One LDS myth is that the Church fell away because of outside persecution. Since the major persecutions occurred after the apostasy, it isn’t difficult to deny that claim. Another (more recent?) is that the Church fell away because of hellenization. Siebach and Graham do an excellent job of showing the problems with that claim. As I am sure that you know better than I, based on what we know about NT history neither of those seems to have been a significant cause of the apostasy. But it does not follow that there was neither persecution nor hellenization, nor does it follow that persecution and hellenization are completely irrelevant.

Thus it seems to me that John has misunderstood what the book claims, taking its claims to an extreme that isn’t in the book. However, I may have misunderstood what John was saying. Looking back at his post again, I can see how that is possible. If that’s what happened, I apologize for my misreading.

The lead essay, by Noel Reynolds, outlines in bold print the following:

“Myth #1: The apostasy happened because of outside persecution.

Myth #2: The apostasy was caused by [italics in original] the hellenization of Christianity or the incorporation of Greek philosophy and the culture into the teachings of the early church.

Myth #3: The Roman Catholic Church specifically is the great and abominable church spoken of in Nephi’s vision”

Reynolds prefaces this list by saying, “The authors identify several common myths and misconceptions that Latter-day Saints have about the apostasy and help us understand the falling away from Christ’s church more accurately and completely.”

While in an essay collection I wouldn’t expect every author to think identically on every issue, I’m not sure how one could walk away from Reynolds’ essay thinking that that what John Fowles cites (with the exception of the clause about sin and pride–I’m not entirely sure how that entered the discussion) is, as you say, “a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of what is in the book.”

John Fowles (##8,9): You wonder “why conclusions that persecution and hellenization, in addition to sin and pride, would now be considered mere ‘LDS myths about the apostasy,’” but I that seems to be based on a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of what is in the book. To say that Latter-day Saints have not thought in very nuanced ways about the apostasy is not to say that there wasn’t one, nor that there wasn’t persecution, hellenization, etc., and no one I know of in the collection in question says otherwise.

Julie and Russell (#6): Responding to Julie’s question in her post, Russell says “For the church to actually ‘disappear’ would seem to demand something more than accumulated individual decisions.” The question is how individual apostasy and Church apostasy were related. Since I dealt only with the question of what apostasy means in the New Testament (in either case, I believe), I’m not in a position to answer that question without a good deal more thinking and reading. But my tentative response would be that covenants are not merely individual things. God’s covenant with Israel was a covenant with the people Israel, not merely with each individual one-at-a-time. It doesn’t follow that individuals don’t make covenants as individuals, but that covenant-making isn’t merely individual. I assume that our contemporary covenants are of the same sort: we make them as a people–specifically in this dispensation as families–as well as as individuals.

The biggest problem that I see is that this kind of historical positivism ignores a major part of our doctrinal heritage. We simultaneously believe in Restoration and Revelation, where the old and the new come together. We are in conversation with the past, not mechanical imitation.

One more question. I wonder how John Gee views the Didiche. I know back when he was my roommate we discussed it a lot. He thought then that it was a very early document and accepted it as largely accurate. It’s an interesting point since there are clearly huge differences between the Christianity of the Didiche and that expressed in say the early chapters of Moroni. What differences in practice constitute apostasy?

It should be noted that though his first reviewer on Amazon notes that Carson doesn’t accuse Smith of forging the document *because* he is a homosexual, the review doesn’t have any problem with implying it. Funny.

1) I think the differences between the Nephite culture, Jerusalem culture, and modern culture illuminate why Christ’s church meets varying degrees of success. The Nephites appear to have more distinct prophecies, their visit by Christ was accompanied by more earth shaking events, and they had the community resources to implement a more lasting organization. The Old World church in contrast was much more persecuted early on, didn’t have temple resources, and was caught in a cross-fire of competing philosophical currents. I would attribute the success of the modern church because of its abilities to mirror, in many ways the conditions of the Lehite church through gathering into a community. I think that God allowed the church to apostasize, because it was optimal way to bring about the salvation of man. Less truth available means less accountability, but maintaining some level of gospel truth can serve as preparation to the higher law. I think the Mt. Sinai apostasy is the most apt metaphor here.

2) I think LDS should continue to reconstruct early Christianity and Messianic Judaism from the texts. Our ideas on the apostasy and in being a restoration should make us wary of engaging in parallelomania. Still I think we find things in those texts that ultimately add respectibility to LDS truth claims. Should all LDS be interested? Only if they are up to taking the D&C 93 challenge.

3) I don’t think admitting the scriptures have been corrupted really complicates things for LDS. Ultimately I think it ends being an advantage because whatever unreliability is introduced in the texts is largely compensated for by having modern prophets. This might help us establish that there is a need for multiple and modern witnesses to establish gospel truth in our missionary efforts to educated investigators. Sunday School lessons concentrate on “likening the scriptures” to ourselves and less about textual criticism.

4) Another example of an LDS GA that is staying current on the latest apostasy scholarship is Alexander B. Morrison, who has a 2005 book out. The way that we have explained the apostasy in the past has heavily borrowed from Protestant literature and out-dated literature at that. Our ability to dialogue with those in the Catholic faith is hampered if we can’t present a more up-to-date realistic picture for them. The new LDS scholarship has a better chance of getting a fair hearing and we see more articles are getting published in respectable venues. I think this is worth the risk of undercutting previous work by respected authorities.