Mormons, like other "Restorationist" churches, believe that there was a general apostasy from the church as founded by the Apostles. But that idea is vague in Mormonism - they can't tell you exactly when it began or ended, but they say the original church ultimately lost its authority through sin and changing doctrine (apostasy).
But the doctrines of authority and apostasy are a double-edged sword for Mormonism.
D&C 121:36-37 says that one who holds the priesthood can lose it if it is used to exercise "unrighteous domnion." It happens automatically: "the heavens withdraw." The immediate problem is that no one can be sure, when receiving an ordinance or blessing, that the man performing it has not lost his authority through some prior secret act of "unrighteous dominion." If Elder X has tried to get Sister Y in bed by telling her God commanded him to do it, when he later baptizes Miss Z, is her baptism valid? Mormons who have responded to this problem sometimes suggest that if the baptizee believes faithfully that it's valid, then God will recognize it. But then, by the same reasoning, if the girl baptized by the Baptist preacher believes he has the authority to baptize, her baptism is also recognized as valid by God. And surely all the people who received ordinations and baptisms throughout the last twenty centuries believed in the authority of the priests performing the rites.
Another Mormon explanation is to claim that priesthood authority is like a professional license, and is valid until forfeited in some kind of legal proceeding. This contradicts D&C 121, of course, and, since there is no historical evidence that the entire Christian clergy went through such a proceeding, this argument fails.
Last, the Mormon may argue that the early church lost authority because it changed doctrines and ordinances. OK, but how is the Mormon church different? It is not the same church that it was when first restored in 1830. Through the doctrine of "continual revelation" it has added, subtracted and changed many doctrines and practices. Wouldn't the original Christian church have done the same?
Religion has always been sketchy, but it has become most apparent with advances in Anthropology, Archeology, DNA Analysis, artifacts found, and science. We now know why and how weather occurs, what causes volcanos to erupt, we understand earthquakes, and many other natural occurrences.
All this would tell the logical mind (when applied), that a supreme being would understand all and more that we now know in greater detail and depth.
So if we had a god as described by the religious, then that personage would have to be rational, clear, and organized. Thus, there would be one religion, we would know who God was, and the rules would be clear and concise.
So in my opinion, even trying to understand and point out the numerous contradictions generated by religion, will achieve only a lesson in futility. Since religion in general was created by a bunch of individuals who had absolutely no clue that the Sun is nothing but a ball of hot plasma when it was considered a God for thousands of years. And today, religion still denies the incredibly obvious, and as an example, some will say that God planted dinosaur bones on the planet to test our faith.
You just cannot argue with them, thus a lesson in futility. So for me I hold to agnostic, waiting for someone to prove to me that the Sun is not a hot ball of plasma and that God is testing my faith by planting dinosaur bones in various places.
Maybe people automatically know by "The Spirit" if somebody has exercised unrighteousness dominion, and if they claim to believe the ordinance was authentic, they are lying. So all those people who accepted false ordinances as true knew they were not really true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2022 02:14PM by behindcurtain.