Where is that pesky priesthood??? (part 1)

The most necessary doctrine for the truthfulness of Mormonism is the “great apostasy”.  Without the great, or general, apostasy that Joseph Smith spoke of in the Joseph Smith History there would be no reason for a restored gospel and certainly no reason for the restored Mormon Church.  No other doctrine of the Mormon Church is more blatantly hyperbolic against the Christian Church today, with the claim that “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

In almost everything that I have read by Mormon writers concerning the great apostasy there is a common theme.  I call this the “pile it on” theme.  Every display of sin, every admonition against sin, every correction of error either moral or doctrinal is all pointed to as evidence of the great apostasy.  Often in their zeal to “pile it on”, Mormon writers fail to distinguish between “end of times” prophesies and supposed revelations that an apostasy will occur, regardless of how this will affect or conflict with other Mormon doctrine.  The problem with the “pile it on” method is that any sign of particular or individual error is pushed beyond its meaning and context to show a general or great apostasy.

Most problematic for Mormons looking for biblical proof of a great apostasy is that they are forced to ignore a whole series of promises from our Lord Jesus Christ to be with his Church until the “the end of the age.” (Matt 28:20) Additionally Mormons, looking for a general apostasy, force their hand into denying the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-19) to the Church after an undetermined point of apostasy was achieved, Christ’s personal promises to the contrary.  Mormons would have us believe that Christ left the Church as an “orphan” to wither and waste away into apostasy shortly after or even during the life of the apostles.  While these broken promises may not pose a problem to Mormons with their low view of the inspiration of Scripture, to confessional Protestants they become one of many proofs for the fabrication of Mormon apostasy claims.  The cognitive dissonance of this Mormon belief is readily apparent when you examine Mormon claims that their priesthood powers will not be taken away, that their prophets cannot lead them astray, or that their subjective personal revelatory power protects them from doctrinal apostasy.

Generally, Mormons are putting the cart before the horse with all of their emphasis at proving prophetic predictions or sings of a general apostasy without first proving a Mormon style Church in the first century AD.  The fact that Mormons are unable to show the presence of priesthood system in the apostolic age is the nail in the Mormon restoration story’s coffin.  The absence of doctrines unique to Mormonism from the records of Church history has not stopped Mormon writers from continuing the “pile it on” approach to a general apostasy and “Rejection of Priesthood Leaders as a Cause of the Great Apostasy” by John A. Tvedtnes is a perfect example of this tack.

Mr. Tvedtnes is a well known Mormon apologist and academic, readers may remember the series of posts that I did regarding an article of his about Martin Luther.   This article has an intriguing title and I expected to see an examination of a Mormon style priesthood system and the loss of this priesthood “authority/power” in the early Church and how this related to the general apostasy story of Mormon theology.  Sadly any attempt to prove the presence of a Mormon priesthood system or even a Mormon ecclesiology is completely missing from Mr. Tvedtnes’ article.  Mr. Tvedtnes continues with the same “pile it on” method of Mormon apostasy writing.  Swamp the reader with quotes both predicting or showing apostasy (both moral and doctrinal) and they will have to conclude that Mormons are correct in their belief of an apostasy.

Mr. Tvedtnes begins with a thesis that without the divine revelation associated with the apostles the early Church was unable to identify or to stop the spread of false doctrines.  He claims that “apostles and prophets” governed the early Church and that there absence directly lead to apostasy in the Church.  In order to prove this one would think that Mr. Tvedtnes would show that apostles were needed in order to detect and work against false doctrines and moral declines in the Church and that no other method was available after the death of the apostles.  One would also think that Mr. Tvedtnes would want to prove that the early Church was unable to detect false teaching, that early “priesthood” holders understood that the missing apostles had created a gap in needed divine revelation, and that the ecclesiology of the early Church was similar (not exactly) to the restored Mormon Church.  Mr. Tvedtnes should also have address why divine revelation would have been a proof against apostasy, biblically this has never been the case.  Mr. Tvednes does not address any of these issues.  Nor does he go beyond claiming that an apostasy took place in his attempt to prove that an apostasy took place.

While “Rejection of Priesthood Leaders as a Cause of the Great Apostasy” is a common Mormon “pile it on” attempt at proving an apostasy and probably intended only to convince Mormons, it is interesting because of the source material that Mr. Tvedtnes uses.  A large amount of material is to be expected in a “pile it on” apologetic, what is not expected it that most of the material used in the article is available online and with a little time quotes can be read in context and the material can be reviewed for general themes to see if they coincide with the claims of the apologist.

I have a theory about restoration style Churches that this article seems to prove.  In 1830 when Joseph Smith was “restoring” Mormonism it was an easy claim to be retuning to the original apostolic beliefs.  Joseph Smith was not alone in his desire to restore the Church to its New Testament origins in the nineteenth century.  Abner Jones (1772-1841), Elias Smith (1769-1846), Barton W. Stone (1772-1844), and the father and son team of, Thomas Campbell (1763-1854) and Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) are some of the better known.  An absence of available material on the early Church left believers susceptible to the claims of these men.  Smith was able to use this absence of available material as a cover for his claims regarding restoring apostolic ecclesiology, beliefs, and priesthood systems.  Today’s Mormon apologists can no longer hide behind the unavailability of material so they regularly use the “pile it on” method.  For years this method has worked because while the existence of early Church writing is commonly known it was not commonly available.  All of this has changed.  With sites like Christian Classics Ethereal Library is not only available but it is so easily accessed that the only reason for the “pile it on” approach to work is a failure to check the sources or to think critically about the material presented.

~ by gundek on July 11, 2009.