Restoration Best Evidence of Apostasy?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, it's not circular whether or not anybody else shares my conviction of the Restoration.

To put the situation in logical terms, my argument may or may not be sound, but it is certainly valid.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

[_Kevin Graham]

It is logically defensible

Then illustrate a logical defense. Most of the restoration defense begs too many questions to be taken seriously. And even if we concede that Joseph Smith restored the Book of Mormon, to say everything else that follows must also be a "restoration," is a non sequitur.

This is what disappoints me with current Mormon apologetic tactics. Just dumb everything down to the simplest thing and then insist that if that is true, then the rest is true too. Of course, it is a non sequitur, but they don't tell you that. This is the standard missionary tactic as taught at the MTC and it essentially shuts down the brain. The human brain naturally wants to think critically and ask challenging questions, but the LDS instruction is to stick with the basic of basics, and the rest is just "details" that shouldn't be dwelt upon. You can kick the tires of a car, or a house, or a time-share, but you can't kick the tires of Mormonism.

All you have to do is pray about the basic of basics, and as long as the answer based in emotion (not logic) comes in the affirmative, the rest is just details. It doesn't matter if any of the subsequent details contradict the fundamental principal you already prayed about. Just check your brain at the door. This is what LDS scholars/apologists want.

[_Kevin Graham]

Dan is right. The argument is valid. But then again, the argument that the Moon is made of cheese is also valid. What we're looking for, however, are sound arguments with reasonable cause for acceptance. Most of the stuff Joseph Smith claimed to have "restored" seems superfluous and/or based on a flawed understanding of the Bible based on biblical scholarship. Other stuff he snagged from the context and made mountains from molehills (i.e. baptism for the dead, the distinction between Holy Ghost/Spirit) pretending they were "lost" truths to begin with, which just begs the question.

We're talking about the same guy who misunderstood Rev 1:6 to mean God the Father has a Father. This interpretation was only possible with the ambiguous King James rendering. But he was wrong, as subsequent scholarship has proved. This is proof positive that Joseph Smith wasn't a true prophet. He decalred a new doctrine based on an erroenous translationan manage of the scripture. The world had managed this without folks like Smith pretending to haver special authority to speak for God. But this isn't the only example of this. He totally botched the "Elias" scripture too.

[_Tad]

What are the proofs of the Apostasy? At the most basic level, I would say the loss of apostolic succession.

What are the proofs of the Restoration? Again, at the most basic level, I would say the appearance of new apostles and their continued succession.

It completely depends on the faith of the individuals accepting the apostles as representatives of Christ. To assert complete knowledge of the Restoration you still have to rely on your personal testimony. If you go beyond that I would like to know the basis for that knowledge.

[_Aristotle Smith]

What are the proofs of the Apostasy? At the most basic level, I would say the loss of apostolic succession.

The problem is all of the churches which do claim an apostolic succession (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican).

What are the proofs of the Restoration? Again, at the most basic level, I would say the appearance of new apostles and their continued succession.

What does one then make of the Kirtland era when the majority of the quorum of the 12 left the church? In that case what you are arguing for is loyalty to the organization as being the deciding factor, not a succession of apostles.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Excommunicated in 1838 were:

Thomas B. Marsh
Luke S. Johnson
John F. Boynton
Lyman E. Johnson

Since they were replaced, it’s not entirely clear how their excommunications argue against apostolic succession. (At least two of them subsequently returned to the Church, though not to their positions in the Twelve.) Several popes were removed from office and replaced, yet this is generally regarded as consistent with Roman Catholic understandings of apostolic succession.

David W. Patten was killed in 1838, but he was in full fellowship at the time he was killed and it’s not obvious how his death would count against apostolic succession—particularly since he was replaced. In the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox lines of apostolic succession, for example, people also die and are replaced. That’s why it's called “apostolic succession.”

Orson Hyde was disfellowshipped in 1838, but not excommunicated, and it’s not absolutely clear that he was actually, technically, removed from the Twelve.

Remaining alive and faithful and in unambiguous full fellowship through the Kirtland period were:

Brigham Young
Heber C. Kimball
Parley P. Pratt
William Smith
Orson Pratt
John E. Page

That’s six of the Twelve.

[Guest]

What are the proofs of the Apostasy? At the most basic level, I would say the loss of apostolic succession.

The problem is all of the churches which do claim an apostolic succession (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican).

The first Christians themselves did not view the authority to preach the gospel, govern the church, and administer the sacraments as having vanished from the earth with the death of the original 12 apostles. (Now the terminology of apostle/bishop/elder is another issue, the following deals with the authority to govern the church not with what names we use for those who govern). Here's one very early example of the claim to apostolic succession from the 2nd century. Many other such examples exist in early Christian writings as well:

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from ‘Against Heresies’ (2nd century):

‘It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.’

[_Aristotle Smith]

That’s six of the Twelve.

Last time I consulted my calculator, that's still not sufficient to say the majority of the Qof12 remained faithful.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Sorry, I hit submit before I finished typing.

My overarching point is that there is no clear cut definition of what "loss of apostolic succession" would mean. The Kirtland era substantially muddies the waters. If the LDS want to claim that it's clear enough to them that there was an apostolic succession, that's fine by me. The charitable thing to do would be to return the favor to churches who also claim an apostolic succession.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That’s six of the Twelve.

Last time I consulted my calculator, that's still not sufficient to say the majority of the Qof12 remained faithful.

You've forgotten David W. Patten, who, it is true, died in 1838 -- but died in full fellowship and was properly replaced.

That's seven of the Twelve, which is a clear majority.

And the case of Orson Hyde is somewhat ambiguous, so one could figure it as seven of eleven, or even as 7.5 of twelve.

Any way you look at it, a clear majority.

And, remember, it was your claim ("the majority of the quorum of the 12 left the church") to which I was responding -- a claim that is manifestly untrue (unless you want to declare that David Patten "left the church" by dying).