Talk:Great Apostasy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dates? Events?

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

It's rather convenient that there are no dates as establishing a continuity of belief before and after such a date would pretty much torpedo the whole fallacy of a great apostasy. But setting an early date, when surviving records are scarce, brings up another problem. By what authority was the biblical canon established? Why is the Didache not in the Bible? Why were the deuterocanonical books included? An apostate Church would have no such teaching authority. Without authority there is no canon and therefore the Bible is useless.

TMLutas 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to establish a definitive date, as there is no true authoritative organization here. The "Church" is far from an organized buerocracy, with Catholocism and Protestantism unlikely to agree on such a thing, and no real way to determine universal acceptance among Protestants, as they have no figurehead equivalent to the Catholic Pope.

--207.242.93.10 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)::

---

Mkmcconn stated: "It is part of Mormon propaganda that Protestants have a doctrine of a "great apostasy"."

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

Rmhermen asked "Which denominations use this actual term?[:the Great Apostasy]"

Mormon leaders started to use that phrase beginning around 1850s. I don't think the earliest Mormon leaders, like Joseph Smith, ever used that phrase. Before 1850s they used various phrases to resort to an apostasy-at-large, but the "Great Apostasy" phrase started to become normative among Mormons sometime after 1850s. The concept would generally be normative among resorationist churches since there is no point in having a restoration if there has been no apostasy. Among restorationists, I think the phrase is normative among JWs and probably Church of Christ and Seventh Day Adventists, but I doubt it is normative among the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Similarly there is no point in having a reformation if there was not apostasy to a certain degree, but not so far as to make it necessary to have a restoration rather than merely a reformation. B

Wesley said and asked: "The continuity in [the] teaching and liturgy [of the popes and patriarchs] 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?"

Yes, historical evidence is irreplaceable to Mormonism, but I don't think most Mormons take an interest in whether their is historical continuity (of teaching and liturgy) or not among the popes/patriarchs unless the more pertinent issue is clearly and affirmatively demonstrated of whether their is continuity between the apostle and his supposed-successor-pope/patriarch. Another factor is that in Mormonism, bishops do not have authority to pronounce or otherwise develop doctrine and liturgy--it is out of their jurisdiction to do so; their job is to keep local congregations in line with the doctrine and liturgy set out by their superiors, the apostles. So, even if there were evidence of a particular doctrine or liturgy from a supposed successor (who was not an original apostle or who did not appear to have original-apostle-like authority), it would have to be shown either that the authority to propound it had been given to the successor, or that the successor was reiterating it from someone who (like an apostle) did have authority to propound it. As it stands, the historical evidence does not clearly show that. If you have a particular historical document or documents in mind that you'd like me to look at and offer a Mormon view on the document(s), please print the text, link me to the site, send it to me by email or whatever, and I'll take a look. B

Thank you, your responses are enlightening. According to tradition, St. John was the last of the twelve original apostles to die and the only one (I think) who was not martyred; he died an old man very early in the second century. Two of his disciples were Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, was a disciple of Polycarp. You can find some introductory notes about them plus English translations of their writings at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm. Tradition also lists Timothy and Titus as bishops, to whom Paul addressed his pastoral epistles, and the Lazarus whom Christ raised from the dead (see John 11). It sounds like Mormonism calls apostle what Eastern Orthodoxy calls bishop, as far as level of authority goes; in Eastern Orthodoxy, apostle is a role like missionary or evangelist, but it isn't an ordained rank of the clergy as it appears to be in Mormonism. Ignatius of Antioch writes extensively about the authority of a bishop. It requires either two or three bishops to ordain a new bishop (I can never remember which), and patriarchs must have the consensus of all the bishops they serve. If the Mormon view of this early period is correct, then the original apostles simply failed to ordain or appoint any successors, perhaps finding none worthy of it? (Incidentally, I am hoping that some of this discussion will be worth editing for inclusion in the article.) Wesley 16:39 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wesley, that's a great link. Thanks. There's a lifetime of reading there. I would like to read Ignatius' writings on the authority of a bishop, but couldn't quickly find any writings on that topic using a search at that site. If you can help, I'd appreciate it. Because Mormonism doesn't really provide a detailed theory regarding the supposed lack-of-apostolic-succession, I am left to wonder too why, under the Mormon view, the apostles did not appoint successors: were they under commandment not to? did they think they were not supposed to? did it not occur to them? did they think it was pointless? did they not have opportunities to gather together as a body to appoint successors? were there none worthy/qualified? B

Surely,this is a question that only Mormons can answer, which cannot possibly be answered from history - since history according to the Mormons is a very different thing than history for the rest of us. According to history as the rest of us understand it, it is meaningless to talk about Apostles appointing successor Apostles. They appointed bishops, to watch over the churches; and when disagreements arose,they prayerfully discussed what should be done in councils. This was the form of government established by the Apostles, according to the book of Acts. Mkmcconn 20:46 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Mkmcconn, only Mormons could answer this question left open in its theology, but they would be open to excluding possibities that historical evidence persuasively shows should be excluded. There are a number of unanswered questions in Mormon theology as are there in other theologies. BTW, I like your new opening on this article. B

Thank you. Now that we're friends, would you mind signing your posts?  :-) It can be done by adding ~~~ (three tildes) to the end. If you type four tildes together (~~~) it will datestamp your signature. You'll still be anonymous, if that's what you prefer, but your comments will be attributed to you (though nameless) instead of to nobody, and it will improve the readability of these discussions. Mkmcconn 00:29 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pressuring me to come out in the open, huh. Ok. B

To answer your question, one place that Ignatius speaks of the roles of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons is in his Epistle to the Ephesians, particularly chapters IV, V, VI, and XX. You also see many references to the Eucharist there. It's at the same site at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499. This is one of the letters Ignatius wrote after his arrest, while being transported to Rome to be executed. In chapter XI, he also mentions that the Christians in Ephesus "have always been of the same mind with the apostles through the power of Jesus Christ." Note that although he mentions the apostles in this letter, it is the bishops, presbyters and deacons to whom he asks them to be subject. To find more references, you may need to open each epistle and use your browser's "find" command to find occurrences of "bishop" on that page; at least that's what seems to work best for me on that site. Happy reading! Wesley 22:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I want to come back to the issue of what the Mormon view of historical evidence is in regard to the continuation of the early Christian church. While there may be some Mormon scholars out there who have touched on various historical records around and continuing shortly after the time of the Bible, there is no official LDS church comments on these records...or rather, there is not a line by line commentary...at most maybe just a few comments about the records in general. But under the view of confirmation holism in the philosophy of science, this gap presents no problem. Presuming the validity of confirmation holism, there would be little problem of reconciling the historical evidence to fit Mormonism should intelligent Mormons put their minds to it. What theories they would develop around each record, I cannot say, but under the view on confirmatin holism, it should be possible. B 23:20 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the theory of confirmation holism was intended to apply to historical records; it's more related to metaphysics. You seem to be using it as a license to pretend that one series of events happened when the available records from that time indicate something quite different, and to claim that both "interpretations" of history are equally valid. Wesley 06:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The theory of confirmation holism has broad implications for many disciplines including historical records. Another way of stating the underlying premise of confirmation holism is that there is never sufficient evidence to conclusively determine the validity of a theory. This premise extends beyond mere ontological theories. I do not claim both interpretations of history are valid, in the sense of true, but that they are credible. The point is that the available records only provide a partial picture of history...and even massive amounts of records would only amount to a small piece of a big historical puzzle. If it were possible to see the entire picture, maybe we could be certain of how to understand all the different pieces of the puzzle. At this point, the available records paint a particular point of view, but how that point of view fits in with the big picture is not yet determined. Another way of putting it is that the available records do not exclude the possibility of alternate, credible (and perhaps true) interpretations of history...not yet any way. Maybe falsificationism plays a roll here too. *B 18:34, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

What this sounds like is an argument that, lack of evidence sufficient to prove something beyond reasonable challenge makes all alternatives equally credible, no matter how unreasonable; and that is not the case. Mkmcconn 19:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, using an unqualified standard of "reasonableness" is a poor standard; it is sort of like using a standard of "objectivity"...as in "an objective point of view"...an "objective point of view" is a myth. I don't think Quine would characterize the problem as a matter of lack of evidence; I think, Quine means that no matter how much evidence is amassed, no theory is uniquely determined by the evidence. So, what standard to use? In terms of picking between competing scientific theories, Quine would turn to an instrumentalist standard: which theory better predicts future experience. When it comes to history, it is less clear what standard to apply to pick between competing interpretations of history. I refer to falsificationism above as a possible standard for conclusively excluding a suspect interpretation, but I'm not sure it really helps avoid the problem presented by confirmation holism. Here is a Quine quote from his Two Dogmas of Empricismthat helps spell out the implications of his theory:

"As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience."

While, you may find it hard to swallow that despite the evidence the Catholic version of history is no more nor less credible than the Mormon version, I think Quine would agree that that is the case...there is not a clear demarcation criteria for competing interpretations of history as there is for scientific theories. *B 00:34, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Being a Scot by ancestry, I'm told that I'm expected to shout "what piffle!" when I'm confronted with something so revolting to common sense, and destructive of any appreciation of the past. This much, at least, is testable and so far as it is provable, it is proven: because, that is my reaction. Mkmcconn 00:43, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've got some Scot in me too (Paisley), but I'm mostly of English descent (Edgar). "Common sense" is a poor standard too. I prefer the term "good sense", but I'm not sure either term is very meaningful although people regularly use the term, "common sense". What one person appreciates as the past, another considers devotion to a fiction; what one finds destructive of the past, another sees as the exposing of a fiction. I'm not sure what you mean by "This much"..."This much" = what? I would suggest that the presumption that any empirical proposition can ever be (conclusively) proven is a false. For discussions sake, are you unconvinced by Quine's onotological relativity, or my reading and application of his theory?...or maybe you just can't quite put your finger on it yet. *B 01:23, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the suggestion that knowledge of the past is not knowledge; and if any knowledge existed, it can be immediately destroyed by any intentional lie. "This much" is how Scots are supposed to react to attacks on common sense. Quine's view applied to history, as I've so far understood it, makes me feel irritable and sick. Mkmcconn 01:40, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some might consider that irritability and sickness as a symptom or precondition to Socratic aporia. *B 03:03, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

If I understand your meaning, it's an apt metaphor. Yes, this line of argument leaves me no path, no opening, nothing to say - because it makes all discussion with someone who adopts this view seem to be meaningless. It is successful (if that is your aim) in finding the perfect way to shut up a believer in the meaningfulness of history, and the perfect argument for a solipsistic carelessness about the truth concerning what has happened, even in living memory. It is a good argument for bad belief. Mkmcconn 05:58, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure by what you mean by knowledge. The only sense of knowledge that has much meaning to me (besides know-how) is the philosophical definition of it; i.e., knowledge = justified, true belief. Many (maybe most) philosophers think that there is missing element in the philosophical definition of knowledge because of the Gettier problem; i.e., knowledge = a justified, true belief + [some yet unexplicated element]. But personally I think the Gettier problem is flawed and that knowledge is merely true belief and that the element of justification only measures the strength of knowledge on a spectrum from strong knowledge on one end to weak knowledge at the other end. To analytic philosophers, "knowledge" is not some abstract ontological entity...there is not a scientific or historical "body of knowledge"...knowledge is a property attributable to individuals. A lie does not destroy knowledge. If A believes Z and Z is true, then A knows Z regardless of whether B believes (not Z). If B believes (not Z) and (not Z) is false, by definition B never knows Z. I think Quine's theory only affects the justification element of knowledge. That is, I think Quine's theory implies that strong knowledge is unattainable because the evidence never gives rise to conclusive justification nor conclusive proof. Confirmation holism does not imply that knowledge of the past is not knowledge; what the theory implies is that it is not possible to determine with certainty what is knowledge. Philosophers since Socrates have asked the epistemological question how does a person know that he knows? So far Quine has formulated the most sophisticated answer as to why a person can't know with conclusively certainty that he knows. This is not to say that a person cannot know anything (as I state above if A believes Z and Z is true, then A knows Z), but proving that A knows Z, that is, conclusively proving that Z is true is an elusive hope. *B 02:42, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a conversation Gregory of Nyssa reports having in a dream with his then departed older sister Macrina. In the dialogue, Gregory questions the resurrection of the dead and raises a number of practical objections to it, such as whether old men will be resurrected in their old decrepit bodies, and infants in their infant bodies, and many similar problems. In response, Macrina smiled gently and said it was like listening to a group of men who had heard of sunshine but never seen it, sit around arguing about what sunshine was like, speculating and debating throughout the night. When dawn came and they saw the sun shine forth, they together said "Oh! Of course!"

More to the point of this article, perhaps it would suffice to say that the historical record now available to us fails to support the sort of apostasy the LDS church assumes, but the LDS and its members believe in the Great Apostasy because they believe what Joseph Smith Jr. reports concerning the various visions and revelations he received? Wesley 04:06, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I've offered some responses to Protestant claims under the Catholic/Orthodox heading at the end, but I fear I may be too argumentative/POV, and the format that's evolving may not be the best. I simply felt that some of the "Claims" subheadings earlier deserved some sort of response; it could probably be better done though. Suggestions for improvement are more than welcome. Thanks. Wesley 05:13, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good interaction, Wesley. Mkmcconn 05:45, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree completely. There is no need for catholic and orthodox counterclaims.

---

Randy and Wesley (and whoever), would you give some suggestions for better headings than "claim:..."? They strike me as un-encyclopedically worded, long and awkward (although I wrote them). Mkmcconn 06:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to do with the headings; taking off the "Claim" is good. I personally don't like the "synagogue of Satan" subheading, partly because that's only one small part of the section it labels, partly because it makes me think of things like "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" (attributing the work of God to Satan), and I think that's just my own baggage.

I would like to try keep the Protestant claims in the appropriate Protestant section, and the Catholic/Orthodox claims in their section. Unless someone thinks that structure should be revisited; there might be a better organizational scheme. Wesley 17:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have tried to reword the captions, making them slightly briefer, perhaps slightly less provocative, and getting rid of Satan and his synagogue. No doubt further improvements will occur to someone. -- Smerdis of Tlo:n 01:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

This entry seems apologetic and quite slanted in POV.

I have come across few Wikipedia articles that are as shameless as this one. POV abounds, assertions about God are accepted as proven facts, and apologism without citation is indeed the backbone of the article.

Attempting rework to remove some of the most blatant and obvious POV.

Sukiari (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

lack of bias, very good!

Just wanted to say I thought the article as it is now provides a very good, unbiased view of both main sides (in modern days, mainly more fundamentalist Protestants with one extreme of belief in support of the Great Apostasy and the other side mainly being the Catholic Church and it's self-defense) as well as moderates (mostly evangelical Protestants who believe the Catholic Chruch is still legitmate but question infalibility and believe it has on certain issues fallen into error). Each section simply explained each main side and its main points, without any bias or sense that one side is more right than the other. [And, for clarification, by bias I mean outside bias. For example, if the Catholic Church is asked its position on this subject, its answer will have a Catholic bias, but it is supposed to, because it is their point of view. The important thing is that the written explination for any denomination's side has no influence from another side.] I was expecting to find some overall bias, having just read many articles about Christianity in general, in which would be edited by Catholics and have a Catholic slant to the whole article and then edited by Protestants and have a Protestant slant, etc. But this article has no overall slant; I only wish other articles involving Christian theology were like this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.100.127 (talk • contribs) .

Disagree! The issues raised before still remain. It also contains discussions that seems to be irrelevant, as regards the topic of the article, namely Descent into true apostasy, which seems to be another apologetic rambling without source and story logic that could be understood by anyone else than the adherent of just that apologetic rambling. I'm just thinking about what would make this article look like OK, just now it's simply an incoherent spaghetti. Said: Rursus ☻ 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern Catholic Understanding of the 'Great Apostasy

I suggest that the Catholic understanding of the Church's final trial as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, 675)[1] be added to the Catholic section of this article. Essentially, the Roman Catholic Church believes that there will be a final trial preceding Christ's second coming that will offer humanity peace in exchange for apostasy from the truth. This would represent a Catholic understanding of the Great Apostasy. --Dreas 18:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good one. Deserves its own section, however, since the current one is just an apology against accusations from "small christians". The Great Apostasy is one religious concept with various interpretations, but it is also often used as a sect memento used for accusations and isolations. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Propaganda

I rank myself as a casual reader of this article. Jehovah's Witnesses has been my family's religion since the Bible Student days of Charles Taze Russell. When I was a college student, I avoided writing papers concerning strong Witness beliefs. My views of the Witnesses prevented me from neutral academic work. This article is not neutral in tone. Some detachment from the topic might be an improvement. Were this not wikipedia, I would never pay for the content. Sitting in my home or walking down the block, I could receive the same biased info for free.75Janice (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Total mess, reads more like an argument...

This article is virtually unreadable, and full of unsourced information from multiple biased POVs. It seems like this was pretty much abandoned due to the impossibility of regulating it. This needs to have the "reset" button hit, and be locked down from casual editing. Unless an individual has a background in religious history, such as a degree in a history field they should not be editing it based on stuff they found on the internet and heard in church.

Just seems like the vast majority of editing has been done by people with a stake in the argument. Cabazap (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The dangers of theology

I have been reviewing the "The dangers of theology" for a bit and I am of the opinion that this section needs either a seriously extensive rewrite, or it needs to be removed. There are some very interesting claims with no citations whatsoever, weasel words, the POV is very biased, and just sub-par writing. I am personally for removing the section if there are no improvements made on it. What does everyone else think? W7jkt (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally disagree with discarding stuff; it's not great but there is some idea that should be kept there. It's written from the POV of people who believe there was a great apostasy; that definitely needs work. This whole article is in need of more careful research and sourcing. The Great Apostasy by Mormon author James E Talmage is in the public domain (?), so is free to read on google books. it's mentioned in the "further reading" section but never referenced; it should be a good source for explaining, if nothing else, the LDS view of the great apostasy. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All sections refimprove

I've been working on this for a bit, and I've added quite a few citations. As I am a Mormon, most of my additions have been to the LDS section, simply because that is what I know. What I would like to see is an entire article refimprove for every section so that every paragraph has at least one reference. I can't do this by myself, but the thought that came to mind was that everyone who has any kind of knowledge or experience in the various sections to find references for the claims in that section. This would do wonders for this article in making it more inline with WP policies. It is just unacceptable for an article such as this to have so few citations. I will continue to do my best, but again, the other sections are not in my particular scope of knowledge. Regards, W7jkt (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation in 1517.

There is a picture of John Calvin in this article with the caption "John Calvin started the Protestant Reformation in 1536 AD". That is not true. The Protestant Reformation was started by Martin Luther in 1517. Someone should change the caption to make it accurate. 198.174.0.30 (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Jessica

Or just take out the photo.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybobby87 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a mess that needs fixing.

There are whole sections that are opinion based with no evidence of reality. No references, nothing affirming what is written. This article needs a lot of stuff taken out of it. Wikipedia states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Lots of this is not and should be removed. --Billybobby87 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since February 2011. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2010. It may contain original research. Tagged since March 2010. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since December 2007.

--Billybobby87 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute of newly added material

There are two paragraphs of material recently added to the Jehovah's Witness section that I dispute. They are these:

Here is an example of the apostasy: Witnesses believe that the only celebration that Christians are commanded to observe is the Lord’s Evening Meal (which is described in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Because of the idolatrous practices associated with Roman festivals, early Christians did not share in them. For this reason third-century pagans reproached Christians, saying: "You do not visit exhibitions; you have no concern in public displays; you reject the public banquets, and abhor the sacred contests." Pagans, on the other hand, bragged: "We worship the gods with cheerfulness, with feasts, songs and games."

By the middle of the fourth century, the grumbling subsided. How so? As more and more counterfeit Christians crept into the fold, apostate ideas multiplied. The Christians became more and more accepted, and before long, the Christians had as many annual festivals as the pagans themselves.

The first paragraph appears to give specific quotes, but omits the source of these quotes. The source should be available since it was quoted from, and should be referenced here both to show that the quotes aren't fabricated, and to allow the reader to further research this area.

The second paragraph appears to be POV speculation, or possibly personal research. Who asserts that "counterfeit Christians crept into the fold,", or that "Christians had as many annual festivals as the pagans themselves?" Is there any quantitative evidence at all for the latter claim? Did the pagans have even half as many fasting days as the Christians did to go with their festivals? By contrast, many of John Chrysostom's sermons in the latter part of the fourth century decried excessive secular celebrations, theater, and other carrying on, to such an extent that he was exiled by the Emperor for criticizing the royal court. He also happened to be an outspoken proponent of the Trinity and opponent of Arianism.

Without some substantiation or revision, both paragraphs stand a good chance being deleted. But I thought it most polite to bring up the subject here first. Wesley 03:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Answer to the Dispute Concerning the Added Paragraphs

I agree. The sources should be given. They are from a dialogue entitled Octavius by Minucius Felix as found in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA; 1956, edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, Ch. XII.

"Counterfeit Christians crept into the fold" is a sentence used in discussing the beliefs of Jehovahs' Witnesses. They believe that the congregation can be likened to a fold. (John 10:16) They also believe that this is a historical fact. It is up to other people to dispute it, and to do it elsewhere, in a place discussing their personal beliefs contra Jehovah's Witnesses. True, even Jehovah's Witnesses agree that this apostasy did not happen all at once and that through history, people have held to ideas and interpretations close or sometimes very close to their beliefs while still holding on to some beliefs denounced by the Witnesses.

--Porthos 20:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a reference worth adding. In case anyone else is interested, I found a copy of Octavius online at: [2]. It appears to be a second or third century document, depending on whether Octavius borrowed from Tertullian or Tertullian borrowed from Octavius. (As an aside, I find it ironic that the same Ch. XII also mentions the Christians' adoration of the cross, something I thought Jehovah's Witnesses believed only came much later?)

As for the second paragraph, thanks for clarifying that it describes the speculations of Jehovah's Witnesses. Wesley 05:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Reply to Wesley Concerning Jehovah's Witnesses and the Great Apostasy and the Cross

In fact, sir, you're wrong. These speculations are mine entirely. They are not even speculations. They are fact. This is in fact what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, which is what we are explaining here and also perhaps why, isn't it?

• As for the source: The quote is from early 3rd century.
• (As for the cross, in ch. XXIX, you will find the following sentence: "Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for." On the writings of Minucius Felix concerning the cross, it is valuable to read The Non-Christian Cross by John Denham Parsons, 1896, chapter II, "The Evidence of Minucius Felix." It is also available as a part of the Gutenberg project here. As for when Jehovah's Witnesses when claim the cross became a symbol of the church, it was when Constantine made the church his religion - granted that it did not become State Religion of the Roman Empire until the end of the reign of Theodosius I. (The Watchtower 8/15 1987, page 21; 7/1 1993, page 9.) In that article they explain that the crucifix as an object of worship was something that developed over time, an evolution.)--Porthos 20:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If these are your personal speculations, then they would have to be removed according to the no original research policy. But if this what Jehovah's Witnesses believe in general, then the article should attribute it to them, or to the Watchtower or whatever published material makes the assertions. Regarding the cross, of course he denied worshipping the cross. Christians today still deny that we worship the cross; in fact we forbid its worship, in keeping with the Seventh Ecumenical Council as well as the commandments against idolatry. Second century writings do refer to the cross as a symbol of Christianity, or of Christ's victory, of our salvation, or in similar ways. I think that I Clement has some good examples of this usage, among others. Wesley 03:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a play on words, if you didn't get that. I am very familiar with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, and what I've writte is based on research that is factual. The cross wasn't a very good symbol of Christianity. It was borrowed from earlier religions Jehovah's Witnesses believe were detestable to God. The shape of the "stauros" used to execute Christ was probably not cross-like, and hence the use of the cross as a symbol of so called Christian worship came from somewhere else. Also, there is no need for any such symbol. And, would you like people to remember the death of your son or the meaning of his life, if he were to be executed, by having a replica of the weapon of execution hanging around their necks? Doesn't it sound a bit gross to you? Besides, Jesus gave clear commands on just how his life and death ought to be remembered. Also, concerning this kind of veneration or devotion even a Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The early Christians, influenced by the Old Testament prohibition of graven images, were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord’s Passion." (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume IV, p. 486)

Besides, the Babylonian God Tammuz apparently had the cross as a symbol, and it seems the use of this symbol was a "great abomination" and a very detestable thing to God. (Ezekiel 8:13, 14) It was phallic in its nature. (Ezekiel 8:17)

(Besides, are you talking about Clement of Rome or of Alexandria?)

--Porthos 14:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the book "First Clement," attributed to Clement of Rome. Jesus said, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) Paul called the message of the cross "foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18) We can both quote verses back and forth all day without convincing each other, as far as that goes. But again, I have no objection to including JW's beliefs provided they are cited as such. Wesley 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"and take up his cross, and follow Me." - What it means here to suffer in the similar way as Jesus did. Few words before it reads "let him deny himself" which should mean a dedication like Christ did to do the work of his father (John 6:38). In the next line Jesus said "and take up his cross" where he didn't say "take up MY cross", it means the individuals suffering for the work Christ has entrusted on each on of us (Mark 13:10-13). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.92.129.46 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Boy I'm not even going to touch this page.

• • Boy I'm not even going to touch this page. --Tlarson 09:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Constantine merging paganism with Christianity

Constantine labored at this time untiringly to unite the worshipers of the old and the new into one religion. All his laws and contrivances are aimed at promoting this amalgamation of religions. He would by all lawful and peaceable means melt together a purified heathenism and a moderated Christianity . . . Of all his blending and melting together of Christianity and heathenism, none is more easy to see through than this making of his Sunday law: The Christians worshiped their Christ, the heathen their Sun-god . . . [so they should now be combined."--H.G. Heggtveit, "illustreret Kirkehistorie," 1895, p. 202.

Constantine worshipped all the gods especially Apollo the god of the sun. He held the title Pontifex Maximus which was the title of the high priest of paganism.Then we have the following in the first Sunday Law enacted by Emperor Constantine:

"On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost." (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].) Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1.

"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D."--"Chamber's Encyclopedia," article, "Sabbath."

Here is the first Sunday Law in history, a legal enactment by Constantine 1 (reigned 306-331): "On the Venerable Day of the Sun ["venerabili die Solis"--the sacred day of the Sun] let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost--Given the 7th day of March, [A.D. 321], Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time."--The First Sunday Law of Constantine 1, in "Codex Justinianus," lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Phillip Schaff "History of the Christian Church," Vol. 3, p. 380.

"This [Constantine's Sunday decree of March, 321] is the 'parent' Sunday law making it a day of rest and release from labor. For from that time to the present there have been decrees about the observance of Sunday which have profoundly influenced European and American society. When the Church became a part of State under the Christian emperors, Sunday observance was enforced by civil statutes, and later when the Empire was past, the Church, in the hands of the papacy, enforced it by ecclesiastical and also by civil enactments."--Walter W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 261. "Constantine's decree marked the beginning of a long, though intermittent series of imperial decrees in support of Sunday rest."-- Vincent J. Kelly, "Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations," 1943, p. 29.

Transition from Pagan to Christian [p. 122] This legislation by Constantine probably bore no relation to Christianity; it appears, on the contrary, that the emperor, in his capacity of Pontifex Maximus, was only adding the day of the Sun, the worship of which was then firmly [p. 123] established in the Roman Empire, to the other ferial days of the sacred calendar… [p. 270] What began, however, as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labour on Sunday. Source: Hutton Webster, Rest Days, pp. 122, 123, 270. Copyright 1916 by The Macmillan Company, New York. Yes, the title Pontifex Maximus is pagan, derived from the Sun worshipping Roman Empire, and the source of the papal title of Pontiff.

Pagan Festivals and Church Policy The Church made a sacred day of Sunday … largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance. Source: Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 145. Copyright 1928 by G. p. Putnam’s Sons, New York.Simbagraphix (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Theological Dangers section remains unencyclopedic, POV.

Hey, so it's been several years since the "Theological Dangers" section was first tagged as lacking in neutrality and it is still headed by a disputed neutrality banner. The section remains highly POV and unencyclopedic. It is also almost completely unsourced. Unless someone objects in the coming week or so, I'll go ahead and delete the "Theological Dangers" section. I'm giving it a week because I'm reluctant to delete content without discussion. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as no on has objected, I'm going to remove the "Theological Dangers" section, which I still believe to be POV and unencyclopedic. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Page too long?

A number of recent edits have resulted in mass deletions of the text at the bottom of the page. These typically leave a fragment in mid-sentence, which makes me doubt it's intentional vandalism. Perhaps it is time to spin off the ending of the page, the Roman Catholic / Orthodox material, to a page of its own? Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the more neutral approach would be to create separate pages for each of the views presented (under major headings). This page would be reduced to a brief and general overview, substantially the same as the present introduction, and the major headings would become a list of links to the supporting pages. Mkmcconn — \

It is too bad that this browser limitation must be accomodated. It is a shame that "too long to edit" translates into , "too much information to be included in the article". The balance and completeness of the articles is compromised. And, there doesn't appear to be a completely reliable way to work around it. Editors can be encouraged to work by section; but, for edits like the previous one, which re-organized the main headings alphabetically, the editor needed to have access to the whole article. Section-editing would have been too complex a procedure. It really is too bad. Mkmcconn — 18:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Far too long and far too blatant in its biased nature. This is pure, unadulterated propaganda written by the more extreme sorts of Protestant who hold these widely ridiculed views. The article gives a WILDLY inflated sense of how popular these militantly ahistorical notions really are. It is the universal consensus of secular (and therefore impartial) scholars that the early Christian church did not change its dogma in any drastic way with the Edict of Milan. The proto-orthodox Church fathers of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Centuries are all kept and revered by all Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Constantine was not a theologian, ecclesiastical writer, or any sort of bishop, and therefore he had no authority to rewrite or fabricate new Church dogma, nor to stricken any established doctrine which he didn't like. The Church's devotion to Mary, its understanding of the eucharist, its liturgical use of ikons, and everything else that SDAs and JWs loathe so ardently was all firmly in place before Constantine's (putative) conversion. Trilobright (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

There has been a series of edits here and here that added certain content concerning Catholic beliefs and liturgy. There are two problems with these edits: first, they are not citing reliable sources, but rather websites which promote certain views; and second, they are undue weight, making it appear that Protestants in general view Catholics as idol-worshipers etc. In an edit yesterday, I left two of the dodgy refs (and even expanded them from bare urls), on the basis that they were harmless enough on their own, but peppering them throughout the section and the lead, as well as deleting my note that Mary is not worshiped in the Catholic Church, is unacceptable. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Will continue to will add more reliable sourcesSimbagraphix (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether you meant "more sources that are reliable" or "sources that are more reliable", but these are neither. The Catholic Encyclopaedia would be a reliable source, except it doesn't say what it is being cited for, and gotquestions.org and a self-published 1914 pamphlet certainly aren't reliable. Also, removing "Mary is venerated, not worshipped, in the Catholic Church" in the relevant section, and replacing it with "worship or what is called by the Roman Catholic Church, 'veneration'" in the lead, is blatant POV, and emblematic of the kind of narrow bias that the edits are aimed at introducing. I am alerting the various WikiProjects to the edits and this discussion. Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have posted at WP:FRINGEN asking for more eyes (after seeing a post at WT:CATHOLIC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Great Apostasy" is an LDS buzzword

"Great Apostasy" is a Mormon buzzword and missionary talking point, as the original version of the article makes fairly obvious [3]. As such, the title is probably not NPOV. The current version may or may not have been made more neutral by accreting other minority viewpoints...but it may also be a kind of synthesis of various Restorationist theologies that developed independently of each other. Geogene (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)