This is something I never really questioned while I was Mormon, but now that I'm out, it doesn't make any sense. At what point did the priesthood supposedly leave the earth plunging us into apostasy? By the time the original apostles died? Mormons don't seem to recognize any other early church leaders, so that's the only thing I can guess.

If the priesthood left so quickly, what was even the point of Jesus coming at that time, if everything He did would basically be erased within a century? What's the point of establishing something if it needs restoration basically immediately?

Did anyone ever get any answers about these things while they were in the church? I've tried asking my family, but they don't offer any answers, and I can't find any official church teachings on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 12:15AM by JadeDuck.

I suppose that growing up in the church I assumed that the priesthood 'petered' out with the death of the early apostles.

But here's a little thing: right now I can technically bestow both the Aaronic & Melchezidak priesthoods on a guy. I just have to mumble the right words and have the ward clerk fill in the proper blanks on the ordinance paperwork/computer. Done deal! My personal righteousness isn't a determinant factor in the efficacy of the bestowal. But I'm sure the church wouldn't recognize it unless it was done within the church ward/stake structure, involving the proper callings, blah, blah.

If the early apostles bestowed the priesthood, the men to whom it was given could then bestow it, and the men they gave it to could bestow it, etc., etc. Of course, there'd be no records so we wouldn't know and the church is a church of order, so again, blah, blah...

It's not a big stretch to figure that there could be a proper priesthood father-to-son trail that survived down through the past almost 2,000 years. It would be amusing to see someone attempt to make such a claim!

But ... but ... but I'm a mormon priest and I don't even know what my super powers are.

https://www.mormonwiki.com/Great_Apostasy

https://www.comeuntochrist.org/beliefs/jesus-christ-church/jesus-original-church-fell-away

And finally Talmage's take for those who have time to read it all

http://ldssoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Talmage-The-Great-Apostasy.pdf

As always, there is no guarantee that the current or future leadership will accept this as doctrine.

If God sent down his "only beloved son" to do all that stuff to "save" humanity and, as, the Mormons would have it, organize his own church, he looks quite impotent to allow his church to unravel and wait for the likes of Joe Smif to "reorganize" it. It's just too bizarre. Critical thinking just tells you what nonsense it all is. There was a Great Apostasy; there was NOT a Great Apostasy... Who cares? It's all just so much Shiz.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2019 01:03AM by cludgie.

Even in orthodox mormon doctrine, "the priesthood" never left the earth. John & The Three Nephites (worst grunge band ever) were supposedly here the whole time, so there was no "great apostasy" and hence no need for any so-called restoration.

not logging in today Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even in orthodox mormon doctrine, "the priesthood"
> never left the earth. John & The Three Nephites
> (worst grunge band ever) were supposedly here the
> whole time, so there was no "great apostasy" and
> hence no need for any so-called restoration.

The Mormon answer is: they held the priesthood, but not the KEYS.

Here's my take on this whole subject, and it turns out to be a double-edged sword for Mormonism:

The apostasy of the church established by Jesus's apostles (the "Primitive Church") is hinted at in the Bible, but there is no passage (that I know of) that says that the entire church (or all believers) would apostatize, only that there would be a "falling away" before Christ comes, and that many who believed will no longer believe, due to unrighteousness and sin. (2 Thess 2:3; for more LDS scriptural references, see Topical Guide and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "Apostasy")

Mormons, however, believe that there was a complete apostasy of the Primitive Church The idea of a complete apostasy is not confined to Mormons. The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that the original church had fallen into corruption and doctrinal error. In the late 18th and early 19th century there was a widespread movement that claimed to see such great apostasy from the church led by the original apostles that the original church would have to be "restored." These were the Restorationists, and included the Millerites, the Adventists, the Campbellites, and other smaller sects. Since Sidney Rigdon was steeped in Campbellite doctrine, much of it was adopted through him into Mormonism. The Adventist prophetess Ellen G. White wrote a large book, still revered by Adventists, called The Great Apostasy. Mormon apostle James E. Talmage wrote a similar book with the same title, and it is still in print.

One difference between Mormon teaching and other Restorationist teaching is the idea of authority. Mormons believe that ordinances are only valid if performed by one who has authority given to him directly from God or through God's authorized representatives. (See The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "Authority".)

But the idea of apostasy is a double-edged sword for Mormons. They claim that over the decades after the original apostles had died the church lost its authority because of the changes in doctrines and the corruption and sinfulness of the church leaders (they can't tell you exactly when that was; they view it as gradual). This idea of loss of authority through sin and corruption is also stated in Mormon scripture.

Doctrine & Covenants (D&C)121:36-37 says that the priesthood must be "...handled only upon the principles of righteousness. ...[W]hen we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercies 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 authority of that man!" The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "Authority".)

Those are very problematic verses for the church. They say that any priesthood holder who attempts to use his priesthood to exert "dominion" over others "in any degree of unrighteousness" loses his priesthood and his authority: "the heavens withdraw."

Now, the problem for Mormons is this: How does one know that a priesthood holder has not sinned or abused his authority sufficiently to have lost his authority? Elder X baptizes Convert Y, and Y thinks he has been validly baptized. But Elder X has been secretly seducing the young women in his branch, telling them he has the "authority" to bed them down. Has he lost his priesthood authority because of that (according to D&C 121:37)? Surely those acts should qualify as an "exercise of unrighteous dominion." If so, Y is NOT baptized, according to Mormon doctrine, because it was done by someone who no longer had the authority to do so. Think about it: if a bishop has used his priesthood authority in any degree of unrighteousness, to "exercise dominion," his priesthood is no longer valid. Any deacon or priest or elder he ordains is not really ordained.

This calls into question every ordinance performed by Mormon priesthood holders, it would seem. Unless you can check out every Mormon priesthood-holder who is performing an ordinance (ordination, baptism, baby blessing, anointing the sick, sealing a marriage, ordaining another man to the priesthood), you cannot be sure that the man performing the ordinance REALLY has the authority, that he has not lost it due to some abuse of it. Remember: if he has lost his priesthood, the ordinances he performs are not valid. And, more devastating: Mormon priesthood holders sometimes are proud of being able to trace their "priesthood lineage" through the man who ordained them, and the men who ordained them, and each man in the "chain of priesthood authority" back to Joseph Smith. If ANY man in that chain had been guilty of "unrighteous dominion" then no man in the chain subsequent to him holds a valid priesthood, since they were ordained by someone who had lost authority.

Actually, the whole idea of the "restoration" being necessary is based on the principle that the early Christian church leaders lost their priesthood through unrighteousness. Why should it be any different in modern times?

Did Brigham or Joseph ever exercise "unrighteous dominion" while asserting their priesthood authority? ("They were only human" is not a valid excuse!) If they did, they lost their authority, and any man who derives his priesthood from them is holding a non-existent authority, according to their own scriptures!

The Mormons to whom I have raised this issue generally reply that the validity of the ordinance does not depend entirely on the character of the man performing the ordinance, but also on the faith and belief of the one receiving it: if the person receiving the ordinance faithfully believes that the ordinance is valid, then God will accord validity to it.

But that idea destroys the entire basis for the claim that the original church lost its authority, or that the rituals of non-Mormon churches are not valid, since surely a young Baptist, being baptized by the Baptist minister, believes that she is being baptized by someone with authority to do it, doesn't she? And all the recipients of ordinances during the centuries when Mormons claim that the church was in apostasy and without authority, surely they also faithfully believed the ordinances were valid, did they not?

Another similar approach by which Mormons try to wiggle out of the problem is to assert (contrary to D&C 121) that priesthood authority is like a driver's license or a contractor's license. Having obtained it (been ordained to the priesthood), its authority is valid until taken away by some official action. But this approach, too, destroys the entire idea of the Great Apostasy, since nobody officially deprived all the Christian priests and bishops of their ordinations during those long centuries after the death of the apostles.

Another problem for Mormons with the idea of the Great Apostasy is that they fail to see how their accusations of corruption and changing doctrine in the history of the Christian churches must also apply to their own church and their own leaders. Actually, the basis for almost all of the many offshoots from Mormonism - from the Reorganized LDS (now "Community of Christ") on the one end to the Fundamentalist LDS on the other end is precisely that claim: that the original LDS church fell into apostasy by changing fundamental doctrines established by the Prophet Joseph Smith and by the subsequent corruption of the church's leaders. (For many Mormons who eventually leave the church, it is often the realization of that more modern apostasy that is the first eye-opening moment.)

The typical Mormon response to this is that Mormons believe in "continuing revelation": that is, the leaders receive inspiration from God to add to or to change doctrines and practices. God reveals his doctrine "line upon line, precept upon precept." However, not all fundamental changes are contained in published revelations. The 1890 rejection of plural marriage (polygamy) was done without publishing the actual revelation from God. Nor was the 1978 change allowing blacks to hold the priesthood. The leaders claimed that it was through revelation, but, unlike Joseph Smith, they could not come up with the Lord's exact words. The many changes in the temple endowment ritual were not even claimed to be by direct revelation. And remember that Joseph Smith said that one of the marks of a false revelation is that it contradicts a previous revelation. (History of the Church 4:581)

Now, if those changes do not indicate apostasy from the 1830 church, then how can the Mormons claim that the changes made in the first centuries of the Christian church were not made because of similar divine instructions?

So Mormons are faced with difficult questions:

Does an individual priesthood holder's authority disappear automatically when he abuses his authority unrighteously?
If NO, then D&C 121 is false doctrine, and there was no apostasy from the church of the Apostles.
If YES, then no Mormon can be certain that the ordinances performed are valid.

Is a church in apostasy when it changes fundamental doctrines?
If NO, then the Primitive church and its successors cannot be considered in apostasy for doing so.
If YES, then the present church is in apostasy for changing the fundamental doctrines established in the 1830 church.

Is a church in apostasy when its leaders act unrighteously exercising "dominion"?
If NO, then there is no justification for giving that as a major reason for the "Great Apostasy."
If YES, then one must ask whether leaders of the LDS church have not, through their unrighteous exercise of dominion, led the church into apostasy.

There are no possible answers to those questions that do not come back and slap the Mormon.

This response was super thorough and informative; thank you for taking the time to write all this out! I really appreciate it!

If you don't believe me, just ask Joseph Smith:

--> "God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I HAVE MORE TO BOAST OF THAN EVER ANY MAN HAD. I AM THE ONLY MAN THAT HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO KEEP A WHOLE CHURCH TOGETHER SINCE THE DAYS OF ADAM.

--> "A large majority of the whole have stood by me. NEITHER PAUL, JOHN, PETER, NOR JESUS EVER DID IT. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS RAN AWAY FROM HIM; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."

(History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409)

To be fair to Jesus, there was the whole crucifixion thing and other distractions that made it difficult for him to competently organize a church that would not fall away into apostasy almost immediately. Plus he was working with incompetent boobs like Peter, James and John.

And, let's be frank, there was no way to restore the church through angels, visions and stuff until Joseph Smith was born.

Seriously, would you trust anyone other than Joseph Smith to know how to get good revelations from a rock in a hat? I wouldn't. Most people wouldn't know how to operate a seer stone in a hat if their life depended on it. But Joseph would plop the stone into the hat and then stuff his face into that hat and start revealing truth with as much aplomb and ease as if he was simply breaking wind after a generous repast of beans, corn and fermented squash. He was the only one who could do it. Anyone else who ever tried got it all wrong, as Joseph Smith himself told them time after time.

So, yeah, sure. Maybe humanity needed to wallow in ignorance and be deprived of the blessings of the true priesthood for about 1,700 years because Jesus wasn't a good organizer and there were no spirits in heaven, other than Joseph Smith's, who would ever be up to the task of incarnating and restoring the fullness of the gospel. It's just the way things are. We have to accept that.

Of course, there was that episode where Joseph Smith's successor (Brigham Young) taught everyone that a guy who wasn't God...was God. Kind of a big oopsie if the prophet and holder of all of the keys of the priesthood doesn't know God from Adam and tells everyone to worship some guy who isn't God.

You'd think that, you know, worshiping Pee Wee Herman instead of God would count as a "falling away" or "apostasy" (if you like fancy words). But apparently it didn't and doesn't. So even though all of the current leaders trace their authority and "keys" and priesthood back to a Prophet who worshiped a different god (who wasn't even a god), Joseph Smith's restoration work was so solid and excellent that it didn't make any difference.

That's how amazing Joseph Smith was. When he restored something, he made it stick and made it count. It was restored so deeply and solidly that you could literally stop worshiping God and start worshiping some other guy who isn't God...and still retain the full and complete Gospel in all its glory with totally true and valid priesthood authority.

It's no wonder they still sing "Praise to the Man" you know! He was that good and great!

It amazes me that JS was such a humble, unassuming man.

Alma started baptizing people without any priesthood authority. He was one of King Noah’s goons, then he just started doing stuff.

The definition of apostasy is
The renunciation of a religion or belief.

According to what I percieve none of the apostles ever renounced Jesus!!

So from whence came the apostasy?

Possibly the fact that no one from the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ showed up at Constantine's third century Nicene Council to tell all those would-be Christians exactly what was what, and to whom to make out their tithing checks.