Any suggestions for a more neutral title? Regarding the Eucharist article, it isn't the only one; there's also The Last Supper, The Lord's Supper and Communion. But no one should read a Wikipedia article on a religious topic and expect it to be in perfect conformance with their or their denomination's point of view. Wesley 15:54 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I did miss the Last Supper article. However my point is still good in that only the Eucharist article actually says anything about the sacrament. The others aren't much more than redirects. But that is for a different talk page. Rmhermen 18:03 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Apostasy is a stub. I'd have no objection to most of the text here moving there, and either make this one a redirect, or keeping only the specialised, Mormon material here; whatever the group mind says. -- IHCOYC 01:08 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Have to think about this... Great Apostasy seems to be talking about something done by the entire church, or the entire leadership of the church, whereas apostasy is usually something done by an individual or perhaps a very specific group. Wesley 15:54 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I searched some e-texts of works by Luther and Calvin, and did not find the "Great Apostasy" phrase used as a specific name. Translations may differ. I suspect that the phrase was in fact devised by the Mormons, and picked up by U.S. fundamentalist Christians who heard it there. It is a convenient label for the belief, however. There probably should be an article about what the Reformers had to say, but moving it to Pope or Antichrist seems somewhat offbeat, and a title like "Reformation reactions against mediaeval church practices" is an unwieldy title for any article. There does seem to be a case for leaving all of this stuff here even if the label is much more recent than the belief itself. -- IHCOYC 16:23 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I like the article's structure as it stands. It is part of Mormon propaganda that Protestants have a doctrine of a "great apostasy". The article represents that Mormon view, with something like a non-combative Protestant rebuttal to the Mormon argument. Separating out the Protestant material leaves the page back at where it started, as a Mormon advocacy piece with argumentative rebuttals inserted here and there (a common Wiki practice, which in my opinion makes silly articles). Mkmcconn 16:48 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Mkmcconn, it's false to say that Mormon's propogandize that Protestants have a doctrine of "great apostasy". The Church does not endorse that position, it doesn't encourage its members to accept that position, and individual Mormons don't claim that. But maybe the JWs endorse the position. Looking back at the history of the article, it was Clutch, a JW, who amended the article early on to state that "The Great Apostasy is a belief held by most non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christian denominations". Now whether that is a true statement of belief and whether that belief is also doctrine of respective Protestants is not clear. What I mean is, the Pre-Restorationist Protestants seem to have a belief and/or doctrine of apostasy, but it does also appear to be quite different than the Restorationists view of an apostasy-at-large. B
I won't argue about what Mormons mean by what they publish. You don't like the word, propaganda. I am not a Mormon. We understand one another. Mkmcconn 15:47 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't mind the word, propoganda. In fact I tease my wife by calling the weekly "Church News" she picks up from the mail the "Church Proganda". She says, well you ordered it. Oh well...hahaha. B
What, you expect to see NPOV articles that are also written in a consistent, smooth, readable style? Get real, this is Wikipedia! [broad wink] Wesley 17:36 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I, too, like the articles structure but not its title or first paragraph. At least we need to include in the first paragraph the fact that most of the churches discussed in the following article don't use the term "Great Apostasy". (If in fact they don't, which seems true.) Rmhermen 18:28 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Some comments below were moved here from Talk:Christianity

I'll try to avoid bringing up the logic problems raised by claiming the church was already apostate in the first century... Wesley 20:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

By logic problem, I think you mean the ambiguity that it may be read as the Church going apostate before it was formed. What I intended is similar to the Schism which is that it is (presumed as) a gradual process...also presuming that it started as early as the Church itself started to form (not after it formed)...that was the briefest way I could think to state it at the time. B
Yes... related to that is that you would then have an apostate church before the New Testament was finished being written, let alone canonized, which might call in to question the authority and trustworthiness of the New Testament. And you would have to wonder how effective the Holy Spirit was at Pentecost if the church as a whole immediately started going down the drain. But that doesn't really have anything to do with this article. Wesley 21:19 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Other Restorationists most of whom rely heavily on the Bible would seem to have a problem there, but the Mormon answer to that is something like the New Testament (or Bible for that matter) without additional revelation is not reliable. Mormons do not claim the Bible was canonized by a legitimate authority during the apostasy; they claim that the Bible was pieced together at that time by unauthorized, but (not always) well intentioned believers. For Mormons the Bible was canonized for them when they put their seal of approval on it with the proviso that it had to be interpreted correctly, that there was still missing scripture out there, that parts of it were erroneous or uninspired...this is why Joseph Smith started on a retranslation of it and presented other books like the Books of Abraham and Moses. Regarding the Spirit at Pentecost, the Mormon answer would be something like, just because some (groups of) individuals were (becoming) apostate or did not have correct beliefs did not mean that all the other followers were undeveloped, misled, unrighteous or whatever....by gradual apostasy, Mormons intended apostasy happens person by person, not that the church as a whole immediately goes down the drain. It may also be presumed in Mormonism that because the church was so young, many wannabe followers were still too unaquainted with Christianity to fully grasp all the fundamental doctrines and without legitimate leadership took Christianity to a different course than what was intended...I'm not sure Mormons would call them apostates...maybe more like Christian prospects who made a wrong turn...and that may include the majority of the followers at the time. For Mormons the distinguishing factor is always priesthood, priesthood, priesthood: wherever the full priesthood is, the Church in all its fullness is. Because Mormonism presumes apostasy was a gradual process, there may have not been a legitimate clergy/priesthood at some point to administer the affairs of the church but there could still be sincere followers who practiced the faith as much as possible without being able to participate in authorized sacraments (like baptism, communion, etc.) In Mormonism apostasy would be culminated for leadership when the last clergyman died, and apostasy would be culminated for membership when the last of the follower's practices were too far from the faith or died. In Mormonism, in one sense there was never a complete, total apostasy because some of the scriptures were always there uncorrupted, there were well intentioned followers and maybe even some additional revelation and other gifts, but in terms of loss of Priesthood (and corruption of the Church's practices), Mormonism affirmatively declares a complete and total apostasy. B
Thank you, that's helpful. If you're going to define it as all the leadership dying out, I'm sure you have a way to explain the dates provided in List of popes, List of Constantinople patriarchs, Coptic Popes, etc. Clearly such lists don't attempt to include every bishop and priest during this time frame. The continuity in their teaching and liturgy is also historically demonstrable through examination of representative writings, and seeing which books and letters were being circulated in different areas. How does Mormonism interpret such historical evidence? How do they estimate any kind of date for the Great Apostasy? Wesley 17:05 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
How would you establish a date for the Great Apostasy? Can you name the year or the decade that the last clergyman died, or any other specific event? Even if it was a gradual process, there should be some event or narrow time frame you can point to and say, because of historical evidence that such and such was said, or such and such was done, the Great Apostasy was definitely complete by this time. This is the case for the other items on the chart. Wesley 17:05 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I hope you sincerely find it helpful. I fear coming off as a proselytizer, windbag, whatever, which is not my intent. The "Church" has not ever issued an official proclamation that the apostasy definitely occured by time x. I think some early Church leaders in sermons and such indicate that the apostasy in terms of leadership of the early church could have been complete as early as the death of the last of the original apostles in the 1st century. (By original, the successor apostles whose legitimate appointment is mentioned in Acts should also be included.) So in terms of the list of successors (to which you kindly linked) for Mark, Peter and Andrew, Mormons would probably say, that there were no successors to them (or other apostles either). The theory would go that: 1) neither one of those individuals would have authority alone to appoint/ordain a successor, only the apostles as a quorum could do so; and 2) the supposed successors at most could only be appointed/ordained in a lower capacity such as a bishop (which in Mormon priesthood is closer to the bottom of the ladder in priesthood hierarchy) and a bishop only has authority to lead a local congregation, not authority to appoint successor bishops, let alone higher up apostles or carry on the leadership of the church at large. For Mormons, the only relevant priesthood quorum that would matter in terms of whether an apostasy occured at the leadership level is the quorum of the apostles. Either once the majority of the quorum died (or apostasized individually), OR the last of the apostles died, the apostasy could be said to be complete. (You tell me who was the last apostle to die, I don't know...lol.) So, even if there were still a lot of bishops left, once the apostles were out of the picture, there would be no quorum or individual left to appoint successors with authority to lead the entire church (or even to appoint bishops with authority to lead local congregations). Once all the legitimately ordained bishops were out of the picture, there would not even be any legitimate local leadership. For Mormons this could easily have occured in the 1st century, although Mormonism would probably anticipate that it would take more time for grievous corruptions of the doctrines and practices to set in. So, while JWs would start the apostasy around the Nicene Creed, Mormons would say that was a culmination of what had already happened with the death of the apostles. I'm not able to get to your question about how Mormonism considers historical evidence in this regard, because I've tied up for the rest of the night. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. B