FAIR - User contributions [en]

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T16:08:01Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====Was There a Unified Platform to Apostatize From?====

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

=====The Apostle John and the Three Nephites=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====An Embodied God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Cherubim and a Flaming Sword: The Corruption of Scripture Guarding the Way Back from the Apostasy====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====The Great Splintering: Patristic and Historical Evidence for the Apostasy====

====Why Did God Allow the Great Apostasy to Happen?====

====Why 1820?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T16:02:58Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

=====The Apostle John and the Three Nephites=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====An Embodied God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Cherubim and a Flaming Sword: The Corruption of Scripture Guarding the Way Back from the Apostasy====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====The Great Splintering: Patristic and Historical Evidence for the Apostasy====

====Why Did God Allow the Great Apostasy to Happen?====

====Why 1820?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T15:59:32Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Great Splitering: Patristic and Historical Evidence for the Apostasy */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

=====The Apostle John and the Three Nephites=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====An Embodied God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Cherubim and a Flaming Sword: The Corruption of Scripture Guarding the Way Back from the Apostasy====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====The Great Splintering: Patristic and Historical Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T15:59:08Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

=====The Apostle John and the Three Nephites=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====An Embodied God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Cherubim and a Flaming Sword: The Corruption of Scripture Guarding the Way Back from the Apostasy====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====The Great Splitering: Patristic and Historical Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T14:49:57Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

=====The Apostle John and the Three Nephites=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Cherubim and a Flaming Sword: The Corruption of Scripture Guarding the Way Back from the Apostasy====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====The Great Splitering: Patristic and Historical Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T14:48:18Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

=====The Apostle John and the Three Nephites=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Cherubim and a Flaming Sword: The Corruption of Scripture Guarding the Way Back from the Apostasy====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T14:36:02Z

SpencerMarsh: /* =Scripture Outside the Model */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model=====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T14:33:09Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority= */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

=====The Fate of the Apostles=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T14:32:03Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

===Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}
=====Scripture Outside the Model====

====The Key Doctrines====
As mentioned before, the Apostasy was the result of key doctrines being rebelled against. Below, we explore some of the possibilities.

=====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God=====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

=====The Mode of Baptism=====

=====Closing the Canon=====

=====Other "Plain and Precious" Truths Lost=====
* Three Degrees of Glory
* Baptism for the dead
* Faith and works

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T14:15:56Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T13:57:08Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Did God Abandon the World During the Great Apostasy?====

====The Fate of those living during the Great Apostasy====

====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T13:24:30Z

SpencerMarsh: /* 1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion? */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration ''had'' to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the ''only'' possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the ''only'' person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T13:23:40Z

SpencerMarsh: /* 1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion? */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration *had* to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the *only* possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the *only* person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-22T13:23:24Z

SpencerMarsh: /* 1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion? */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====
# Why Did God Wait So Long to Inaugurate the Restoration?

One of the most natural questions a person can ask about the Restoration is why it took so long. If the priesthood authority and many "plain and precious" truths were lost following the deaths of the Apostles, why would God wait nearly eighteen centuries before restoring them? Why not restore the gospel in the fourth century, the eighth century, or during the Protestant Reformation? Latter-day Saint doctrine does not provide a complete answer to those questions. The Lord has never revealed every reason for His timing. Nevertheless, scripture, history, and the teachings of modern prophets together suggest a compelling cumulative explanation. While they may not demonstrate that the Restoration *had* to occur in 1820, they help us understand why that moment in history was uniquely fitting.

The Restoration was not simply a correction of a few theological errors. It inaugurated what Latter-day Saints call the "dispensation of the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10; Doctrine and Covenants 128:18), the final dispensation before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. God was not merely restoring doctrines. He was restoring priesthood authority, bringing forth new scripture, revealing temple ordinances, gathering Israel on both sides of the veil, and establishing a Church intended to endure until Christ's return. Such a work required more than a willing prophet. It required a world that had been prepared to receive, preserve, and spread the Restoration. Throughout scripture, God often accomplishes His purposes by patiently preparing both people and circumstances over generations rather than by overriding history altogether. The Restoration appears to follow that same pattern.

History itself points toward the nineteenth century as an unusually favorable moment. For much of Christian history, governments treated religious dissent as both a theological and civil offense. New religious movements were often suppressed before they could take root. By Joseph Smith's day, however, the United States offered something unprecedented: constitutional protections for religious liberty, a population with high literacy rates, inexpensive printing, and a culture that encouraged religious inquiry. The Book of Mormon could be printed and distributed on a scale that would have been impossible centuries earlier. Missionaries could travel with increasing ease, and advances in communication and transportation would soon allow the restored gospel to spread throughout the world. The political, technological, and social conditions necessary for a permanent restoration had begun to converge.

Those developments did not emerge in isolation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, centuries of Christian reform also helped prepare the way. Men and women such as John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley challenged religious corruption, translated the scriptures into the language of ordinary people, emphasized personal engagement with the Bible, and encouraged believers to seek a purer form of Christianity. Although Latter-day Saints believe these reformers did not restore priesthood authority or the fulness of the gospel, they nevertheless helped create a world increasingly receptive to the idea that God might yet do more. In that sense, the Reformation was not the Restoration itself, but an important step toward it.

The Book of Mormon adds another dimension to this picture. In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi foresaw that many "plain and precious" truths would be removed from the gospel as it passed through history. Whether through deliberate corruption, sincere misunderstanding, or simply the accumulation of centuries of tradition, religious institutions naturally develop a powerful inertia. Once a particular way of reading scripture becomes deeply established, even faithful believers often find it difficult to imagine that foundational assumptions could be mistaken. The Restoration therefore required more than correcting isolated doctrines. It required someone willing to ask whether prevailing religious narratives themselves were incomplete. Joseph Smith's First Vision began with precisely that kind of question. Rather than asking which denomination was the best expression of Christianity, he sought to know which church God Himself recognized. His willingness to seek revelation rather than rely solely upon inherited tradition distinguished him from many of his contemporaries.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Joseph Smith was prepared for this work long before his birth. Scripture teaches that certain individuals were foreordained in the premortal life for sacred missions (Abraham 3:22–23), and Lehi identified Joseph Smith as the "choice seer" prophesied centuries earlier by Joseph of Egypt (2 Nephi 3). Although the reasons for Joseph's foreordination have not been fully revealed, it is reasonable within Latter-day Saint theology to conclude that he had demonstrated exceptional faithfulness before mortality and had been divinely prepared for this calling. His mortal life likewise displayed qualities the Restoration demanded: humility before God, openness to continuing revelation, remarkable resilience under persecution, and an extraordinary capacity to receive, organize, and teach new revelation. If God had spent centuries preparing the world for the Restoration, it is fitting that He would also prepare the prophet through whom that Restoration would come.

Taken together, these considerations form a persuasive cumulative case. God prepared nations through political and legal developments that protected religious liberty. He prepared societies through centuries of reform that rekindled a desire for scriptural truth. He prepared the world through advances in literacy, printing, communication, and transportation that would enable the restored gospel to endure and spread. He prepared a prophet who was foreordained, spiritually receptive, and willing to ask questions that others would not. Each consideration, standing alone, explains only part of the picture. Together, however, they paint a coherent portrait of divine providence unfolding over many centuries.

Even so, it is important not to claim more than the evidence allows. This cumulative case does not prove that 1820 was the *only* possible time for the Restoration or that Joseph Smith was the *only* person whom God could have called. Latter-day Saint scripture does not reveal every reason for God's choices, and finite beings should be cautious about claiming insight into every aspect of divine providence. The purpose of these arguments is not to demonstrate necessity but to show fittingness. They explain why the timing of the Restoration makes sense within the broader sweep of sacred history.

Ultimately, Christians already accept this kind of reasoning in many other contexts. Scripture says that Christ came "in the fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4), yet it does not explain why the Incarnation occurred in the first century rather than earlier or later. God waited centuries before delivering Israel from Egypt, generations before sending the Flood, and days before raising Lazarus. In each case, believers can identify reasons that illuminate God's timing without claiming to exhaust His purposes. The Restoration invites the same posture. Latter-day Saints can reasonably conclude that God inaugurated the Restoration when the world had been sufficiently prepared and through the prophet He had long prepared for that work. Beyond that, faith does not require complete knowledge of every divine reason. It requires confidence that the God who patiently guided history toward the Restoration knew precisely when its fulness of times had arrived.

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T16:59:20Z

SpencerMarsh: /* 1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion?====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T16:58:23Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Corruption of Scripture */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The great and abominable church sought to "pervert the right ways of the Lord" (v. 27). The angel tells Nephi, "Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church" (1 Nephi 13:8).

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T14:09:12Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Loss of Apostolic Authority */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle as early 100 AD and as late as 107 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T13:56:27Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T12:13:56Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Defining the Apostasy */

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means "away", and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T12:13:23Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:34:03Z

SpencerMarsh:

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:33:34Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler,

<blockquote>Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref></blockquote>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:32:57Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler, “Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.”<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus] (191 AD), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen Origen] (253 AD), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian Tertullian] (220 AD) all died by the third century AD. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:28:14Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====
By the 2nd century, Christians were teaching that God created the universe out of nothing. As observed by James Hubler, “Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.”<ref>James N. Hubler, ''Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas'' (University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102.</ref>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatian Tatian] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch Theophilus] died by AD 185. This doctrine they taught contravened the Bible. John 17:3 teaches, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” By not knowing the true God, the Christians certainly fell into apostasy.

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:19:43Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Apostasy Predicted */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

=====New Testament Prophecies of the Demise of Christ’s Church=====

*Matthew 13:24–30
*Matthew 24:5, 24
*Acts 20:29-30
*Romans 11:19–21
*2 Thessalonians 2:3–4
*1 Timothy 4:1–3
*2 Timothy 3:1–9, 12; 4:3–4
*2 Peter 2:1–3
*Revelation 13:7

=====Evidences of First-Century Apostasy from the New Testament=====

*John 6:66
*Romans 1:8–32
*Romans 2:17–24
*Romans 16:17–18
*1 Corinthians 1:11–12; 3:4
*1 Corinthians 4:18
*1 Corinthians 5:1, 6
*1 Corinthians 10:14
*1 Corinthians 11:18–11, 29–30, 34
*1 Corinthians 14:1–37
*2 Corinthians 3:1; 72
*2 Corinthians 6:14–17
*2 Corinthians 11:3–4, 12–15
*Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1
*Galatians 4:8–11; 5:7, 15–22
*Ephesians 4:1–5:21
*Colossians 2:8–9, 18
*2 Thessalonians 2:7–9
*2 Thessalonians 3:6
*1 Timothy 1:3–4, 6–7, 19–20
*1 Timothy 5:15
*1 Timothy 6:1–10
*1 Timothy 6:20–21
*2 Timothy 1:8–18; 2:16–18; 4:14–17
*Titus 1:10–14
*Titus 2:1–15
*Titus 3:9–11
*James 1–2
*James 4:1–8
*2 Peter 2:1–22; 3:16–18
*1 John 2:9–27; 4:1
*3 John 1:9–10
*Jude 1:3–19
*Revelations 2–3

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:16:42Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Loss of Apostolic Authority */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
Doctrine and Covenants 86 presents the Apostles as the original sowers of the gospel in the Savior's Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. According to the revelation, they planted the "good seed," but after they "fell asleep" (that is, after their deaths), the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing the introduction of corruption and false teachings into the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 86:1–3). Unlike some earlier Latter-day Saint interpretations that suggested the wheat disappeared entirely, this revelation teaches that the wheat continued to exist alongside the tares until the last days, when the Lord would begin the work of gathering and separating them. Thus, Doctrine and Covenants 86 portrays the Apostles as faithfully establishing Christ's Church and attributes the subsequent Apostasy to the enemy's efforts after their ministry ended, while emphasizing that God preserved faithful believers ("the wheat") until the Restoration and the final gathering.

The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:11:56Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Establishment of Christ's Church */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ established an official, institutional church. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T06:10:17Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ intended the official, institutional church to come into being. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

=====The Change of Covenants=====
Nephi mentions "covenants" that were taken out of the Bible. What could these covenants refer to?

BYU professors Nicolas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer argue that the Book of Mormon presents the Great Apostasy primarily as the rise of ''replacement theology''—the belief that the Christian Church permanently replaced Israel as God's covenant people. They contend that the Book of Mormon emphasizes a ''remnant theology'', teaching that God's covenants with Israel remain in force and that Gentiles are invited to be grafted into those covenants rather than supplant Israel. They build this case primarily from 1 Nephi 13, arguing that the "plain and precious things" removed from the Bible largely concerned God's enduring covenant with Israel and its future gathering. They reinforce this interpretation with 2 Nephi 25–30, Jacob 5, 3 Nephi 16, 20, and 21, and Mormon 5, all of which emphasize Israel's eventual restoration and the centrality of the gathering of Israel in the last days. They also appeal to Romans 9–11, particularly Paul's olive tree analogy, along with the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12 and Isaiah's prophecies of Israel's restoration, to argue that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Gentile Christians become part of Israel's covenant family rather than replacing it. In their view, the Restoration restores this covenant-centered understanding of God's work, making the gathering of Israel—not merely the reestablishment of ecclesiastical authority—the defining answer to the Great Apostasy.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/remnant-or-replacement-outlining-a-possible-apostasy-narrative Remnant or Replacement: Outlining a Potential Apostasy Narrative]," ''BYU Studies'' 60, no. 1 (2021): 105–27.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-19T05:59:24Z

SpencerMarsh: /* The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted */

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Mass internal rebellion'' is the primary cause and central, defining feature of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref> ''This'' is the best way to make sense of the Great Apostasy.

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established such a church. As we shall see, "Christ had followers, leaders, and rules. That certainly constitutes an organization."<ref>Gilbert W. Scharffs, ''Missionary's Little Book of Answers'' (Covenant Communications, 2002), 185.</ref> The word that Greek uses to describe such a church is "ἐκκλησία" (eh-clay-SEE-uh).

In the Gospel of Matthew, after Christ praises Peter for receiving his testimony of Christ from heaven, Christ says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build ''my church'' [μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, emphasis added). This is one of the most explicit pieces of evidence in the New Testament that Christ meant to establish a church. In the next verse, Christ says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). What does the language of "binding" and "loosing" refer to? Protestant scholars assure us that this refers to the power of the Apostles to permit and ban various forms of behavior among the covenant people.<ref>W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'' (T&T Clark International, 2004), 270–71, emphasis in original; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, ''After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood'' (CreateSpace, 2018), 121–22. See also Oscar Cullmann, ''Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr'' (SCM Press, 1953), 204–5; quoted in Boylan, ''After the Order'', 122. Finally, see Craig S. Keener, ''IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament'' (Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90; quoted in Boylan, After the Order, 122.</ref> Matthew 18:18 confirms that all of the Twelve had this authority. This was the authority to establish doctrine for the Church (Acts 2:42). This authority is evident from the fact that one of the criteria for including a book in the New Testament canon was ''apostolicity''—that is, the characteristic of having been written by an apostle.<ref>Daniel Becerra, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/canonization-new-testament The Canonization of the New Testament]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 780.</ref> The Apostles were also given power ("δύναμις") and authority ("ἐξουσία") to cast out all devils (Matthew 10:1) and to cure diseases (Luke 9:1).

However, do the lone mentions of an "ἐκκλησία" in Matthew 16 and 18 establish that Christ meant to establish a church? Lothar Coenen expresses doubt in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'' that the uses of "ἐκκλησία" in the passages from Matthew 16 and 18 can be used to support the notion that Christ intended the official, institutional church to come into being. They are indeed the only times in all the Gospels that "ἐκκλησία" is used. "In all probability," Coenen writes, "Jesus himself called together the Twelve, but did not found the 'ekklesia' as such in his own lifetime, not even through the institution of the Lord's Supper." However, "This by itself would not settle the question whether he intended the church to come into being."<ref>Lothar Coenen, "Church," in ''The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology'', ed. Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1981), 298.</ref> This should not threaten Latter-day Saint belief. If Jesus at the very least came, taught His people, won them as followers, performed His Atonement, and gave His Apostles both authority to baptize and a commission to baptize His followers after His Ascension, the essential Latter-day Saint belief that Christ established a church is preserved.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11. It says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

====The Symptoms of the Great Apostasy Predicted====
The scriptures give three symptoms that characterize the Great Apostasy.
#Loss of Apostolic authority
#Corruption of scripture
#Change of covenants

=====The Loss of Apostolic Authority=====
The best historical scholarship available places the death of the last Apostle around 100 AD.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, "Fact vs. Fiction: How Did All the Apostles Die?" ''From the Desk'', July 4, 2026, https://fromthedesk.org/how-did-all-the-apostles-die/.</ref>

{|class="wikitable" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="11%"|'''Apostle'''
!width="11%"|'''Location'''
!width="11%"|'''Killed By'''
!width="11%"|'''Reason'''
!width="11%"|'''Manner'''
!width="11%"|'''Source'''
!width="11%"|'''Date'''
!width="11%"|'''Historical Likelihood'''
|+<big>'''The Fate of the Apostles'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Peter
||Rome, Italy
||Roman authorities under Emperor Nero
||Preaching Christ during the Roman persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome in (c. AD 64–67).
||Crucified
||Tradition
||64–68 AD
||Moderate-High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Andrew
||Patras, Greece
||Roman governor of Achaia
||Refused to stop preaching Christianity.
||Crucified
||Tradition
||60 AD
||Low-Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James G
||Jerusalem
||Herod Agrippa
||To please certain Jewish leaders who opposed the Christian movement (Acts 12:1–2).
||Beheaded
||Acts 12
||44 AD
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|John
||Ephesus
||None
||Exiled to Patmos under Roman authority for preaching the Gospel (Revelation 1:9).
||Natural
||Tradition
||100 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Philip
||Hierapolis
||Local authorities in Phrygia
||Converted prominent individuals and challenged paganism.
||Crucified
||Apocrypha
||80 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Bartholomew
||Armenia
||Armenian or local pagan rulers
||Converted members of the royal family to Christianity.
||Flayed
||Tradition
||69–71 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Thomas
||Chennai, India
||Local rulers in India
||Converted many people, including members of the nobility.
||Speared
||Tradition
||72 AD
||Moderate
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthew
||Ethiopia
||Local rulers
||Refused to stop teaching and converting people.
||Natural or Stabbed
||Legend
||68 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|James L
||Jerusalem
||Jewish religious leaders
||Preached that Jesus was the Messiah
||Stoned
||Josephus
||62 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Jude
||Persia/Beirut
||Local authorities in Persia
||Missionary activities and conversions
||Beaten/Axed
||Apocrypha
||65 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Simon
||Persia
||Persian or Roman authorities
||Preaching Christianity
||Sawn
||Tradition
||65–107 AD
||Low
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Judas
||Jerusalem
||Himself
||After betraying Jesus, he died in remorse (Matthew 27:3–5; Acts 1:18–19 describes the aftermath differently).
||Suicide
||Math. 27 / Acts 1
||AD 30–33
||High
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|Matthias
||Jerusalem or Colchis
||Jewish religious authorities
||For preaching Christ as the Messiah
||Stoned or Crucified
||Tradition
||80 AD
||Moderate
|}

=====The Corruption of Scripture=====
In 1 Nephi 13, Nephi sees that the Bible originally went forth from the Jews in purity, containing the "fulness of the gospel" and many "plain and precious" truths. However, after it passed through the hands of a "great and abominable church," many of these plain and precious parts were removed before the Bible reached the Gentiles. As a result, many people stumbled spiritually, became confused about essential doctrines, and fell under the influence of false traditions. Nevertheless, Nephi also sees that God would not abandon humanity: He would bring forth additional scripture—most notably the Book of Mormon—to restore many of the lost truths, establish the truth of the Bible as far as it had been preserved, and help gather Israel and bring people to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Nephi's vision varies in claiming that many plain and precious things are taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:29) or taken out of the ''gospel'' (1 Nephi 13:26). Nephi also mentions "covenants" that have been taken away (1 Nephi 13:26). These plain and precious parts were taken away by "the great and abominable church" so "that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (vv. 26–27). Here, we have a clear distinction between the ''perpetrators'' and their ''unfortunate victims'' whom they have blinded and whose hearts they have hardened against the true church.

The most thorough treatment of this topic was done by Latter-day Saint scholar and Egyptologist John Gee in a book chapter he authored in 2005.<ref>John Gee, "[https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/corruption-scripture-early-christianity The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity]," in ''Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy'', ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005), 163–204.</ref>

====Scripture Outside of the Model====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T22:54:11Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T22:53:26Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T22:52:03Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T22:19:08Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:38:54Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:38:43Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Scripture Outside of the Model= */

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:37:58Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Great Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:37:47Z

SpencerMarsh: Created page with "<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1> {{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some..."

<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While some aspects of this belief lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a primary cause of the Great Apostasy, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as its primary cause. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Internal rebellion'' is the primary cause of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref>

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are merely ''symptoms'' of the internal rebellion against key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines led to the creation of many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully align with New Testament teachings on how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the ''perpetrators'' of the Great Apostasy, and other Christians who belonged to these churches became the unfortunate and unwitting ''inheritors'' or ''victims'' of it.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established a church.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11.

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

====Scripture Outside of the Model=====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====
====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====

{{endnotes sources}}

User:SpencerMarsh

2026-07-17T21:37:27Z

SpencerMarsh:

I'm Spencer Marsh. I've been an editor of the FAIR Wiki since 2017.

[[File:Alisa & Spencer’s Wedding Photos.jpeg|400px|thumb|center|This is a photograph of my wife, Alisa, and me at our wedding in July 2025.]]

'''Sandboxes:'''
*[[Book of Abraham Sandbox]]
*[[Book of Mormon Sandbox]]
*[[Church Leaders Sandbox]]
*[[Polygamy Sandbox]]
*[[Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon's "Narrow Neck of Land"]]
* [[Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
* [[Header Color Sandbox]]
* [[Internal Link Sandbox]]
* [[Boyd K. Packer Sandbox]]
* [[Headers Sandbox]]
* [[Spencer W. Kimball and Yoda]]
* [[The Great Apostasy]]

'''Colors:'''
*'''Soft Olive Green''': #7BB375
*'''Blue-green''': #0E98BA

Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:37:09Z

SpencerMarsh: Replaced content with "{{Main Page}} <onlyinclude> {{H1 |L=Apostasy |H=The early Christian Church and the Great Apostasy |S= |L1=Evidence of a total apostasy |L2=Extent of the apostasy |L3=Reasons why the apostasy occurred |L4=The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ }} {{:Apostasy/Evidence of}} {{:Apostasy/Extent of}} {{:Apostasy/Reasons for}} {{:Mormonism and church leadership/Ancient apostles}} </onlyinclude> ..."

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Apostasy
|H=The early Christian Church and the Great Apostasy
|S=
|L1=Evidence of a total apostasy
|L2=Extent of the apostasy
|L3=Reasons why the apostasy occurred
|L4=The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ
}}
{{:Apostasy/Evidence of}}
{{:Apostasy/Extent of}}
{{:Apostasy/Reasons for}}
{{:Mormonism and church leadership/Ancient apostles}}
</onlyinclude>

[[de:Abfall vom Glauben]]
[[en:Apostasy]]
[[es:Apostasía]]
[[fr:Apostasy]]
[[pt:Apostasia]]

[[Category:Apostasy]]

Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:29:39Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}

<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Apostasy
|H=The early Christian Church and the Great Apostasy
|S=
|L1=Evidence of a total apostasy
|L2=Extent of the apostasy
|L3=Reasons why the apostasy occurred
|L4=The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ
}}
{{:Apostasy/Evidence of}}
{{:Apostasy/Extent of}}
{{:Apostasy/Reasons for}}
{{:Mormonism and church leadership/Ancient apostles}}
</onlyinclude>

[[de:Abfall vom Glauben]]
[[en:Apostasy]]
[[es:Apostasía]]
[[fr:Apostasy]]
[[pt:Apostasia]]

[[Category:Apostasy]]

Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:29:26Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>

<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Apostasy
|H=The early Christian Church and the Great Apostasy
|S=
|L1=Evidence of a total apostasy
|L2=Extent of the apostasy
|L3=Reasons why the apostasy occurred
|L4=The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ
}}
{{:Apostasy/Evidence of}}
{{:Apostasy/Extent of}}
{{:Apostasy/Reasons for}}
{{:Mormonism and church leadership/Ancient apostles}}
</onlyinclude>

[[de:Abfall vom Glauben]]
[[en:Apostasy]]
[[es:Apostasía]]
[[fr:Apostasy]]
[[pt:Apostasia]]

[[Category:Apostasy]]

Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:27:41Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>
{{Summary1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Fundamental to that belief is that the Church was lost for a time. Without such a loss, there could have been no Restoration. Critics, and especially those who are of Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic Christian background, have argued that the Latter-day Saint belief in the Great Apostasy is erroneous on many grounds. Some have argued that Christ never established an official institution during His mortal life. Others have argued that He did found a church, but that the church was never lost.

Regardless of the criticism, it is a valuable exercise for Latter-day Saints to consider the historical, scriptural, and theological grounding for their belief in the Great Apostasy. While there are some aspects of this belief that lie beyond the ken of academics, Latter-day Saint belief is not contradicted by existing historical or scriptural evidence.
----
====Defining the Apostasy====
Defining ''what'' the Apostasy actually was is a matter of great importance. Without this definition, we cannot assuage the concerns of those studying this topic. It is important to define the Apostasy using scripture.

The word ''apostasy'' comes from the Greek word ''ἀποστασία'' (ah-poh-stah-SEE-uh). The prefix ''ἀπο'' means (away), and ''στασίs'' means "standing." Thus, etymologically, we get "standing away" or "standing apart" as the meaning of the word. "The word means ‘rebellion,’ ‘mutiny,’ ‘revolt,’ or ‘revolution,’ and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, ''From Apostasy to Restoration'' (Deseret Book, 1996), 6.</ref>

In 2 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [the Second Coming of Jesus Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away ["''ἀποστασία''"] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Thus, in contrast to some who believe that external persecution was a ''primary'' cause, the New Testament and other passages of scripture actually place ''internal rebellion'' as the primary cause of the Apostasy. As we shall see, however, external persecution still played a role.

''Internal rebellion'' is the primary cause of the Great Apostasy, but rebellion against what? Ultimately, it was a rebellion against key, essential doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. When we talk about someone who is an "apostate" or "apostatizes" from the Church today, we are usually referring to someone who is openly rebelling against the Church and its authority.<ref>General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “32.6.3.2 Apostasy,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils#sec17.</ref>

Some have conceptualized the loss of priesthood authority, the changing of ordinances, and the corruption of scripture as part of the definition of the Great Apostasy. However, these are all merely symptoms of the internal rebellion that took place against some key, essential doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by His Apostles. The rebellion against these doctrines is what created many different Christian groups, each of which did not fully match the New Testament teachings about how Christ's Church should be run and what its members should believe. The creators of these sects thus become the primary rebels. Other Christians who belonged to these churches thus became the unfortunate ''inheritors'' and ''victims'' of the Great Apostasy rather than its ''perpetrators''.

====The Establishment of Christ's Church====
If Christ's official, institutional Church was lost, then it must have been established. However, many today doubt that Christ ever established a church.

====The Apostasy Predicted====
Latter-day Saints have appealed to a variety of scriptures to support their belief in the Great Apostasy. Some of these scriptures are better to use than others. Some do not give good evidence to support belief in the Great Apostasy.

One scripture frequently used is Amos 8:11.

The most extensive evidence of an apostasy is found in the New Testament.

====Scripture Outside of the Model=====

====Historical Evidence for the Great Apostasy====

====Patristic Evidence for the Apostasy====

====The Corruption of Scripture====

====The Introduction of Greek Philosophy and Redefining the Christian Concept of God====

====The Loss of Apostolic Authority====

====1800 Years of Spiritual Darkness and Confusion====

====
====Preparing the Way for the Restoration====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title =
| state = closed
| content =

}}

<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Apostasy
|H=The early Christian Church and the Great Apostasy
|S=
|L1=Evidence of a total apostasy
|L2=Extent of the apostasy
|L3=Reasons why the apostasy occurred
|L4=The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ
}}
{{:Apostasy/Evidence of}}
{{:Apostasy/Extent of}}
{{:Apostasy/Reasons for}}
{{:Mormonism and church leadership/Ancient apostles}}
</onlyinclude>

[[de:Abfall vom Glauben]]
[[en:Apostasy]]
[[es:Apostasía]]
[[fr:Apostasy]]
[[pt:Apostasia]]

[[Category:Apostasy]]

Apostasy

2026-07-17T21:27:31Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
<h1>The Great Apostasy</h1>

[[de:Abfall vom Glauben]]
[[en:Apostasy]]
[[es:Apostasía]]
[[fr:Apostasy]]
[[pt:Apostasia]]

[[Category:Apostasy]]

Apostasy/Visible evidence of

2026-07-17T20:44:56Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Apostasy/Visible evidence of
|H=Visible evidence of the apostasy
|S=
|L1=Question: Wouldn't some Christian author or members have noticed the apostasy?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Wouldn't some Christian author or members have noticed the apostasy?}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-07-10T20:44:40Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement */

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint beliefs. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial yet strong theory of why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone," and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; 2 Nephi 2:27–28; Jacob 4:11; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69; 107:19).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; 2 Nephi 2:9–10; Mosiah 14:12; 15:8; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' Him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added). Paul also wrote, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; ''if so be that we suffer with him'', that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16–17, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4); from "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 1:29; 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those who performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that lived or would live either ''before'' or ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are unforgivable sins. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19). Christ ''does'', however, continue His intercessory work before the Father to this day (Hebrews 2:17).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement, but actually are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon argue that it does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors the scriptures use to illustrate the Atonement literally and simultaneously affirm them, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know which metaphors are "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5
*Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12
*Luke 24:46
*Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11.
*John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23.
*Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69
*Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30
*Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69
*Mat
*1 Corinthians 6:20.
*Jacob 4:11
*Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5
*Alma 34:11.
*1 Peter 2:21
*Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added
*Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added.
*2 Nephi 9:10,19
*Galatians 1:4
*Hebrews 2:14
*Hebrews 2:15
*John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3
*3 Nephi 9:19.
*Hebrews 9:9–14
*Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28
*2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2
*Alma 34:16
*Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15
*Alma 42:15
*Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19
*2 Nephi 25:16
*Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26.
*2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41
*Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41
*Alma 42:23
*2 Nephi 2:26
*1 Corinthians 15:45–47
*2 Nephi 9:7.
*Jacob 4:11.
*Alma 21:9.
*2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7
*Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11
*2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16
*Moses 6:54
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*Alma 39:5
*Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46
*John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19
*Alma 22:14
*Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1.
*2 Nephi 10:25.
*Alma 13:3–5
*Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31
*Helaman 3:35
*Ephesians 2:8–9
*Helaman 14:17–18
*Mosiah 15:19
*Mosiah 18:13

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-07-10T20:42:09Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint beliefs. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial yet strong theory of why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone," and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; 2 Nephi 2:27–28; Jacob 4:11; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69; 107:19).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; 2 Nephi 2:9–10; Mosiah 14:12; 15:8; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' Him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added). Paul also wrote, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; ''if so be that we suffer with him'', that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16–17, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4); from "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 1:29; 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those who performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that lived or would live either ''before'' or ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are unforgivable sins. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19). Christ ''does'', however, continue His intercessory work before the Father to this day (Hebrews 2:17).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement, but actually are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon argue that it does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors the scriptures use to illustrate the Atonement literally and simultaneously affirm them, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know which metaphors are "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Women and the priesthood

2026-07-09T18:08:16Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Women and the Priesthood
__NOTOC__
<h1>Women and the Priesthood</h1>
'''Summary:''' Several questions have arisen regarding the relationship between women and the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women ====

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.<ref>The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections {{sv||D&C|20|}}, {{sv||D&C|84|}}, and {{sv||D&C|107|}}. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, {{sv||D&C|20|60}} reads "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him." </ref> Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book]) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.<ref>It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 here].</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood ====

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

<blockquote>
the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842|pages=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to offices in the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

<blockquote>
Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, 'elect lady'.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "[http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/desnews8/id/3945/rec/5 Female Relief Society]," ''Deseret News'' (22 April 1868): 81.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’ ====
Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’<ref>Eliza R. Snow references {{s||Articles of Faith|1|6}} in her article.</ref> Likewise, in an interview, Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

<blockquote>
Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.<ref>Quoted in {{Dialogue|author=Tina Hatch|article='Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present|vol=37|num=33|pages=68-69}}. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies]," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012). {{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2012 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

If seen as a companion to the priesthood—as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

==== Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood ====

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, Joseph said:

<blockquote>
Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|4-5}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood ====

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)<ref>See {{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=6|pages=9|date=17 March 1842}} See also {{JDmini|vol=21|pages=368}} (below) where he appeals to that experience.</ref> wrote:

<blockquote>
Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|date=8 August 1880|vol=21|disc=40|article=The Order and Duties of the Priesthood, Etc.|start=367|end=368}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Given that President Taylor ordained the first Relief Society presidency under Joseph's instructions, he was well-placed to know whether this was an ordination to priesthood office or not.

==== President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church ====

But, his reference to a priesthood held "in connection with their husbands" reminds us of Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

<blockquote>
He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|38-39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Latter-day Saint women in the 19th century ====

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands.<ref>For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" ''The Journal of Mormon History'' 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.</ref> This had apparently caused some discussion as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century. The very name of the society, after all, described its purpose of bringing relief to the poor, sick, or suffering.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

<blockquote>
He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|37-38}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843:

<blockquote>
The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.<ref>(See {{HC|vol=5|start=510}})</ref>
</blockquote>

When this was prepared for publication in the ''History of the Church'', this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

<blockquote>
He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands; that the Saints whose integrity had been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer.<ref>{{HC|vol=4|pages=604}} See also {{TPJS|pages=226}} For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.</ref>
</blockquote>

This interpolated idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood—though it is not found in Joseph's original. We note too that the "keys" in this reading are the keys of knowledge and revelation.

Bruce R. McConkie emphasized that 'keys' "have two distinct and yet related meanings:"

<blockquote>
1—They are the right of presidency; the right to govern and direct all the affairs of the Church or kingdom; and the power to authorize the use of hte Priesthood for a particular purpose. In this sense keys are held by those only who are in presiding and governing positions.

2—Keys are also ''the way and means whereby knowledge and intelligence may be gained from God. In this sense, they are possessed by every Priesthood bearer and ... by many faithful membres of the Relief Society.<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|148}}.
</blockquote>

It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=History_of_the_Church_(6-volume_history)
|subject1=Editing practices for the ''History of the Church''
|summary1=The ''History of the Church'' was assembled in the 19th century, and followed different authorship, editing, and source conventions.
}}

==== Keys and the Relief Society ====

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

<blockquote>
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.<ref>{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|40}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers ====

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that "I now turn the key to you"? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1950:

<blockquote>
What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them. ...

[T]he door was [also] opened whereby the faithful sisters, with their husbands, could communicate with God and receige blessings at his hands. What was it the Prophet said? "Knwledge and intelligence shall flow down (i.e. from God) from this time henceforth."<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|151}}.
</blockquote>

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

<blockquote>
Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.<ref>"A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued," ''Woman’s Exponent'' 12 (15 October 1883): 75. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/WomansExp/id/10944/rec/27}}</ref>
</blockquote>

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the Relief Society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

<blockquote>
"We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up," she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: "The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’" Snow described the Relief Society as "self-governing" and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. "Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood," she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that "all must act in concert or nothing can be done," she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests "are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors."<ref>Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.</ref>
</blockquote>

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

<blockquote>
The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=19}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

<blockquote>
We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=3|author=Joseph F. Smith}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

<blockquote>
Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=13|start=155|disc=18|article=Building Up Zion—Temperance in Eating and Drinking}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed ====

Joseph Fielding Smith:

<blockquote>
While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Women and priesthood in a temple context ====

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

<blockquote>
I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.<ref>Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888, in “Memorial Anniversary. Report of the Relief Soicety Meeting Held in the Ogden Tabernacle, July 19th, 1888, in Commemoration of the Last Public Visit and Instructions of President Brigham Young, on Invitation of President Jane S. Richards, to the Relief Society and Young Ladies’ Improvement Associations of the Weber Stake of Zion, Just Eleven Years Ago the 19th Inst.,” Woman’s Exponent (Salt Lake City, UT), Sept. 1, 1888, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 52–54.{{link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-4/4-20?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President. He mentioned the habit of providing temple annointing and washing ritual to women for health reasons:

<blockquote>
Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.<ref>Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, Church Archives.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

<blockquote>
"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."<ref>{{Book:Talmage:House of the Lord|pages=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage ====

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

<blockquote>
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133 'Let Us Think Straight']," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.</ref>
</blockquote>

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

<blockquote>
Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.<ref name="oaks">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng|date=May 2014}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Women act with delegated priesthood authority====

President Dallin H. Oaks emphasized this point when he pointed out that "since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” ({{s||D&C|107|5}}), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority."<ref name="oaks"></ref>

When we understand this, we see that most ''men'' do not perform their duties with their "own" priesthood authority, most of the time. Instead, both men and women ''usually'' act in their Church callings by designated or delegated authority.

====Most people—male and female—act with delegated authority====
For example:
* a ward clerk or executive secretary performs his duties by delegated authority.
* Sunday school teachers—male and female—teach classes under designated authority.
* Primary Presidencies, Young Women's Presidencies, Young Men's adult assistants, Sunday School presidencies—all act under delegated authority from the bishop when they are set apart.

In fact, there are only a few callings that exercise keys and priesthood authority that resides in them, rather than as delegated:
* priesthood quorum presidents
* bishops
* stake, temple, and mission presidents
* apostles

President Oaks expressed this idea when he emphasized:

<blockquote>
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.<ref name="oaks"></ref>
</blockquote>

Most members, then, will spend all or most of their Church ''callings'' functioning under delegated authority, not authority to which they are ordained.<ref>Men will, however, often be called on to exercise priesthood in the performance of ''ordinances'', such as blessing the sacrament, blessing the sick, baptizing, or confirming—these duties are not carried out as part of a calling, but in one's role as an ordained holder of the priesthood.</ref>

And, that delegated authority is even used by women in temples to administer sacred ordinance, see [[#Women and priesthood in a temple context|above]].

====We need a more expansive view of how priesthood authority is used by all faithful Church members====

President Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized this in 1959:

<blockquote>
While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” ''Relief Society Magazine'', Jan. 1959, 4; cited by Oaks, 2014</ref>.
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures ====
The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam ({{b||Exodus|15|20}}), Deborah ({{b||Judges|4|4}}), Huldah ({{b|2|Kings|22|14}},{{b|2|Chronicles|34|22}}), Noadiah ({{b||Nehemiah|6|14}}). The New Testament mentions Anna ({{b||Luke|2|36}}). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

==== The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy ====

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet." In this sense, ''the'' prophet is a priesthood position held by the senior apostle on earth. As President Dallin H. Oaks noted:

<blockquote>
The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood. ...

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”
</blockquote>

In the same way, "The Prophet" is certainly a prophet, but he is not the only one who can or should possess the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

<blockquote>
...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in {{s||Num.|11|25-29}}; {{s||Rev.|19|10}}.<ref>{{BD|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61|article=Prophet}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics {{s||Joel|2|28-29}}. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word "prophetess" is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

==== The false prophetess ====

In the New Testament, the word is applied to "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess."{{s||Rev|2|20}} According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy—a dark parallel to the woman and child that reprsent the Church of God (see {{s||Rev|12|}}, especially [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12?lang=eng&id=p1-p17#p1 JST Revelation 12:7]. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

It does not preclude righteous women from acting as prophets any more than the existence of false male prophets precludes men from doing so.

The negative use of "prophetess" shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church.

==== Why are there no female prophets today? ====

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today:

<blockquote>
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ({{b||Exodus|19|5-6}})
</blockquote>

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" ({{b|1|Peter|2|9}})

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets:

<blockquote>
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! ({{b||Numbers|11||29}})
</blockquote>

If we cannot perceive Latter-day Saint women who are prophets, we may be thinking of "prophet" as a position of influence or power, rather than as a spiritual gift to which all are called to be worthy.
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿José Smith tenía la intención de ordenar mujeres para el sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué hoy no hay mujeres profetas en la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué las mujeres no tienen oficinas del sacerdocio en la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días?]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y el sacerdocio/Mujeres]]
[[de:Frauen und das Priestertum]]

Women in the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-07-09T18:07:32Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Women
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} This page answers questions and criticisms about the Church's relations with women.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures ====
The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam ({{b||Exodus|15|20}}), Deborah ({{b||Judges|4|4}}), Huldah ({{b|2|Kings|22|14}},{{b|2|Chronicles|34|22}}), Noadiah ({{b||Nehemiah|6|14}}). The New Testament mentions Anna ({{b||Luke|2|36}}). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

==== The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy ====

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet." In this sense, ''the'' prophet is a priesthood position held by the senior apostle on earth. As President Dallin H. Oaks noted:

<blockquote>
The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood. ...

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”
</blockquote>

In the same way, "The Prophet" is certainly a prophet, but he is not the only one who can or should possess the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

<blockquote>
...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in {{s||Num.|11|25-29}}; {{s||Rev.|19|10}}.<ref>{{BD|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61|article=Prophet}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics {{s||Joel|2|28-29}}. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word "prophetess" is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

==== The false prophetess ====

In the New Testament, the word is applied to "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess."{{s||Rev|2|20}} According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy—a dark parallel to the woman and child that reprsent the Church of God (see {{s||Rev|12|}}, especially [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12?lang=eng&id=p1-p17#p1 JST Revelation 12:7]. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

It does not preclude righteous women from acting as prophets any more than the existence of false male prophets precludes men from doing so.

The negative use of "prophetess" shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church.

==== Why are there no female prophets today? ====

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today:

<blockquote>
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ({{b||Exodus|19|5-6}})
</blockquote>

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" ({{b|1|Peter|2|9}})

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets:

<blockquote>
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! ({{b||Numbers|11||29}})
</blockquote>

If we cannot perceive Latter-day Saint women who are prophets, we may be thinking of "prophet" as a position of influence or power, rather than as a spiritual gift to which all are called to be worthy.
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church devalue those who are not married or who do not have children? ===
| state = closed
| content =
Some charge that the Church devalues those who are not married or who do not have children. This is not so.

A significant portion of adult Church members are single people. Their challenges and lifestyles are somewhat different than those of married members, but Church leaders make ongoing efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of single members. Living as a single person is challenging both inside and outside the Church. This is not a difficulty limited to the LDS context. Within the Church, the promise that no eternal blessings will be withheld from worthy members simply because of their marital status is repeated over and over again.<ref>{{NC}}</ref> Church leaders have denounced mistreatments of single members and continue to call members of all marital statuses to positions of trust.

==== Ideals and realities ====

LDS teachings—like those of most every other belief system and culture throughout history—regard formal, conjugal marriage relationships as vital social ideals. Among Latter-day Saints, marriage is not only a social ideal but a spiritual one. According to the scriptures, marriage is a requirement for the greatest blessings to which we can aspire. {{s||D&C|131|2}}

It is of course not possible for every Latter-day Saint to find a suitable spouse. Due to death, divorce, or other causes it is not always possible or wise for members to stay married. This means that many have been, are, or will be single. In 2007, First Presidency member, James E. Faust, reported that one third of the adult membership of the Church was single.<ref>{{Ensign|author=James E. Faust|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/08/welcoming-every-single-one?lang=eng Welcoming Every Single One]|date=Aug 2007}}</ref> This is a substantial proportion but it’s still a minority. The fact is single Latter-day Saints live in a faith community comprised of many married couples. Naturally, such an environment can be challenging.

Some may feel life as a single person is less than ideal. But an ideal is "a conception of something in its absolute perfection."<ref>''Dictionary.com', s.v. "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal ideal]" (accessed 17 July 2012).</ref> Married members of the Church don’t achieve perfection in their marriages during their lifetimes. Their lives are different from singles', but they too are also less than ideal. As the apostle Paul taught, all of us have "come short of the glory of God." {{s||Romans|3|23}} None of us—no matter what our marital status—is living an ideal life. In this we are all alike.

==== The time will come when the Lord bless all of His Father’s children with every blessing He can, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single ====

Speaking to single members, Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
I…remind you that there are those who are married whose lives are extremely unhappy and that you who are single and experience much of deep and consuming worry are not alone in your feelings. <ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|date=November 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Fortunately, the time will come when Christ shall "wipe away all the tears" {{s||Revelation|21|4}} and bless all of his Father’s children with every blessing they desire, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single.

==== Feelings of social awkwardness and marginalization are not limited to single people living in the LDS context ====

In popular Western culture, there’s a fairly steady stream of books, articles, and all kinds of other media produced about the difficulties of single life. People of all beliefs, not just Latter-day Saints, struggle to find a comfortable place in the world as singles. It is a widespread problem—one that was not created by the Church and one that cannot be escaped by avoiding the Church.

==== Statements of Church leaders ====

The challenges of single members are not unknown and unaddressed by Church leaders. President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, speaking of singlehood and childlessness among Church members, said:

<blockquote>
These are temporary states. In the eternal scheme of things—not always in mortality—righteous yearning and longing will be fulfilled.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article= And a Little Child Shall Lead Them]|date=May 2012|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/and-a-little-child-shall-lead-them?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Living as a single Latter-day Saint is more common for women than it is among men. In recognition of this, much of the counsel and consolation extended by Church leaders to single people is addressed specifically to women. This counsel includes assurances that members should not settle for unworthy or inadequate marriage partners just to satisfy what may seem like little more than a formality. Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

<blockquote>
You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Elijah the Prophet and His Mission|pages=51}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Comments like these have become ''de rigueur'' when Church leaders teach about marriage and families. Efforts are constantly made to acknowledge and address the circumstances of adult members of the Church who are not married.

Among these circumstances is the reality that there is no monolithic Latter-day Saint single member. President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of his distaste for the generic label "single":

<blockquote>
Though you are so diverse in your backgrounds, we have put a badge on you as if you were all alike. That badge reads S-I-N-G-L-E-S. I do not like that. I do not like to categorize people. We are all individuals living together, hopefully with respect for one another, notwithstanding some of our personal situations … when all is said and done, we should not be classified as married or single but as members of the Church, each worthy of the same attention, the same care, the same opportunities to be of service.<ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|date=Nov 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same address, President Hinckley condemned the thoughtless mistreatment of single members within LDS congregations, calling it "a tragedy" and "a betrayal."

==== Single Saints serving in the gospel ====

The New Testament contains the story of Anna, a woman called a "prophetess" who served in the temple at the time Jesus was born. By the time Mary brought the infant Jesus to the temple, Anna had been a widow for almost all of her long adult life. She was a single woman who was blessed for her faith and service with the privilege of recognizing and greeting the Lord. She had much to offer her community even though she had lived without a husband for eighty-four years {{s||Luke|2|36-38}}.

In the modern Church, single women also play important roles as leaders, teachers, and exemplars. One of the most storied women of the early days of the restored Church is Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum Smith, who crossed the plains from Nauvoo to Utah as a single mother. Emmeline B. Wells, the fifth General President of the Relief Society, was abandoned by her first husband.<ref>Julie Wardell, "Heroes and Heroines: Emmeline B. Wells." ''Friend,'' Feb 1985.</ref> Clearly, her status as a divorcee did not prevent her from holding a prominent leadership position.

Counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency have included Barbara Thompson and Sheri L. Dew, neither of whom has ever been married. Upon being called, Sheri L. Dew introduced herself saying:

<blockquote>
If there’s any message in the fact that a never-married woman has been called to the Relief Society general presidency it is that all women, regardless of their status or situation, are welcomed, loved, and valued…The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. We are all significant parts of the whole. I never think of myself as single; I think of myself as Sheri, a member of the Lord’s Church.<ref>{{Ensign|author=News of the Church|date=May 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Along with singleness there often comes childlessness ====
Along with singleness there often comes childlessness. Since many members of the Church have children, and see childbearing as a blessing and the ideal, single members may feel doubly marginalized. Married members may also struggle with the heartbreak of infertility.

Fortunately, motherhood is not merely a demographic or a reproductive state in Church doctrine. Instead, it is a spiritual gift in which all can participate.

In 2001, Sheri Dew, taught,

<blockquote>
While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living"—and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Sheri L. Dew|article=Are We Not All Mothers?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng |date=Nov. 2001|pages=96 {{eo}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on women? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading ====

Some claim that CHurch teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on LDS families, especially women.

Most women raising families, not just Latter-day Saint women, encounter "burdens" as they run their households. Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading. Recognizing the difficulties women face in family life, Church leaders have denounced male behaviors that add to these burdens. In speaking to women, Church leaders have reassured us that we are free to make choices—including choices about childbearing and service in our homes—that will better tailor our workloads to our individual strengths and abilities.

==== Childbearing in the Church ====

In 1995, the Church underlined its commitment to family life in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." The proclamation states: "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."<ref>{{Book:Church:Family Proclamation:1995/Full title}}</ref>

In harmony with these beliefs, Latter-day Saint life is often family life. In general, Latter-day Saints in the United States marry earlier than their neighbors outside the Church, are more likely to stay married, and have more children during their lifespans.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref> As the larger society surrounding the Church has moved away from traditional family life, the LDS lifestyle— or, at least, the stereotype of it—has become more conspicuous. For some, this raises concerns with regard to the roles women play in LDS families. Critics have inflamed these concerns—arguing mostly by assertion than with data—that the childbearing aspect of the ideal LDS family system places an unfair and unhealthy burden upon women.

==== Women's workloads inside and outside the Church ====

No matter how many other people live in it, running any household can be difficult. This is not a difficulty experienced by LDS women alone. Arlie Hochschild’s landmark work "The Second Shift" studied domestic workloads to see if household divisions of labor had become more fair for women as they started to take on non-traditional roles. What she found was that even when women worked at full-time jobs outside their homes, they still wound up doing most of the household chores themselves.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003. {{NC}}</ref> The assertion that women outside the Church are somehow immune from the burdens of running a household is simply wrong. Every woman—regardless of whether she’s involved in paid work, or how many children she has, or where she goes to church—is at risk of winding up doing far more than her fair share of household tasks. Inequalities like these are not limited to any particular religion or family structure.

==== The Church's position on domestic workloads ====

Despite the strong social pull of unequal household divisions of labor, leaders of the Church have counseled church members to alleviate the strains family life can have on women. Men overburdening women within families was denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley. Speaking of young mothers he said:

<blockquote>
I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: 'Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?' <ref name="hinckley">{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=To the Women of the Church|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/to-the-women-of-the-church?lang=eng|date=Nov. 2003}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While his approach to husbands was firm and corrective, President Hinckley took a different tone when speaking to wives in the same address:

<blockquote>
You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.<ref name="hinckley"></ref>
</blockquote>

Reassuring language like this has become a fixture in addresses made to the women of the Church. Another common theme is the assurance that there is no monolithic ideal of how to run a "proper" LDS household. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Marvin J. Ashton said in 1987:

<blockquote>
Sisters, do not allow yourselves to be made to feel inadequate or frustrated because you cannot do everything others seem to be accomplishing. Rather, each should assess her own situation, her own energy, and her own talents, and then choose the best way to mold her family into a team, a unit that works together and supports each other. Only you and your Father in Heaven know your needs, strengths, and desires. Around this knowledge your personal course must be charted and your choices made.<ref>{{Book:Ashton:Be of Good Cheer|pages=25–26}}</ref>
</blockquote>

What seems most important isn’t how LDS women shoulder their burdens but why they do it at all. In 1980, Melvin Wilkinson and William Tanner made a study of large family life in the LDS setting. The prevailing sociological wisdom was that large families yield less affection for children. However, the researchers found that the negative effect of large family life "is not so strong that it cannot be neutralized or even reversed."<ref>{{Book:Judd: Religion Mental Health and the Latter-day Saints|pages=93-106|author=Melvin L. Wilkinson and William C. Tanner III|article=The Influence of Family Size, Interaction, and Religiosity on Family Affection in a Mormon Sample|url=http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-mental-health-and-latter-day-saints/6-influence-family-size-interaction-and-religi}}</ref> Furthermore, they found that the key to reversing the bad effects of a large family wasn’t an increase of the amount of time parents spent with their children (or in other words, not an increase of the size of the "burden" placed on the parents) but an increase in the level of the mother’s commitment to the Church. Temple attendance was used as a measure of the mother’s religiosity. From there, the researchers went on to find that the higher a mother’s religiosity, the more affection the children in the family reported feeling.

Apparently, gospel living can actually provide relief from burdens—even those that seem universal and inevitable for all women running their households. As the Lord himself taught, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" {{s||Matthew|11|28-30}}.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women taught to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought"? ===
| state = closed
| content =
These claims are nonsense. President Spencer W. Kimball urged:

{{Epigraph|When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a ''full'' partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be ''silent'' partners or ''limited'' partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a ''contributing'' and ''full'' partner.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters|date=Nov. 1978|pages=106, {{io}}}}.</ref>}}

In an unpublished paper "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), women in the Church are said to be taught to be "subservient" to men and are considered "eternally unalterable second-class." Among some of its more colorful—if unfounded—statements are the claims that women are expected to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought."<ref name="ponder">Kent Ponder, "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," unpublished, 2003, online version accessed 30 May 2012, {{eo}}.</ref>

Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

* An overarching sexism and condescension, both overt and benevolent;
* A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women;
* The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials;
* Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms;
* Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women.

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not a useful analysis of gender politics within the Church. Instead, it is insulting, misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Statements
|summary=Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.
}}

==== '''Problems with Ponder'''—a feminist response to Kent Ponder’s work ====

The focus of this paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: [[Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants]].

==== Problems with underlying general sexism: "Thank the Lord I’m Not Female."<ref name="ponder"></ref> ====

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:
<blockquote>
"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..."<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>
This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once "needed and natural" is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we "tend to be more alert to social relations than men." The author writes at length about our abilities to "intuit." He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, "Women tell me they intuitively sense…"<ref name="ponder"></ref> In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that "The women notice too."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class by Ponder. In a section meant to show "The Larger Perspective," a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of Latter-day Saint feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots, such as an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

==== Benevolent sexism ====

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word "innocent" is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like "torment," "horrendous," and "anguish." To describe grown women as "innocent" is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the "needed and natural" male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women "innocent," they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an "LDS girl."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders—another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women. Depressed LDS women are called "unhappy campers"<ref name="ponder"></ref>-–a term often used to describe fussy infants—in another sexist diminution.

The author takes a simplistic view of women and presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women—those inside and outside his interview group—are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what "nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. "Near-infants" cannot report on their internal states, unless he considers that infancy to be extended by many years. That could explain his constant infantilization of adult women.

==== Sexism toward devout Latter-day Saint women in particular ====

An effective tool used by oppressive, small "p" patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations in which we will fight amongst ourselves. Such blatant tactics are obvious in the paper when the "best and brightest"<ref name="ponder"></ref> of LDS women—that is, the disaffected and depressed—are pitted against the rest of us.

One part of this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. One extreme of this kind of rhetoric, is the comparison of the religious convictions of devout LDS women to "people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up."<ref name="ponder"></ref> The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are "unable to comprehend"<ref name="ponder"></ref> the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of "intellectually curious"<ref name="ponder"></ref> yet devout LDS women. It even warns, "Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of "the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness"<ref name="ponder"></ref>. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her." <ref name="ponder"></ref>

Again, this claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and bigotry, nothing more. Ponder reveals himself to be far more sexist than the supposedly-evil system he is railing against.

==== Problems with misrepresentation of doctrine ====

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve.

He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 date of his article. This is not a writer who has intimate—or even cursory—knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

The fact that he does not realize this, and does not bother to inform himself, is further evidence of his condescension and ill-informed arrogance toward those he presumes to swoop in an 'help'.

{{ChurchResponseBar
|author=Gordon B. Hinckley
|summary=First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan."
...
No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance."
|title=Women of the Church
|publication=Ensign
|date=November 1996
|link=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/11/women-of-the-church?lang=eng
}}

Similar gaffes come to light in his description of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims "Any Mormon…will recognize"<ref name="ponder"></ref> as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items—such as tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings,—apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of CHurch doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women might lead the reader to wonder what the Church actually teaches girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The contemporary lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contained a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that "each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life."<ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." <ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

When addressing a worldwide gathering of Latter-day Saint young women in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/05/how-can-i-become-the-woman-of-whom-i-dream?lang=eng|date=April 2001}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it undermines his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman "learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband."<ref name="ponder"></ref> However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. {{s||D&C|131|2-3}}

He also contends that we require "permission from men"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim—not even any anecdotal evidence from his "nearly three hundred" interviews, or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. {{s||D&C|121|41-42}}

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, "they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion" ( {{s||Moses|5|53}} ).

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or more malign reasons.

==== Problems with methods ====

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done "extensive research"<ref name="ponder"></ref> through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified, though he claims to have corresponded with "nearly three hundred women."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like "church-active believers"<ref name="ponder"></ref> are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

He also fails to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like "very large" and "far more."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like "cognitive-dissonance headaches"<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like "One Size Fits All"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

==== Problems with personal confounding factors ====

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but "deeply offend[ed]."<ref name="ponder"></ref> We were to indulge in the kind of quasi-scientific pop psychology that Ponder uses, we might say that this represents the projection of his own neuroses onto others.

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

<blockquote>
What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo.<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>

While this may tell us a great deal about Ponder's behavior and personality, it doesn't tell us much about the Church.

He goes on to claim that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, "some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem—one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. <ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref>

For further discussions, see [[************LINK**************|above]].

Ponder admits feeling "ashamed" for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings—one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extinguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been—including Ponder and other critics—are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there some rule that states that women cannot open Church meetings with prayer? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings" ====

As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings."<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|pages=146|section=18|sub1=5}} {{link1|url=http://new.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng}}</ref>

There was a time in which by tradition men would typically stay opening prayers. There was never a doctrinal explanation or reason for this. It has not been the case for many decades.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women placed under covenant in temples to subordinate themselves to their husbands? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{templedisclaimer}}
In a previous version of the temple endowment, the covenant for women was phrased slightly differently than the men. We will not describe the details or wording, but offer the following thoughts:

# The covenant is conditioned upon the faithfulness and obedience of the husband. If the husband does not follow God's counsel, the woman is not obligated to honor his counsel.
# [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true/ The Family: A Proclamation to the World] states explicitly that men and women should work together as equal partners in their familial obligations. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."<ref> The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref> One objection to this may be that the The Proclamation states that men should "preside" over their families. However, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything other than "use priesthood to bless their families".
# How can men and women be "equal partners" yet one "preside"? Latter-day Saint feminist Valerie Hudson gave a perspective on this that is consistent with the covenant as currently revealed and may be beneficial to those wanting help with this. This talk, given at the 2010 FairMormon Conference, describes the covenant as the balancing of two trees—Eve being the first to bring us past the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam to bring us to the Tree of Life:

<blockquote>
I think it’s important to think about the fact that we have two trees and we have two people. Two trees, and a man and a woman. What I would like to address first is kind of an interesting interpretation of the fact that we have two trees and two people. Let’s address that by asking, Why was Eve created second? Now, I’m a convert to the Church, so I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

[. . .]

Let me offer a suggestion here. Could it be that Eve was created second to demonstrate Adam’s helplessness before the First Tree? Could it be—two people, two trees—that Eve was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree?

To answer that question, we must ask ourselves what partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means in a spiritual sense. And I think you know what it means. It means to enter into mortality with a mortal body, to enter into full agency, and to have awakened within us the light of Christ that will serve us so well as we pass the veil. Think—two people, two trees—whose stewardship does this sound like? It is through women that souls journey to mortality and gain their agency, and in general it is through the nurturing of women, their nurturing love of their children, that the light of Christ is awakened within each soul. And I would include in that list of souls Jesus the Christ. Even Christ our Lord was escorted to mortality and veiled in flesh through the gift of a woman, fed at his mother’s breast, awakened to all that is good and sweet in the world. Women escort every soul through the veil to mortal life and full agency. I believe that when we think about it—two people, two trees—that what we’re really thinking about is two stewardships. And that the fruit of the First Tree symbolizes the gift that women give to every soul that chose the plan of Christ. It symbolizes the role and power of women in the Great Plan of Happiness. It was not, in this view, right or proper for Adam to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree. It was not his role to give the gift of the fruit of the First Tree to others. It is interesting to think that even Adam, who was created before Eve, entered into full mortality and full agency by accepting the gift of the First Tree from the hand of a woman. In a sense, Adam himself was born of Eve.<ref> Valerie Hudson "The Two Trees" FairMormon Conference 2010 <https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref>
</blockquote>

We strongly encourage readers to see the full talk [https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees/ here].

In any case the endowment's separate wording was altered as of 2023—likely to prevent and preclude any such misunderstandings.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the position of The Church of Jesus Christ on elective abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently opposed abortion for all but a few rare situations.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', 7 June 2022, {{link|url=https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion}}</ref>

==== Except in certain rare circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin ====

{{ChurchResponseBar
|summary =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
 
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
 
*Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
*A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
*A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
 
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
 
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
|title=Abortion
|author=LDS Newsroom
|publication=LDS Newsroom
|link=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
}}

Except in rare certain circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin. However, the Church does not equate abortion with murder. Further, the Church acknowledges that women and men who have been involved in abortions can be forgiven and become members in good standing. The exceptions to the commandment prohibiting abortion highlight the Church’s commitment to women’s rights and to our intrinsic value apart from our biological roles as mothers.

==== Are there exceptions where abortion may be appropriate? Yes. ====

The Church has not adopted a simple, all-or-nothing approach to abortion. While the Church stands firmly by the commandment "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" {{s||D&C|59|6}} and Church members are cautioned that participating in abortion will usually bring their membership under scrutiny, allowances are made for situations where abortion may be necessary.

The Church recognizes there are cases when abortion is medically necessary. When a woman’s health would be severely threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term, the Church offers counsel and support while mothers themselves decide how to proceed. The same approach is taken even when the mother's life is not at risk but a pregnancy is medically deemed to have no chance of being viable. In such cases, the Church leaves the final choice of whether an abortion will be performed to the parents. There is no universal formula for how the exceptions to the Church's usual stance on abortion must be applied.

The list of situations where abortion may be appropriate demonstrates the Church’s commitment to women’s right to make choices. In cases of rape or incest (crimes sometimes known by other names but likely meant to describe any non-consensual sexual intercourse brought on by force or by the abuse of a position of power), the Church does not require victims to continue pregnancies arising from someone else’s abusive choices. If a woman does not consent to sexual contact, the Church does not consider her morally obliged to accept the consequences of it.

At a gathering of university students, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks quoted the following:

<blockquote>
The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The fact that an impending threat to the mother’s health is accepted by the Church as a valid reason for opting for abortion suggests that the Church prefers the life of the adult woman to the life of the unborn fetus—especially if there is no chance the fetus would be able to live if the pregnancy took its natural course. This preference is controversial to many in the mainstream Pro-Life movement. Clearly, however, women are not valued solely for their reproductive abilities. They are free to protect and preserve their own lives even if doing so directly compromises reproduction.

==== Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ====

In a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the ancient Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" {{s||Exodus|20|13}} was expanded to read "Thou shalt not…kill nor do anything like unto it." {{s||D&C|59|6}} Abortion has been interpreted to fall within the category of "anything like unto it." Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ''per se''. It is a less serious sin and one for which men and women can be forgiven.

While a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church President Russell M. Nelson said:

<blockquote>
So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And "as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion." Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/reverence-for-life?lang=eng Reverence for Life]|date=May 1985|pages=11}} See also {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng| article=Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless|date=Oct 2008|pages=32-37}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church does not persecute or demonize people involved in abortion. Instead, it reaches out to them with compassion and the promise of a possible redemption.

==== The Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion ====
As explained in the Church’s official statement on abortion, the Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion. However, Church members are free to express their own opinions and to be involved as individuals in political causes including abortion legislation.

The Church has come under criticism from conservative groups for not taking a more absolutist stance against abortion. At the same time, the Church is criticized by "pro-choice" groups for its extremely limited tolerance for abortion. Both sides of the argument accuse the Church of trying too hard to please the opposite side. Clearly, the Church’s stance on abortion cannot be the result of political pandering. If it's meant as a compromise, it would be a poor one that leaves both sides of the abortion argument angry and unsatisfied. In an argument as polarized as the abortion debate, no compromise would ever be acceptable. Rather than crafting a position that pleases either side of the debate, the Church position is a tempered one—one based on the application of revelation and true principles to a real, complicated world where difficult situations must be reckoned with on careful, individual bases.

Despite its lack of direct engagement in abortion politics, some Church leaders have warned members against aligning with movements that would promote the use of abortion beyond the circumstances of rape, incest, and catastrophic health outcomes accepted by the Church.

Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. …In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Adoption is encouraged as an alternative to abortion ====
Wrote the First Presidency in 1999:

<blockquote>
Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption .... 

Unwed parents who do not marry '''''should not''''' be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. Generally, unwed parents are not able to provide the stable, nurturing environment so essential for the baby’s well-being.

When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration. Placing the infant for adoption enables unwed parents to do what is best for the child and enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned.<ref>Cited in {{Ensign1|article=Policies and Announcements|date=April 1999|pages=80, {{ea}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church ====
Though the Church places a high value on families and regards the commandment given to Adam and Eve to "multiply, and replenish the earth" {{s||Genesis|1|28}} as still being in force,<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 1995.</ref> the use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church. Married LDS couples are not expected to limit their sexual contact to attempts to conceive. Sexual behavior between married partners is seen as wholesome and sanctifying even when there is little or no chance of conception. Birth control is meant to be used carefully and prayerfully but it is not forbidden.

==== Church leaders' statements on birth control ====

A recent statement explains the Church's stance on contraception:

<blockquote>
Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for a husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children within loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The scriptures declare, "Children are an heritage of the Lord." Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Birth control," ''Gospel Topics'' {{link|https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng}} (accessed 4 June 2024)</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1993, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, spoke in the Church’s General Conference saying:

<blockquote>
How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed, clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God’s promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families…In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks quoted the then President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, expressing similar sentiments:

<blockquote>
I like to think of the positive side of the equation, of the meaning and sanctity of life, of the purpose of this estate in our eternal journey, of the need for the experiences of mortal life under the great plan of God our Father, of the joy that is to be found only where there are children in the home, of the blessings that come of good posterity. When I think of these values and see them taught and observed, then I am willing to leave the question of numbers to the man and the woman and the Lord.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This moderate approach has a long history. In 1916, Church leaders, such as David O. MacKay, endorsed of the wisdom in using moderation and sensitivity when it comes to childbearing. MacKay said,

<blockquote>
In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme.<ref>David O. McKay, ''Relief Society Magazine'' (July 1916) 3:7.</ref>
</blockquote>

The language and tone may be old-fashioned but the message of mothers’ needs as the priority was a progressive one for its day.

==== Sexual behavior and emotional health ====

The Church has long taught that sexual relations are not only for the creation of children, but have other important roles within marriage. Late President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, taught:

<blockquote>
In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Cautions and qualifications ====

Church leaders have also issued frank warnings about the over-use of birth control. As late Church President, Ezra Taft Benson, taught:

<blockquote>
Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity.<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Mothers in Zion," Parents' Fireside, Salt Lake City, Utah, 22 February 1987.</ref>
</blockquote>

Even this statement contains the qualification that mothers enjoy "good health." Childbearing is never meant to be carried out with dogmatic recklessness. In all things, the LDS decision making process is a deliberate, thoughtful one where individuals "study it out in [their] mind[s]" {{s||D&C|9|8}} and receipt spiritual confirmation before acting.

President Benson knew this and added, "I would ask our young people to think seriously about these things, pray about them, fast about them. The Lord will give them the answers, because He wants them to have the blessings of a righteous posterity." <ref>{{TETB|start=539|end=543}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What do the scriptures say about the issue of abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently been against abortion.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', June 7, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion/.</ref>

Prophetic guidance often draws from—and is consistent with—canonized scripture. We here examine scriptural passages that have relevance to the abortion debate—though we must remember that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ derives fundamentally from modern prophetic guidance, and not an interpretation of past scripture. We can, however, use the prophets' current stance to explore scripture and see what we might learn.

==== {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}} ====

One of the most commonly cited and discussed scriptures relevant to abortion is {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}}:

<blockquote>
¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
</blockquote>

This is a type of ''casuistic law''— that is, it stipulates what kind of punishments should be inflicted on a person if they engage in certain kinds of acts. This is a case where two or more people are fighting and accidentally hurt a woman and her fetus. This would be an ''accidental miscarriage'' '''or''' ''accidental premature birth'' of a woman while two people are fighting.

The scripture stipulates that if the men make the woman miscarry/have this premature birth, they must first be confronted by the husband of the woman. The husband, along with judges, will jointly determine what kind of fine to impose on those who fought. The same procedure was presumably followed if the husband himself was one of the combatants in the altercation.

The passage further stipulates that if the woman herself is injured or dies (exactly which is not clear), then the people who engaged in the fight are liable for death and other punishments [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye lex talionis]. It’s important to note that lex talionis "is a principle of fair treatment of assailants and not necessarily a literal prescription for retaliatory treatment in all cases."<ref>Carol Myers, "Exodus," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press), 114. Importantly, Myers further states on the same page: "Note that compensation is sometimes acceptable (vv. 22, 26, 27) and that the rabbinic understanding of talion calls for paying damages."</ref>

Some have argued that this passage and, consequently, Israelite law treats the value of the mother as greater than the value of the fetus. But this argument depends on the correct translation of ויצאו (''wytsaw''. Translated as "depart from her" in the KJV above), how one translates the term אָסוֹן (ʾ''ason'') translated as "mischief", what that ''ason'' included, and who that ''ason'' is applied to. None of these questions can be answered with certainty.

''Wytsaw'' is [https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm typically translated] as "give birth prematurely" in modern, popular, English biblical translations, though other important translations say "miscarriage". "Premature birth" may be preferred because of 'ason which is typically translated as ''harm'' or ''injury''. Some say that it should be translated as "serious injury." Some take it to refer to death.

Who the injury, serious injury, harm, or death is inflicted on is also important. If it is only the woman, then the woman is being more valued than the fetus. If the harm is assumed to be to either the woman ''or'' her fetus, then both are being valued equally. If the harm is only to the fetus, then the fetus is being valued more than the woman. It's uncertain, but the first two options are more likely than the last. Injury to either a woman or a child would be negative.

Even if we translate and interpret the passage such that the fetus is miscarried and no other harm is brought on the woman, the passage ''still stipulates that a fine be paid''. This indicates that the fetus who was miscarried or born prematurely—and a fetus presumably at any stage of development— ''still had at least some value'' in the eyes of the Israelite law. This scripture under no circumstances allows a kind of ethic that sees the fetus as entirely expendable no matter the stage of development.

The very least that we can conclude from these passages is that this was an ''accidental'' situation (not a deliberate one as in the case of elective abortion), that both the mother and fetus were seen as valuable at least in some way, and that damages needed to be paid or punishments received commensurate with the harm inflicted on mother and fetus.

Given the fact that this was a case of accidental harm alone, we cannot use this scripture to support the deliberate end of a fetus's life.

We now consider some other relevant scriptures.

==== {{s||Numbers|5|}} ====
{{s||Numbers|5|11-31}} outlines what is known today as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water Ordeal of the Bitter Water].

The major talking point is concerning verse 27 and what happens as a priest makes a woman partake of the water.

<blockquote>
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
</blockquote>

The word "thigh" is a translation of the Hebrew yarek (יָרֵך) which does mean thigh but euphemistically refers to the genitals and other reproductive organs of a human being.

The passage says that a woman’s belly will swell up and that her uterus and perhaps vagina will either shrivel up or fall out (or maybe both).

Some have interpreted this passage to refer to miscarriage. The NIV translates this verse to say that "your womb [will] miscarry and your abdomen swell". But the passage doesn’t apply to just pregnant women. It applies to all those that have been caught in adultery, whether pregnant or not. The curses that {{s_short||Numbers|5|27}} is establishing refer to ''infertility''. Thus, it’s not that a woman loses her baby because of the trial, but loses her ability to ''conceive entirely''.

==== Thou shalt not murder ====
Texts that may be relevant to the abortion debate include those that condemn murder. There are many such texts in the scriptures that are so well-known that we will not cite them here. The question is, "Does abortion really constitute murder?"

Certain leaders of the Church have analogized abortion to murder in the past.<ref name="ortner"></ref>

The current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that abortion does not necessarily constitute murder. The Church most frequently cites a text contained in the Latter-day Saint canon: {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|59|6}}. It tells the Saints "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it." Abortion has typically been seen in the "nor do anything like unto it" clause.

The first mention of "kill" clearly refers to murder. But there are obviously other categories of sinful killing that are not murder. (Some killing, such as in self-defense, could be considered not sinful at all.)

This is where abortion is situated by the Church: not necessarily murder, but still an act of unjustified killing ''like'' murder.

==== Impeding obedience to other commandments ====

Scriptures that apply to abortion and it's ethical implications are not only those which discuss murder. Other commandments and other moral considerations might be broken or encouraged if we endorse abortion.

One of these would be the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" given by God in the creation accounts contained in both the scriptures and the temple ( {{s||Genesis|1|28}}; {{s||Moses|2|28}}; {{s||Abraham|4|28}} ).

Marriage is another command that applies. Elective abortion is often treated as a safety net for individuals that want to have unprotected sex without the consequence of an unwanted child. Abortion can thus disincentivies marriage. Scriptures forbidding extramarital sexual acts are many, and not cited here.

Latter-day Saint scripture portrays the body as a treasured thing—crucial to our learning. {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|93|33-34}} tells us that a fulness of joy can only be obtained when the spirit of a person and his or her body are inseparably connected by resurrection. It is clear in scripture that bodies are wanted by both righteous and wicked spirits ( {{s||Matthew|8|28-32}}; {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|45|17}}; {{s_short||D&C|138:14-15,18,50}} ).

It is clear, as Dallin H. Oaks as observed, that "[f]rom the perspective of the plan of salvation, one of the most serious abuses of children is to deny them birth" and especially to deny them birth within the environment most-aptly suited for their progression through mortality: marriage.{{Ensign|Dallin H. Oaks|Protect the Children|vol=42|num=11|date=November 2012|pages= 43|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/11/saturday-afternoon-session/protect-the-children?lang=eng }}</ref>

Some abortion debates focus on when the soul enters the body—presuming that killing an ensouled fetus or child would be murder, while an unesouled one might be aborted without concern.

==== The scriptures provide no guidance as to when ensoulment happens ====
Some believe that the question is resolved by Genesis where God grants Adam his "first breath" so that he becomes a living soul. By these lights, one can know that the soul has entered the body when a person ''breathes''. The Latter-day Saint temple appears to teach that God first places Adam’s spirit in his body and then afterwards grants him his first breath. Furthermore, if first breath is truly when personhood is thought to begin, exactly which "breath" should we be treating as someone's first? Fetal breathing (though not ''strictly'' breathing for oxygen exchange) can begin as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy and about as late right before birth.<ref>Coleen de Bellefonds, "How Babies Breathe in the Womb," What to Expect, July 19, 2021, https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-health/how-babies-breathe-womb.</ref> A "first breath" standard for when personhood begins might prohibit a large number of abortions.

Others believe that ''blood'' is what grants personhood and indicates ensoulment. Oftentimes it is thought that blood in connection with breath grants full-personhood in Israelite law. This has at least some merit when considering the thought world of the authors of the Bible. Here again, though, the answers are not as clear-cut as we might like: "By the end of the fifth week [of gestation], the heart of the fetus is able to pump blood throughout its body."<ref>"Medical Animation: Prenatal Heart Circulation," St. Louis Children's Hospital, accessed April 5, 2023, https://www.stlouischildrens.org/health-resources/pulse/medical-animation-prenatal-heart-circulation.</ref> So does a fetus' working circulatory system at the fifth week of gestation grant them personhood?

Some believe that the answer as to when a fetus receives its human spirit/gains personhood is when a fetus is "quickened" or when it first begins to move inside of a woman’s womb. There are some scriptures/statements from leaders of the Church that may be used to justify this view.

*{{s||Luke|1|44}}, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This scriptures discusses John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth. The New Testament mentions that Elizabeth hid herself for five months. Thus we might deduce that a soul was in John’s body after five months when Mary visited Elizabeth.
*President Brigham Young once said that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" ([[Journal of Discourses/17/22|''Journal of Discourses'', 17:143]]).

(We now know that fetal movement begins much sooner than the mother can feel it—the sensation is only when fetus is large enough and its movements strong enough to be felt by the mother.)

President Young’s view stands in mild contrast with an official statement from the First Presidency in 1909 which is less certain about when life enters the body:

<blockquote>
The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened '''at a certain stage''' by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.
</blockquote>

Thus there is no definitive answer about when the soul enters the body from the scriptures nor The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some believe that full-personhood for fetuses is asserted by what they perceive as the continuity of personal identity displayed in biblical passages such as {{s||Job|3|3}}, {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}, and {{s||Jeremiah|1|5}}.

* {{s||Job|3|3}} – "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived." This verse does not assume personal continuity of identity as some have claimed. It merely asserts that Job wishes he weren't conceived nor born.
* {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}: "For thou hast possessed me reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee ; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." This may indicate a kind of continuity, but it's not certain. The Lord at the very least here sees a kind of form that he intricately weaves the psalmist's bones and other members according to. It is certain that the Lord, according to the psalmist, takes a special concern for/interest in and performs a special creative act on the unborn.
*{{s||Jeremiah|1|5}} – "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This is perhaps the strongest scripture in favor of continuity of personhood (though still not entirely certain). The Lord ordained unborn Jeremiah, like the prophet servant of the Lord in Isaiah ( {{s||Isaiah|42|1}}; {{s_short||Isaiah|49|6}} ), to be a prophet unto the nations.

As before, these scriptures are suggestive, but not definitive.

==== Biology as it may relate to personhood ====
Biologically, asking "when life begins" is absurd—the egg is alive from the moment it is fertilized. In a fallen world, cells that are dead do not come back to life. And, if the egg is not "human" life, then what kind of life is it? The cells involved come from humans, are only produced by humans, and develop into a human.

Thus wholly 95% of biologists agree that a new, distinct human life begins at conception: when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm.<ref>Steven Andrew Jacobs "Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins’," SSRN, August 6, 2018; "Life Begins at Fertilization," Princeton, accessed May 7, 2022, https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html; Steven Andrew Jacobs, "Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate," (Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2019); Steve Jacobs, "I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular," ''Quilette'', October 16, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/.</ref>

One can only wonder about the other 5% of biologists—presumably they understood that the question was poorly posed, or didn't like the ideological implications.

The fertilized egg is certainly alive—it metabolizes, replicates DNA, divides, differentiates, etc. There is never a point at which the egg is "dead" and then becomes alive again. Nor is there a point at which the embryo or fetus is not alive.

"When does human life begin?" is thus a sloppy way to ask the real question: ''When does a fertilized human egg acquire any rights or moral standing? At what point does killing it have moral implications?''

We kill things that are alive all the time—we kill billions of bacteria without a thought. The key question is, ''Is killing a human embryo like killing a bacteria? Or is it like killing a toddler? Or something in between?''

Our laws do tend to treat human bodies as persons regardless of their current brain function, heart function, lung function, sentience, etc. And, there is never debate about whether these people are ''alive''. Of course they are.

====What to do in the face of uncertainty?====
Some have argued that there are moral duties even when we are not certain of all the facts. There are, with abortion, at least three possibilities:

# Abortion is the equivalent of murder, killing a fully-human (in the sense of having full human rights, not in the biological sense).
# Abortion is still a serious moral act, even if it does not rise to the level of murder.
# Abortion is of no moral consequence regarding the fetus.

In the face of uncertainty, we could choose to
* support or participate in an abortion; or
* oppose or participate in an abortion.

If it turns out that abortion is murder or a serious moral wrong (option #1 or #2) then it is far better to have chosen to oppose abortion. Standing by would be like doing nothing to stop slavery, or not attempting to stop the slaughter of prisoners of war.

If abortion turns out to have no or few moral consequences (#3), we have at least not committed a murder or murder-like crime. We would have opposed the right of women to do something that they wanted to do—and that ''would'' be a moral wrong. But it is surely not as grave a moral wrong as the mass killing of the innocent and defenseless.

Which risk should we run if we are not certain?{
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women ====

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.<ref>The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections {{sv||D&C|20|}}, {{sv||D&C|84|}}, and {{sv||D&C|107|}}. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, {{sv||D&C|20|60}} reads "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him." </ref> Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book]) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.<ref>It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 here].</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood ====

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

<blockquote>
the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842|pages=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to offices in the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

<blockquote>
Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, 'elect lady'.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "[http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/desnews8/id/3945/rec/5 Female Relief Society]," ''Deseret News'' (22 April 1868): 81.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’ ====
Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’<ref>Eliza R. Snow references {{s||Articles of Faith|1|6}} in her article.</ref> Likewise, in an interview, Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

<blockquote>
Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.<ref>Quoted in {{Dialogue|author=Tina Hatch|article='Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present|vol=37|num=33|pages=68-69}}. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies]," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012). {{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2012 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

If seen as a companion to the priesthood—as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

==== Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood ====

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, Joseph said:

<blockquote>
Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|4-5}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood ====

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)<ref>See {{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=6|pages=9|date=17 March 1842}} See also {{JDmini|vol=21|pages=368}} (below) where he appeals to that experience.</ref> wrote:

<blockquote>
Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|date=8 August 1880|vol=21|disc=40|article=The Order and Duties of the Priesthood, Etc.|start=367|end=368}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Given that President Taylor ordained the first Relief Society presidency under Joseph's instructions, he was well-placed to know whether this was an ordination to priesthood office or not.

==== President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church ====

But, his reference to a priesthood held "in connection with their husbands" reminds us of Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

<blockquote>
He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|38-39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Latter-day Saint women in the 19th century ====

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands.<ref>For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" ''The Journal of Mormon History'' 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.</ref> This had apparently caused some discussion as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century. The very name of the society, after all, described its purpose of bringing relief to the poor, sick, or suffering.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

<blockquote>
He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|37-38}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843:

<blockquote>
The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.<ref>(See {{HC|vol=5|start=510}})</ref>
</blockquote>

When this was prepared for publication in the ''History of the Church'', this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

<blockquote>
He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands; that the Saints whose integrity had been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer.<ref>{{HC|vol=4|pages=604}} See also {{TPJS|pages=226}} For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.</ref>
</blockquote>

This interpolated idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood—though it is not found in Joseph's original. We note too that the "keys" in this reading are the keys of knowledge and revelation.

Bruce R. McConkie emphasized that 'keys' "have two distinct and yet related meanings:"

<blockquote>
1—They are the right of presidency; the right to govern and direct all the affairs of the Church or kingdom; and the power to authorize the use of hte Priesthood for a particular purpose. In this sense keys are held by those only who are in presiding and governing positions.

2—Keys are also ''the way and means whereby knowledge and intelligence may be gained from God. In this sense, they are possessed by every Priesthood bearer and ... by many faithful membres of the Relief Society.<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|148}}.
</blockquote>

It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=History_of_the_Church_(6-volume_history)
|subject1=Editing practices for the ''History of the Church''
|summary1=The ''History of the Church'' was assembled in the 19th century, and followed different authorship, editing, and source conventions.
}}

==== Keys and the Relief Society ====

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

<blockquote>
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.<ref>{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|40}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers ====

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that "I now turn the key to you"? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1950:

<blockquote>
What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them. ...

[T]he door was [also] opened whereby the faithful sisters, with their husbands, could communicate with God and receige blessings at his hands. What was it the Prophet said? "Knwledge and intelligence shall flow down (i.e. from God) from this time henceforth."<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|151}}.
</blockquote>

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

<blockquote>
Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.<ref>"A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued," ''Woman’s Exponent'' 12 (15 October 1883): 75. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/WomansExp/id/10944/rec/27}}</ref>
</blockquote>

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the Relief Society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

<blockquote>
"We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up," she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: "The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’" Snow described the Relief Society as "self-governing" and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. "Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood," she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that "all must act in concert or nothing can be done," she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests "are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors."<ref>Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.</ref>
</blockquote>

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

<blockquote>
The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=19}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

<blockquote>
We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=3|author=Joseph F. Smith}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

<blockquote>
Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=13|start=155|disc=18|article=Building Up Zion—Temperance in Eating and Drinking}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed ====

Joseph Fielding Smith:

<blockquote>
While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Women and priesthood in a temple context ====

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

<blockquote>
I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.<ref>Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888, in “Memorial Anniversary. Report of the Relief Soicety Meeting Held in the Ogden Tabernacle, July 19th, 1888, in Commemoration of the Last Public Visit and Instructions of President Brigham Young, on Invitation of President Jane S. Richards, to the Relief Society and Young Ladies’ Improvement Associations of the Weber Stake of Zion, Just Eleven Years Ago the 19th Inst.,” Woman’s Exponent (Salt Lake City, UT), Sept. 1, 1888, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 52–54.{{link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-4/4-20?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President. He mentioned the habit of providing temple annointing and washing ritual to women for health reasons:

<blockquote>
Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.<ref>Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, Church Archives.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

<blockquote>
"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."<ref>{{Book:Talmage:House of the Lord|pages=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage ====

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

<blockquote>
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133 'Let Us Think Straight']," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.</ref>
</blockquote>

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

<blockquote>
Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.<ref name="oaks">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng|date=May 2014}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Women act with delegated priesthood authority====

President Dallin H. Oaks emphasized this point when he pointed out that "since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” ({{s||D&C|107|5}}), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority."<ref name="oaks"></ref>

When we understand this, we see that most ''men'' do not perform their duties with their "own" priesthood authority, most of the time. Instead, both men and women ''usually'' act in their Church callings by designated or delegated authority.

====Most people—male and female—act with delegated authority====
For example:
* a ward clerk or executive secretary performs his duties by delegated authority.
* Sunday school teachers—male and female—teach classes under designated authority.
* Primary Presidencies, Young Women's Presidencies, Young Men's adult assistants, Sunday School presidencies—all act under delegated authority from the bishop when they are set apart.

In fact, there are only a few callings that exercise keys and priesthood authority that resides in them, rather than as delegated:
* priesthood quorum presidents
* bishops
* stake, temple, and mission presidents
* apostles

President Oaks expressed this idea when he emphasized:

<blockquote>
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.<ref name="oaks"></ref>
</blockquote>

Most members, then, will spend all or most of their Church ''callings'' functioning under delegated authority, not authority to which they are ordained.<ref>Men will, however, often be called on to exercise priesthood in the performance of ''ordinances'', such as blessing the sacrament, blessing the sick, baptizing, or confirming—these duties are not carried out as part of a calling, but in one's role as an ordained holder of the priesthood.</ref>

And, that delegated authority is even used by women in temples to administer sacred ordinance, see [[#Women and priesthood in a temple context|above]].

====We need a more expansive view of how priesthood authority is used by all faithful Church members====

President Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized this in 1959:

<blockquote>
While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” ''Relief Society Magazine'', Jan. 1959, 4; cited by Oaks, 2014</ref>.
</blockquote>
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Was ist die Stellung der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage zur Geburtenkontrolle?]]
[[de:Frauen und das Priestertum]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Maternidad]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Mujeres en la cultura mormona]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Participación en la Iglesia]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y el sacerdocio/Mujeres]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la posición mormona sobre el aborto?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la postura de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días sobre el control de la natalidad?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿El mormonismo devalúa a aquellos que no están casados o que no tienen hijos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hay alguna regla en el mormonismo que establezca que las mujeres no pueden abrir reuniones de la Iglesia con la oración?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las enseñanzas del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón") sobre la maternidad representan una carga inadecuada para las mujeres?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") colocadas bajo convenio en los templos se subordinan a sus esposos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Se enseña a las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") a ser "agradecidas a los hombres mormones" y que las mujeres no deben "aspirar ... a un pensamiento independiente"?]]

Women in the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-07-09T18:07:05Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Women
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} This page answers questions and criticisms about the Church's relations with women.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures ====
The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam ({{b||Exodus|15|20}}), Deborah ({{b||Judges|4|4}}), Huldah ({{b|2|Kings|22|14}},{{b|2|Chronicles|34|22}}), Noadiah ({{b||Nehemiah|6|14}}). The New Testament mentions Anna ({{b||Luke|2|36}}). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

==== The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy ====

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet." In this sense, ''the'' prophet is a priesthood position held by the senior apostle on earth. As President Dallin H. Oaks noted:

<blockquote>
The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood. ...

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”
</blockquote>

In the same way, "The Prophet" is certainly a prophet, but he is not the only one who can or should possess the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

<blockquote>
...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in {{s||Num.|11|25-29}}; {{s||Rev.|19|10}}.<ref>{{BD|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61|article=Prophet}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics {{s||Joel|2|28-29}}. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word "prophetess" is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

==== The false prophetess ====

In the New Testament, the word is applied to "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess."{{s||Rev|2|20}} According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy—a dark parallel to the woman and child that reprsent the Church of God (see {{s||Rev|12|}}, especially [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12?lang=eng&id=p1-p17#p1 JST Revelation 12:7]. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

It does not preclude righteous women from acting as prophets any more than the existence of false male prophets precludes men from doing so.

The negative use of "prophetess" shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church.

==== Why are there no female prophets today? ====

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today:

<blockquote>
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ({{b||Exodus|19|5-6}})
</blockquote>

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" ({{b|1|Peter|2|9}})

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets:

<blockquote>
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! ({{b||Numbers|11||29}})
</blockquote>

If we cannot perceive Latter-day Saint women who are prophets, we may be thinking of "prophet" as a position of influence or power, rather than as a spiritual gift to which all are called to be worthy.
{{To learn more box:women: priesthood}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church devalue those who are not married or who do not have children? ===
| state = closed
| content =
Some charge that the Church devalues those who are not married or who do not have children. This is not so.

A significant portion of adult Church members are single people. Their challenges and lifestyles are somewhat different than those of married members, but Church leaders make ongoing efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of single members. Living as a single person is challenging both inside and outside the Church. This is not a difficulty limited to the LDS context. Within the Church, the promise that no eternal blessings will be withheld from worthy members simply because of their marital status is repeated over and over again.<ref>{{NC}}</ref> Church leaders have denounced mistreatments of single members and continue to call members of all marital statuses to positions of trust.

==== Ideals and realities ====

LDS teachings—like those of most every other belief system and culture throughout history—regard formal, conjugal marriage relationships as vital social ideals. Among Latter-day Saints, marriage is not only a social ideal but a spiritual one. According to the scriptures, marriage is a requirement for the greatest blessings to which we can aspire. {{s||D&C|131|2}}

It is of course not possible for every Latter-day Saint to find a suitable spouse. Due to death, divorce, or other causes it is not always possible or wise for members to stay married. This means that many have been, are, or will be single. In 2007, First Presidency member, James E. Faust, reported that one third of the adult membership of the Church was single.<ref>{{Ensign|author=James E. Faust|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/08/welcoming-every-single-one?lang=eng Welcoming Every Single One]|date=Aug 2007}}</ref> This is a substantial proportion but it’s still a minority. The fact is single Latter-day Saints live in a faith community comprised of many married couples. Naturally, such an environment can be challenging.

Some may feel life as a single person is less than ideal. But an ideal is "a conception of something in its absolute perfection."<ref>''Dictionary.com', s.v. "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal ideal]" (accessed 17 July 2012).</ref> Married members of the Church don’t achieve perfection in their marriages during their lifetimes. Their lives are different from singles', but they too are also less than ideal. As the apostle Paul taught, all of us have "come short of the glory of God." {{s||Romans|3|23}} None of us—no matter what our marital status—is living an ideal life. In this we are all alike.

==== The time will come when the Lord bless all of His Father’s children with every blessing He can, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single ====

Speaking to single members, Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
I…remind you that there are those who are married whose lives are extremely unhappy and that you who are single and experience much of deep and consuming worry are not alone in your feelings. <ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|date=November 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Fortunately, the time will come when Christ shall "wipe away all the tears" {{s||Revelation|21|4}} and bless all of his Father’s children with every blessing they desire, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single.

==== Feelings of social awkwardness and marginalization are not limited to single people living in the LDS context ====

In popular Western culture, there’s a fairly steady stream of books, articles, and all kinds of other media produced about the difficulties of single life. People of all beliefs, not just Latter-day Saints, struggle to find a comfortable place in the world as singles. It is a widespread problem—one that was not created by the Church and one that cannot be escaped by avoiding the Church.

==== Statements of Church leaders ====

The challenges of single members are not unknown and unaddressed by Church leaders. President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, speaking of singlehood and childlessness among Church members, said:

<blockquote>
These are temporary states. In the eternal scheme of things—not always in mortality—righteous yearning and longing will be fulfilled.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article= And a Little Child Shall Lead Them]|date=May 2012|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/and-a-little-child-shall-lead-them?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Living as a single Latter-day Saint is more common for women than it is among men. In recognition of this, much of the counsel and consolation extended by Church leaders to single people is addressed specifically to women. This counsel includes assurances that members should not settle for unworthy or inadequate marriage partners just to satisfy what may seem like little more than a formality. Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

<blockquote>
You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Elijah the Prophet and His Mission|pages=51}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Comments like these have become ''de rigueur'' when Church leaders teach about marriage and families. Efforts are constantly made to acknowledge and address the circumstances of adult members of the Church who are not married.

Among these circumstances is the reality that there is no monolithic Latter-day Saint single member. President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of his distaste for the generic label "single":

<blockquote>
Though you are so diverse in your backgrounds, we have put a badge on you as if you were all alike. That badge reads S-I-N-G-L-E-S. I do not like that. I do not like to categorize people. We are all individuals living together, hopefully with respect for one another, notwithstanding some of our personal situations … when all is said and done, we should not be classified as married or single but as members of the Church, each worthy of the same attention, the same care, the same opportunities to be of service.<ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|date=Nov 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same address, President Hinckley condemned the thoughtless mistreatment of single members within LDS congregations, calling it "a tragedy" and "a betrayal."

==== Single Saints serving in the gospel ====

The New Testament contains the story of Anna, a woman called a "prophetess" who served in the temple at the time Jesus was born. By the time Mary brought the infant Jesus to the temple, Anna had been a widow for almost all of her long adult life. She was a single woman who was blessed for her faith and service with the privilege of recognizing and greeting the Lord. She had much to offer her community even though she had lived without a husband for eighty-four years {{s||Luke|2|36-38}}.

In the modern Church, single women also play important roles as leaders, teachers, and exemplars. One of the most storied women of the early days of the restored Church is Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum Smith, who crossed the plains from Nauvoo to Utah as a single mother. Emmeline B. Wells, the fifth General President of the Relief Society, was abandoned by her first husband.<ref>Julie Wardell, "Heroes and Heroines: Emmeline B. Wells." ''Friend,'' Feb 1985.</ref> Clearly, her status as a divorcee did not prevent her from holding a prominent leadership position.

Counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency have included Barbara Thompson and Sheri L. Dew, neither of whom has ever been married. Upon being called, Sheri L. Dew introduced herself saying:

<blockquote>
If there’s any message in the fact that a never-married woman has been called to the Relief Society general presidency it is that all women, regardless of their status or situation, are welcomed, loved, and valued…The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. We are all significant parts of the whole. I never think of myself as single; I think of myself as Sheri, a member of the Lord’s Church.<ref>{{Ensign|author=News of the Church|date=May 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Along with singleness there often comes childlessness ====
Along with singleness there often comes childlessness. Since many members of the Church have children, and see childbearing as a blessing and the ideal, single members may feel doubly marginalized. Married members may also struggle with the heartbreak of infertility.

Fortunately, motherhood is not merely a demographic or a reproductive state in Church doctrine. Instead, it is a spiritual gift in which all can participate.

In 2001, Sheri Dew, taught,

<blockquote>
While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living"—and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Sheri L. Dew|article=Are We Not All Mothers?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng |date=Nov. 2001|pages=96 {{eo}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on women? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading ====

Some claim that CHurch teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on LDS families, especially women.

Most women raising families, not just Latter-day Saint women, encounter "burdens" as they run their households. Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading. Recognizing the difficulties women face in family life, Church leaders have denounced male behaviors that add to these burdens. In speaking to women, Church leaders have reassured us that we are free to make choices—including choices about childbearing and service in our homes—that will better tailor our workloads to our individual strengths and abilities.

==== Childbearing in the Church ====

In 1995, the Church underlined its commitment to family life in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." The proclamation states: "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."<ref>{{Book:Church:Family Proclamation:1995/Full title}}</ref>

In harmony with these beliefs, Latter-day Saint life is often family life. In general, Latter-day Saints in the United States marry earlier than their neighbors outside the Church, are more likely to stay married, and have more children during their lifespans.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref> As the larger society surrounding the Church has moved away from traditional family life, the LDS lifestyle— or, at least, the stereotype of it—has become more conspicuous. For some, this raises concerns with regard to the roles women play in LDS families. Critics have inflamed these concerns—arguing mostly by assertion than with data—that the childbearing aspect of the ideal LDS family system places an unfair and unhealthy burden upon women.

==== Women's workloads inside and outside the Church ====

No matter how many other people live in it, running any household can be difficult. This is not a difficulty experienced by LDS women alone. Arlie Hochschild’s landmark work "The Second Shift" studied domestic workloads to see if household divisions of labor had become more fair for women as they started to take on non-traditional roles. What she found was that even when women worked at full-time jobs outside their homes, they still wound up doing most of the household chores themselves.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003. {{NC}}</ref> The assertion that women outside the Church are somehow immune from the burdens of running a household is simply wrong. Every woman—regardless of whether she’s involved in paid work, or how many children she has, or where she goes to church—is at risk of winding up doing far more than her fair share of household tasks. Inequalities like these are not limited to any particular religion or family structure.

==== The Church's position on domestic workloads ====

Despite the strong social pull of unequal household divisions of labor, leaders of the Church have counseled church members to alleviate the strains family life can have on women. Men overburdening women within families was denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley. Speaking of young mothers he said:

<blockquote>
I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: 'Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?' <ref name="hinckley">{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=To the Women of the Church|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/to-the-women-of-the-church?lang=eng|date=Nov. 2003}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While his approach to husbands was firm and corrective, President Hinckley took a different tone when speaking to wives in the same address:

<blockquote>
You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.<ref name="hinckley"></ref>
</blockquote>

Reassuring language like this has become a fixture in addresses made to the women of the Church. Another common theme is the assurance that there is no monolithic ideal of how to run a "proper" LDS household. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Marvin J. Ashton said in 1987:

<blockquote>
Sisters, do not allow yourselves to be made to feel inadequate or frustrated because you cannot do everything others seem to be accomplishing. Rather, each should assess her own situation, her own energy, and her own talents, and then choose the best way to mold her family into a team, a unit that works together and supports each other. Only you and your Father in Heaven know your needs, strengths, and desires. Around this knowledge your personal course must be charted and your choices made.<ref>{{Book:Ashton:Be of Good Cheer|pages=25–26}}</ref>
</blockquote>

What seems most important isn’t how LDS women shoulder their burdens but why they do it at all. In 1980, Melvin Wilkinson and William Tanner made a study of large family life in the LDS setting. The prevailing sociological wisdom was that large families yield less affection for children. However, the researchers found that the negative effect of large family life "is not so strong that it cannot be neutralized or even reversed."<ref>{{Book:Judd: Religion Mental Health and the Latter-day Saints|pages=93-106|author=Melvin L. Wilkinson and William C. Tanner III|article=The Influence of Family Size, Interaction, and Religiosity on Family Affection in a Mormon Sample|url=http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-mental-health-and-latter-day-saints/6-influence-family-size-interaction-and-religi}}</ref> Furthermore, they found that the key to reversing the bad effects of a large family wasn’t an increase of the amount of time parents spent with their children (or in other words, not an increase of the size of the "burden" placed on the parents) but an increase in the level of the mother’s commitment to the Church. Temple attendance was used as a measure of the mother’s religiosity. From there, the researchers went on to find that the higher a mother’s religiosity, the more affection the children in the family reported feeling.

Apparently, gospel living can actually provide relief from burdens—even those that seem universal and inevitable for all women running their households. As the Lord himself taught, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" {{s||Matthew|11|28-30}}.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women taught to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought"? ===
| state = closed
| content =
These claims are nonsense. President Spencer W. Kimball urged:

{{Epigraph|When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a ''full'' partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be ''silent'' partners or ''limited'' partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a ''contributing'' and ''full'' partner.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters|date=Nov. 1978|pages=106, {{io}}}}.</ref>}}

In an unpublished paper "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), women in the Church are said to be taught to be "subservient" to men and are considered "eternally unalterable second-class." Among some of its more colorful—if unfounded—statements are the claims that women are expected to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought."<ref name="ponder">Kent Ponder, "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," unpublished, 2003, online version accessed 30 May 2012, {{eo}}.</ref>

Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

* An overarching sexism and condescension, both overt and benevolent;
* A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women;
* The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials;
* Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms;
* Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women.

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not a useful analysis of gender politics within the Church. Instead, it is insulting, misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Statements
|summary=Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.
}}

==== '''Problems with Ponder'''—a feminist response to Kent Ponder’s work ====

The focus of this paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: [[Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants]].

==== Problems with underlying general sexism: "Thank the Lord I’m Not Female."<ref name="ponder"></ref> ====

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:
<blockquote>
"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..."<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>
This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once "needed and natural" is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we "tend to be more alert to social relations than men." The author writes at length about our abilities to "intuit." He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, "Women tell me they intuitively sense…"<ref name="ponder"></ref> In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that "The women notice too."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class by Ponder. In a section meant to show "The Larger Perspective," a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of Latter-day Saint feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots, such as an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

==== Benevolent sexism ====

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word "innocent" is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like "torment," "horrendous," and "anguish." To describe grown women as "innocent" is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the "needed and natural" male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women "innocent," they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an "LDS girl."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders—another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women. Depressed LDS women are called "unhappy campers"<ref name="ponder"></ref>-–a term often used to describe fussy infants—in another sexist diminution.

The author takes a simplistic view of women and presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women—those inside and outside his interview group—are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what "nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. "Near-infants" cannot report on their internal states, unless he considers that infancy to be extended by many years. That could explain his constant infantilization of adult women.

==== Sexism toward devout Latter-day Saint women in particular ====

An effective tool used by oppressive, small "p" patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations in which we will fight amongst ourselves. Such blatant tactics are obvious in the paper when the "best and brightest"<ref name="ponder"></ref> of LDS women—that is, the disaffected and depressed—are pitted against the rest of us.

One part of this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. One extreme of this kind of rhetoric, is the comparison of the religious convictions of devout LDS women to "people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up."<ref name="ponder"></ref> The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are "unable to comprehend"<ref name="ponder"></ref> the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of "intellectually curious"<ref name="ponder"></ref> yet devout LDS women. It even warns, "Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of "the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness"<ref name="ponder"></ref>. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her." <ref name="ponder"></ref>

Again, this claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and bigotry, nothing more. Ponder reveals himself to be far more sexist than the supposedly-evil system he is railing against.

==== Problems with misrepresentation of doctrine ====

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve.

He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 date of his article. This is not a writer who has intimate—or even cursory—knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

The fact that he does not realize this, and does not bother to inform himself, is further evidence of his condescension and ill-informed arrogance toward those he presumes to swoop in an 'help'.

{{ChurchResponseBar
|author=Gordon B. Hinckley
|summary=First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan."
...
No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance."
|title=Women of the Church
|publication=Ensign
|date=November 1996
|link=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/11/women-of-the-church?lang=eng
}}

Similar gaffes come to light in his description of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims "Any Mormon…will recognize"<ref name="ponder"></ref> as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items—such as tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings,—apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of CHurch doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women might lead the reader to wonder what the Church actually teaches girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The contemporary lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contained a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that "each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life."<ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." <ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

When addressing a worldwide gathering of Latter-day Saint young women in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/05/how-can-i-become-the-woman-of-whom-i-dream?lang=eng|date=April 2001}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it undermines his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman "learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband."<ref name="ponder"></ref> However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. {{s||D&C|131|2-3}}

He also contends that we require "permission from men"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim—not even any anecdotal evidence from his "nearly three hundred" interviews, or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. {{s||D&C|121|41-42}}

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, "they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion" ( {{s||Moses|5|53}} ).

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or more malign reasons.

==== Problems with methods ====

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done "extensive research"<ref name="ponder"></ref> through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified, though he claims to have corresponded with "nearly three hundred women."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like "church-active believers"<ref name="ponder"></ref> are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

He also fails to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like "very large" and "far more."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like "cognitive-dissonance headaches"<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like "One Size Fits All"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

==== Problems with personal confounding factors ====

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but "deeply offend[ed]."<ref name="ponder"></ref> We were to indulge in the kind of quasi-scientific pop psychology that Ponder uses, we might say that this represents the projection of his own neuroses onto others.

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

<blockquote>
What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo.<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>

While this may tell us a great deal about Ponder's behavior and personality, it doesn't tell us much about the Church.

He goes on to claim that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, "some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem—one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. <ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref>

For further discussions, see [[************LINK**************|above]].

Ponder admits feeling "ashamed" for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings—one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extinguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been—including Ponder and other critics—are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there some rule that states that women cannot open Church meetings with prayer? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings" ====

As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings."<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|pages=146|section=18|sub1=5}} {{link1|url=http://new.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng}}</ref>

There was a time in which by tradition men would typically stay opening prayers. There was never a doctrinal explanation or reason for this. It has not been the case for many decades.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women placed under covenant in temples to subordinate themselves to their husbands? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{templedisclaimer}}
In a previous version of the temple endowment, the covenant for women was phrased slightly differently than the men. We will not describe the details or wording, but offer the following thoughts:

# The covenant is conditioned upon the faithfulness and obedience of the husband. If the husband does not follow God's counsel, the woman is not obligated to honor his counsel.
# [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true/ The Family: A Proclamation to the World] states explicitly that men and women should work together as equal partners in their familial obligations. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."<ref> The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref> One objection to this may be that the The Proclamation states that men should "preside" over their families. However, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything other than "use priesthood to bless their families".
# How can men and women be "equal partners" yet one "preside"? Latter-day Saint feminist Valerie Hudson gave a perspective on this that is consistent with the covenant as currently revealed and may be beneficial to those wanting help with this. This talk, given at the 2010 FairMormon Conference, describes the covenant as the balancing of two trees—Eve being the first to bring us past the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam to bring us to the Tree of Life:

<blockquote>
I think it’s important to think about the fact that we have two trees and we have two people. Two trees, and a man and a woman. What I would like to address first is kind of an interesting interpretation of the fact that we have two trees and two people. Let’s address that by asking, Why was Eve created second? Now, I’m a convert to the Church, so I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

[. . .]

Let me offer a suggestion here. Could it be that Eve was created second to demonstrate Adam’s helplessness before the First Tree? Could it be—two people, two trees—that Eve was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree?

To answer that question, we must ask ourselves what partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means in a spiritual sense. And I think you know what it means. It means to enter into mortality with a mortal body, to enter into full agency, and to have awakened within us the light of Christ that will serve us so well as we pass the veil. Think—two people, two trees—whose stewardship does this sound like? It is through women that souls journey to mortality and gain their agency, and in general it is through the nurturing of women, their nurturing love of their children, that the light of Christ is awakened within each soul. And I would include in that list of souls Jesus the Christ. Even Christ our Lord was escorted to mortality and veiled in flesh through the gift of a woman, fed at his mother’s breast, awakened to all that is good and sweet in the world. Women escort every soul through the veil to mortal life and full agency. I believe that when we think about it—two people, two trees—that what we’re really thinking about is two stewardships. And that the fruit of the First Tree symbolizes the gift that women give to every soul that chose the plan of Christ. It symbolizes the role and power of women in the Great Plan of Happiness. It was not, in this view, right or proper for Adam to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree. It was not his role to give the gift of the fruit of the First Tree to others. It is interesting to think that even Adam, who was created before Eve, entered into full mortality and full agency by accepting the gift of the First Tree from the hand of a woman. In a sense, Adam himself was born of Eve.<ref> Valerie Hudson "The Two Trees" FairMormon Conference 2010 <https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref>
</blockquote>

We strongly encourage readers to see the full talk [https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees/ here].

In any case the endowment's separate wording was altered as of 2023—likely to prevent and preclude any such misunderstandings.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the position of The Church of Jesus Christ on elective abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently opposed abortion for all but a few rare situations.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', 7 June 2022, {{link|url=https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion}}</ref>

==== Except in certain rare circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin ====

{{ChurchResponseBar
|summary =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
 
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
 
*Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
*A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
*A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
 
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
 
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
|title=Abortion
|author=LDS Newsroom
|publication=LDS Newsroom
|link=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
}}

Except in rare certain circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin. However, the Church does not equate abortion with murder. Further, the Church acknowledges that women and men who have been involved in abortions can be forgiven and become members in good standing. The exceptions to the commandment prohibiting abortion highlight the Church’s commitment to women’s rights and to our intrinsic value apart from our biological roles as mothers.

==== Are there exceptions where abortion may be appropriate? Yes. ====

The Church has not adopted a simple, all-or-nothing approach to abortion. While the Church stands firmly by the commandment "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" {{s||D&C|59|6}} and Church members are cautioned that participating in abortion will usually bring their membership under scrutiny, allowances are made for situations where abortion may be necessary.

The Church recognizes there are cases when abortion is medically necessary. When a woman’s health would be severely threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term, the Church offers counsel and support while mothers themselves decide how to proceed. The same approach is taken even when the mother's life is not at risk but a pregnancy is medically deemed to have no chance of being viable. In such cases, the Church leaves the final choice of whether an abortion will be performed to the parents. There is no universal formula for how the exceptions to the Church's usual stance on abortion must be applied.

The list of situations where abortion may be appropriate demonstrates the Church’s commitment to women’s right to make choices. In cases of rape or incest (crimes sometimes known by other names but likely meant to describe any non-consensual sexual intercourse brought on by force or by the abuse of a position of power), the Church does not require victims to continue pregnancies arising from someone else’s abusive choices. If a woman does not consent to sexual contact, the Church does not consider her morally obliged to accept the consequences of it.

At a gathering of university students, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks quoted the following:

<blockquote>
The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The fact that an impending threat to the mother’s health is accepted by the Church as a valid reason for opting for abortion suggests that the Church prefers the life of the adult woman to the life of the unborn fetus—especially if there is no chance the fetus would be able to live if the pregnancy took its natural course. This preference is controversial to many in the mainstream Pro-Life movement. Clearly, however, women are not valued solely for their reproductive abilities. They are free to protect and preserve their own lives even if doing so directly compromises reproduction.

==== Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ====

In a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the ancient Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" {{s||Exodus|20|13}} was expanded to read "Thou shalt not…kill nor do anything like unto it." {{s||D&C|59|6}} Abortion has been interpreted to fall within the category of "anything like unto it." Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ''per se''. It is a less serious sin and one for which men and women can be forgiven.

While a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church President Russell M. Nelson said:

<blockquote>
So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And "as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion." Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/reverence-for-life?lang=eng Reverence for Life]|date=May 1985|pages=11}} See also {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng| article=Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless|date=Oct 2008|pages=32-37}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church does not persecute or demonize people involved in abortion. Instead, it reaches out to them with compassion and the promise of a possible redemption.

==== The Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion ====
As explained in the Church’s official statement on abortion, the Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion. However, Church members are free to express their own opinions and to be involved as individuals in political causes including abortion legislation.

The Church has come under criticism from conservative groups for not taking a more absolutist stance against abortion. At the same time, the Church is criticized by "pro-choice" groups for its extremely limited tolerance for abortion. Both sides of the argument accuse the Church of trying too hard to please the opposite side. Clearly, the Church’s stance on abortion cannot be the result of political pandering. If it's meant as a compromise, it would be a poor one that leaves both sides of the abortion argument angry and unsatisfied. In an argument as polarized as the abortion debate, no compromise would ever be acceptable. Rather than crafting a position that pleases either side of the debate, the Church position is a tempered one—one based on the application of revelation and true principles to a real, complicated world where difficult situations must be reckoned with on careful, individual bases.

Despite its lack of direct engagement in abortion politics, some Church leaders have warned members against aligning with movements that would promote the use of abortion beyond the circumstances of rape, incest, and catastrophic health outcomes accepted by the Church.

Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. …In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Adoption is encouraged as an alternative to abortion ====
Wrote the First Presidency in 1999:

<blockquote>
Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption .... 

Unwed parents who do not marry '''''should not''''' be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. Generally, unwed parents are not able to provide the stable, nurturing environment so essential for the baby’s well-being.

When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration. Placing the infant for adoption enables unwed parents to do what is best for the child and enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned.<ref>Cited in {{Ensign1|article=Policies and Announcements|date=April 1999|pages=80, {{ea}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church ====
Though the Church places a high value on families and regards the commandment given to Adam and Eve to "multiply, and replenish the earth" {{s||Genesis|1|28}} as still being in force,<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 1995.</ref> the use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church. Married LDS couples are not expected to limit their sexual contact to attempts to conceive. Sexual behavior between married partners is seen as wholesome and sanctifying even when there is little or no chance of conception. Birth control is meant to be used carefully and prayerfully but it is not forbidden.

==== Church leaders' statements on birth control ====

A recent statement explains the Church's stance on contraception:

<blockquote>
Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for a husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children within loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The scriptures declare, "Children are an heritage of the Lord." Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Birth control," ''Gospel Topics'' {{link|https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng}} (accessed 4 June 2024)</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1993, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, spoke in the Church’s General Conference saying:

<blockquote>
How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed, clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God’s promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families…In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks quoted the then President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, expressing similar sentiments:

<blockquote>
I like to think of the positive side of the equation, of the meaning and sanctity of life, of the purpose of this estate in our eternal journey, of the need for the experiences of mortal life under the great plan of God our Father, of the joy that is to be found only where there are children in the home, of the blessings that come of good posterity. When I think of these values and see them taught and observed, then I am willing to leave the question of numbers to the man and the woman and the Lord.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This moderate approach has a long history. In 1916, Church leaders, such as David O. MacKay, endorsed of the wisdom in using moderation and sensitivity when it comes to childbearing. MacKay said,

<blockquote>
In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme.<ref>David O. McKay, ''Relief Society Magazine'' (July 1916) 3:7.</ref>
</blockquote>

The language and tone may be old-fashioned but the message of mothers’ needs as the priority was a progressive one for its day.

==== Sexual behavior and emotional health ====

The Church has long taught that sexual relations are not only for the creation of children, but have other important roles within marriage. Late President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, taught:

<blockquote>
In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Cautions and qualifications ====

Church leaders have also issued frank warnings about the over-use of birth control. As late Church President, Ezra Taft Benson, taught:

<blockquote>
Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity.<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Mothers in Zion," Parents' Fireside, Salt Lake City, Utah, 22 February 1987.</ref>
</blockquote>

Even this statement contains the qualification that mothers enjoy "good health." Childbearing is never meant to be carried out with dogmatic recklessness. In all things, the LDS decision making process is a deliberate, thoughtful one where individuals "study it out in [their] mind[s]" {{s||D&C|9|8}} and receipt spiritual confirmation before acting.

President Benson knew this and added, "I would ask our young people to think seriously about these things, pray about them, fast about them. The Lord will give them the answers, because He wants them to have the blessings of a righteous posterity." <ref>{{TETB|start=539|end=543}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What do the scriptures say about the issue of abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently been against abortion.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', June 7, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion/.</ref>

Prophetic guidance often draws from—and is consistent with—canonized scripture. We here examine scriptural passages that have relevance to the abortion debate—though we must remember that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ derives fundamentally from modern prophetic guidance, and not an interpretation of past scripture. We can, however, use the prophets' current stance to explore scripture and see what we might learn.

==== {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}} ====

One of the most commonly cited and discussed scriptures relevant to abortion is {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}}:

<blockquote>
¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
</blockquote>

This is a type of ''casuistic law''— that is, it stipulates what kind of punishments should be inflicted on a person if they engage in certain kinds of acts. This is a case where two or more people are fighting and accidentally hurt a woman and her fetus. This would be an ''accidental miscarriage'' '''or''' ''accidental premature birth'' of a woman while two people are fighting.

The scripture stipulates that if the men make the woman miscarry/have this premature birth, they must first be confronted by the husband of the woman. The husband, along with judges, will jointly determine what kind of fine to impose on those who fought. The same procedure was presumably followed if the husband himself was one of the combatants in the altercation.

The passage further stipulates that if the woman herself is injured or dies (exactly which is not clear), then the people who engaged in the fight are liable for death and other punishments [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye lex talionis]. It’s important to note that lex talionis "is a principle of fair treatment of assailants and not necessarily a literal prescription for retaliatory treatment in all cases."<ref>Carol Myers, "Exodus," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press), 114. Importantly, Myers further states on the same page: "Note that compensation is sometimes acceptable (vv. 22, 26, 27) and that the rabbinic understanding of talion calls for paying damages."</ref>

Some have argued that this passage and, consequently, Israelite law treats the value of the mother as greater than the value of the fetus. But this argument depends on the correct translation of ויצאו (''wytsaw''. Translated as "depart from her" in the KJV above), how one translates the term אָסוֹן (ʾ''ason'') translated as "mischief", what that ''ason'' included, and who that ''ason'' is applied to. None of these questions can be answered with certainty.

''Wytsaw'' is [https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm typically translated] as "give birth prematurely" in modern, popular, English biblical translations, though other important translations say "miscarriage". "Premature birth" may be preferred because of 'ason which is typically translated as ''harm'' or ''injury''. Some say that it should be translated as "serious injury." Some take it to refer to death.

Who the injury, serious injury, harm, or death is inflicted on is also important. If it is only the woman, then the woman is being more valued than the fetus. If the harm is assumed to be to either the woman ''or'' her fetus, then both are being valued equally. If the harm is only to the fetus, then the fetus is being valued more than the woman. It's uncertain, but the first two options are more likely than the last. Injury to either a woman or a child would be negative.

Even if we translate and interpret the passage such that the fetus is miscarried and no other harm is brought on the woman, the passage ''still stipulates that a fine be paid''. This indicates that the fetus who was miscarried or born prematurely—and a fetus presumably at any stage of development— ''still had at least some value'' in the eyes of the Israelite law. This scripture under no circumstances allows a kind of ethic that sees the fetus as entirely expendable no matter the stage of development.

The very least that we can conclude from these passages is that this was an ''accidental'' situation (not a deliberate one as in the case of elective abortion), that both the mother and fetus were seen as valuable at least in some way, and that damages needed to be paid or punishments received commensurate with the harm inflicted on mother and fetus.

Given the fact that this was a case of accidental harm alone, we cannot use this scripture to support the deliberate end of a fetus's life.

We now consider some other relevant scriptures.

==== {{s||Numbers|5|}} ====
{{s||Numbers|5|11-31}} outlines what is known today as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water Ordeal of the Bitter Water].

The major talking point is concerning verse 27 and what happens as a priest makes a woman partake of the water.

<blockquote>
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
</blockquote>

The word "thigh" is a translation of the Hebrew yarek (יָרֵך) which does mean thigh but euphemistically refers to the genitals and other reproductive organs of a human being.

The passage says that a woman’s belly will swell up and that her uterus and perhaps vagina will either shrivel up or fall out (or maybe both).

Some have interpreted this passage to refer to miscarriage. The NIV translates this verse to say that "your womb [will] miscarry and your abdomen swell". But the passage doesn’t apply to just pregnant women. It applies to all those that have been caught in adultery, whether pregnant or not. The curses that {{s_short||Numbers|5|27}} is establishing refer to ''infertility''. Thus, it’s not that a woman loses her baby because of the trial, but loses her ability to ''conceive entirely''.

==== Thou shalt not murder ====
Texts that may be relevant to the abortion debate include those that condemn murder. There are many such texts in the scriptures that are so well-known that we will not cite them here. The question is, "Does abortion really constitute murder?"

Certain leaders of the Church have analogized abortion to murder in the past.<ref name="ortner"></ref>

The current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that abortion does not necessarily constitute murder. The Church most frequently cites a text contained in the Latter-day Saint canon: {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|59|6}}. It tells the Saints "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it." Abortion has typically been seen in the "nor do anything like unto it" clause.

The first mention of "kill" clearly refers to murder. But there are obviously other categories of sinful killing that are not murder. (Some killing, such as in self-defense, could be considered not sinful at all.)

This is where abortion is situated by the Church: not necessarily murder, but still an act of unjustified killing ''like'' murder.

==== Impeding obedience to other commandments ====

Scriptures that apply to abortion and it's ethical implications are not only those which discuss murder. Other commandments and other moral considerations might be broken or encouraged if we endorse abortion.

One of these would be the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" given by God in the creation accounts contained in both the scriptures and the temple ( {{s||Genesis|1|28}}; {{s||Moses|2|28}}; {{s||Abraham|4|28}} ).

Marriage is another command that applies. Elective abortion is often treated as a safety net for individuals that want to have unprotected sex without the consequence of an unwanted child. Abortion can thus disincentivies marriage. Scriptures forbidding extramarital sexual acts are many, and not cited here.

Latter-day Saint scripture portrays the body as a treasured thing—crucial to our learning. {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|93|33-34}} tells us that a fulness of joy can only be obtained when the spirit of a person and his or her body are inseparably connected by resurrection. It is clear in scripture that bodies are wanted by both righteous and wicked spirits ( {{s||Matthew|8|28-32}}; {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|45|17}}; {{s_short||D&C|138:14-15,18,50}} ).

It is clear, as Dallin H. Oaks as observed, that "[f]rom the perspective of the plan of salvation, one of the most serious abuses of children is to deny them birth" and especially to deny them birth within the environment most-aptly suited for their progression through mortality: marriage.{{Ensign|Dallin H. Oaks|Protect the Children|vol=42|num=11|date=November 2012|pages= 43|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/11/saturday-afternoon-session/protect-the-children?lang=eng }}</ref>

Some abortion debates focus on when the soul enters the body—presuming that killing an ensouled fetus or child would be murder, while an unesouled one might be aborted without concern.

==== The scriptures provide no guidance as to when ensoulment happens ====
Some believe that the question is resolved by Genesis where God grants Adam his "first breath" so that he becomes a living soul. By these lights, one can know that the soul has entered the body when a person ''breathes''. The Latter-day Saint temple appears to teach that God first places Adam’s spirit in his body and then afterwards grants him his first breath. Furthermore, if first breath is truly when personhood is thought to begin, exactly which "breath" should we be treating as someone's first? Fetal breathing (though not ''strictly'' breathing for oxygen exchange) can begin as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy and about as late right before birth.<ref>Coleen de Bellefonds, "How Babies Breathe in the Womb," What to Expect, July 19, 2021, https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-health/how-babies-breathe-womb.</ref> A "first breath" standard for when personhood begins might prohibit a large number of abortions.

Others believe that ''blood'' is what grants personhood and indicates ensoulment. Oftentimes it is thought that blood in connection with breath grants full-personhood in Israelite law. This has at least some merit when considering the thought world of the authors of the Bible. Here again, though, the answers are not as clear-cut as we might like: "By the end of the fifth week [of gestation], the heart of the fetus is able to pump blood throughout its body."<ref>"Medical Animation: Prenatal Heart Circulation," St. Louis Children's Hospital, accessed April 5, 2023, https://www.stlouischildrens.org/health-resources/pulse/medical-animation-prenatal-heart-circulation.</ref> So does a fetus' working circulatory system at the fifth week of gestation grant them personhood?

Some believe that the answer as to when a fetus receives its human spirit/gains personhood is when a fetus is "quickened" or when it first begins to move inside of a woman’s womb. There are some scriptures/statements from leaders of the Church that may be used to justify this view.

*{{s||Luke|1|44}}, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This scriptures discusses John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth. The New Testament mentions that Elizabeth hid herself for five months. Thus we might deduce that a soul was in John’s body after five months when Mary visited Elizabeth.
*President Brigham Young once said that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" ([[Journal of Discourses/17/22|''Journal of Discourses'', 17:143]]).

(We now know that fetal movement begins much sooner than the mother can feel it—the sensation is only when fetus is large enough and its movements strong enough to be felt by the mother.)

President Young’s view stands in mild contrast with an official statement from the First Presidency in 1909 which is less certain about when life enters the body:

<blockquote>
The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened '''at a certain stage''' by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.
</blockquote>

Thus there is no definitive answer about when the soul enters the body from the scriptures nor The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some believe that full-personhood for fetuses is asserted by what they perceive as the continuity of personal identity displayed in biblical passages such as {{s||Job|3|3}}, {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}, and {{s||Jeremiah|1|5}}.

* {{s||Job|3|3}} – "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived." This verse does not assume personal continuity of identity as some have claimed. It merely asserts that Job wishes he weren't conceived nor born.
* {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}: "For thou hast possessed me reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee ; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." This may indicate a kind of continuity, but it's not certain. The Lord at the very least here sees a kind of form that he intricately weaves the psalmist's bones and other members according to. It is certain that the Lord, according to the psalmist, takes a special concern for/interest in and performs a special creative act on the unborn.
*{{s||Jeremiah|1|5}} – "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This is perhaps the strongest scripture in favor of continuity of personhood (though still not entirely certain). The Lord ordained unborn Jeremiah, like the prophet servant of the Lord in Isaiah ( {{s||Isaiah|42|1}}; {{s_short||Isaiah|49|6}} ), to be a prophet unto the nations.

As before, these scriptures are suggestive, but not definitive.

==== Biology as it may relate to personhood ====
Biologically, asking "when life begins" is absurd—the egg is alive from the moment it is fertilized. In a fallen world, cells that are dead do not come back to life. And, if the egg is not "human" life, then what kind of life is it? The cells involved come from humans, are only produced by humans, and develop into a human.

Thus wholly 95% of biologists agree that a new, distinct human life begins at conception: when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm.<ref>Steven Andrew Jacobs "Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins’," SSRN, August 6, 2018; "Life Begins at Fertilization," Princeton, accessed May 7, 2022, https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html; Steven Andrew Jacobs, "Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate," (Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2019); Steve Jacobs, "I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular," ''Quilette'', October 16, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/.</ref>

One can only wonder about the other 5% of biologists—presumably they understood that the question was poorly posed, or didn't like the ideological implications.

The fertilized egg is certainly alive—it metabolizes, replicates DNA, divides, differentiates, etc. There is never a point at which the egg is "dead" and then becomes alive again. Nor is there a point at which the embryo or fetus is not alive.

"When does human life begin?" is thus a sloppy way to ask the real question: ''When does a fertilized human egg acquire any rights or moral standing? At what point does killing it have moral implications?''

We kill things that are alive all the time—we kill billions of bacteria without a thought. The key question is, ''Is killing a human embryo like killing a bacteria? Or is it like killing a toddler? Or something in between?''

Our laws do tend to treat human bodies as persons regardless of their current brain function, heart function, lung function, sentience, etc. And, there is never debate about whether these people are ''alive''. Of course they are.

====What to do in the face of uncertainty?====
Some have argued that there are moral duties even when we are not certain of all the facts. There are, with abortion, at least three possibilities:

# Abortion is the equivalent of murder, killing a fully-human (in the sense of having full human rights, not in the biological sense).
# Abortion is still a serious moral act, even if it does not rise to the level of murder.
# Abortion is of no moral consequence regarding the fetus.

In the face of uncertainty, we could choose to
* support or participate in an abortion; or
* oppose or participate in an abortion.

If it turns out that abortion is murder or a serious moral wrong (option #1 or #2) then it is far better to have chosen to oppose abortion. Standing by would be like doing nothing to stop slavery, or not attempting to stop the slaughter of prisoners of war.

If abortion turns out to have no or few moral consequences (#3), we have at least not committed a murder or murder-like crime. We would have opposed the right of women to do something that they wanted to do—and that ''would'' be a moral wrong. But it is surely not as grave a moral wrong as the mass killing of the innocent and defenseless.

Which risk should we run if we are not certain?{
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women ====

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.<ref>The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections {{sv||D&C|20|}}, {{sv||D&C|84|}}, and {{sv||D&C|107|}}. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, {{sv||D&C|20|60}} reads "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him." </ref> Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book]) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.<ref>It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 here].</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood ====

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

<blockquote>
the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842|pages=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to offices in the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

<blockquote>
Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, 'elect lady'.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "[http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/desnews8/id/3945/rec/5 Female Relief Society]," ''Deseret News'' (22 April 1868): 81.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’ ====
Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’<ref>Eliza R. Snow references {{s||Articles of Faith|1|6}} in her article.</ref> Likewise, in an interview, Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

<blockquote>
Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.<ref>Quoted in {{Dialogue|author=Tina Hatch|article='Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present|vol=37|num=33|pages=68-69}}. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies]," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012). {{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2012 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

If seen as a companion to the priesthood—as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

==== Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood ====

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, Joseph said:

<blockquote>
Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|4-5}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood ====

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)<ref>See {{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=6|pages=9|date=17 March 1842}} See also {{JDmini|vol=21|pages=368}} (below) where he appeals to that experience.</ref> wrote:

<blockquote>
Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|date=8 August 1880|vol=21|disc=40|article=The Order and Duties of the Priesthood, Etc.|start=367|end=368}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Given that President Taylor ordained the first Relief Society presidency under Joseph's instructions, he was well-placed to know whether this was an ordination to priesthood office or not.

==== President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church ====

But, his reference to a priesthood held "in connection with their husbands" reminds us of Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

<blockquote>
He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|38-39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Latter-day Saint women in the 19th century ====

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands.<ref>For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" ''The Journal of Mormon History'' 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.</ref> This had apparently caused some discussion as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century. The very name of the society, after all, described its purpose of bringing relief to the poor, sick, or suffering.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

<blockquote>
He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|37-38}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843:

<blockquote>
The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.<ref>(See {{HC|vol=5|start=510}})</ref>
</blockquote>

When this was prepared for publication in the ''History of the Church'', this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

<blockquote>
He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands; that the Saints whose integrity had been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer.<ref>{{HC|vol=4|pages=604}} See also {{TPJS|pages=226}} For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.</ref>
</blockquote>

This interpolated idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood—though it is not found in Joseph's original. We note too that the "keys" in this reading are the keys of knowledge and revelation.

Bruce R. McConkie emphasized that 'keys' "have two distinct and yet related meanings:"

<blockquote>
1—They are the right of presidency; the right to govern and direct all the affairs of the Church or kingdom; and the power to authorize the use of hte Priesthood for a particular purpose. In this sense keys are held by those only who are in presiding and governing positions.

2—Keys are also ''the way and means whereby knowledge and intelligence may be gained from God. In this sense, they are possessed by every Priesthood bearer and ... by many faithful membres of the Relief Society.<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|148}}.
</blockquote>

It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=History_of_the_Church_(6-volume_history)
|subject1=Editing practices for the ''History of the Church''
|summary1=The ''History of the Church'' was assembled in the 19th century, and followed different authorship, editing, and source conventions.
}}

==== Keys and the Relief Society ====

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

<blockquote>
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.<ref>{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|40}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers ====

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that "I now turn the key to you"? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1950:

<blockquote>
What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them. ...

[T]he door was [also] opened whereby the faithful sisters, with their husbands, could communicate with God and receige blessings at his hands. What was it the Prophet said? "Knwledge and intelligence shall flow down (i.e. from God) from this time henceforth."<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|151}}.
</blockquote>

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

<blockquote>
Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.<ref>"A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued," ''Woman’s Exponent'' 12 (15 October 1883): 75. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/WomansExp/id/10944/rec/27}}</ref>
</blockquote>

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the Relief Society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

<blockquote>
"We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up," she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: "The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’" Snow described the Relief Society as "self-governing" and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. "Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood," she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that "all must act in concert or nothing can be done," she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests "are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors."<ref>Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.</ref>
</blockquote>

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

<blockquote>
The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=19}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

<blockquote>
We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=3|author=Joseph F. Smith}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

<blockquote>
Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=13|start=155|disc=18|article=Building Up Zion—Temperance in Eating and Drinking}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed ====

Joseph Fielding Smith:

<blockquote>
While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Women and priesthood in a temple context ====

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

<blockquote>
I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.<ref>Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888, in “Memorial Anniversary. Report of the Relief Soicety Meeting Held in the Ogden Tabernacle, July 19th, 1888, in Commemoration of the Last Public Visit and Instructions of President Brigham Young, on Invitation of President Jane S. Richards, to the Relief Society and Young Ladies’ Improvement Associations of the Weber Stake of Zion, Just Eleven Years Ago the 19th Inst.,” Woman’s Exponent (Salt Lake City, UT), Sept. 1, 1888, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 52–54.{{link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-4/4-20?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President. He mentioned the habit of providing temple annointing and washing ritual to women for health reasons:

<blockquote>
Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.<ref>Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, Church Archives.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

<blockquote>
"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."<ref>{{Book:Talmage:House of the Lord|pages=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage ====

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

<blockquote>
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133 'Let Us Think Straight']," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.</ref>
</blockquote>

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

<blockquote>
Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.<ref name="oaks">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng|date=May 2014}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Women act with delegated priesthood authority====

President Dallin H. Oaks emphasized this point when he pointed out that "since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” ({{s||D&C|107|5}}), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority."<ref name="oaks"></ref>

When we understand this, we see that most ''men'' do not perform their duties with their "own" priesthood authority, most of the time. Instead, both men and women ''usually'' act in their Church callings by designated or delegated authority.

====Most people—male and female—act with delegated authority====
For example:
* a ward clerk or executive secretary performs his duties by delegated authority.
* Sunday school teachers—male and female—teach classes under designated authority.
* Primary Presidencies, Young Women's Presidencies, Young Men's adult assistants, Sunday School presidencies—all act under delegated authority from the bishop when they are set apart.

In fact, there are only a few callings that exercise keys and priesthood authority that resides in them, rather than as delegated:
* priesthood quorum presidents
* bishops
* stake, temple, and mission presidents
* apostles

President Oaks expressed this idea when he emphasized:

<blockquote>
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.<ref name="oaks"></ref>
</blockquote>

Most members, then, will spend all or most of their Church ''callings'' functioning under delegated authority, not authority to which they are ordained.<ref>Men will, however, often be called on to exercise priesthood in the performance of ''ordinances'', such as blessing the sacrament, blessing the sick, baptizing, or confirming—these duties are not carried out as part of a calling, but in one's role as an ordained holder of the priesthood.</ref>

And, that delegated authority is even used by women in temples to administer sacred ordinance, see [[#Women and priesthood in a temple context|above]].

====We need a more expansive view of how priesthood authority is used by all faithful Church members====

President Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized this in 1959:

<blockquote>
While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” ''Relief Society Magazine'', Jan. 1959, 4; cited by Oaks, 2014</ref>.
</blockquote>
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Was ist die Stellung der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage zur Geburtenkontrolle?]]
[[de:Frauen und das Priestertum]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Maternidad]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Mujeres en la cultura mormona]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Participación en la Iglesia]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y el sacerdocio/Mujeres]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la posición mormona sobre el aborto?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la postura de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días sobre el control de la natalidad?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿El mormonismo devalúa a aquellos que no están casados o que no tienen hijos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hay alguna regla en el mormonismo que establezca que las mujeres no pueden abrir reuniones de la Iglesia con la oración?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las enseñanzas del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón") sobre la maternidad representan una carga inadecuada para las mujeres?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") colocadas bajo convenio en los templos se subordinan a sus esposos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Se enseña a las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") a ser "agradecidas a los hombres mormones" y que las mujeres no deben "aspirar ... a un pensamiento independiente"?]]

Women in the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-07-09T18:06:03Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Women
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} This page answers questions and criticisms about the Church's relations with women.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church devalue those who are not married or who do not have children? ===
| state = closed
| content =
Some charge that the Church devalues those who are not married or who do not have children. This is not so.

A significant portion of adult Church members are single people. Their challenges and lifestyles are somewhat different than those of married members, but Church leaders make ongoing efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of single members. Living as a single person is challenging both inside and outside the Church. This is not a difficulty limited to the LDS context. Within the Church, the promise that no eternal blessings will be withheld from worthy members simply because of their marital status is repeated over and over again.<ref>{{NC}}</ref> Church leaders have denounced mistreatments of single members and continue to call members of all marital statuses to positions of trust.

==== Ideals and realities ====

LDS teachings—like those of most every other belief system and culture throughout history—regard formal, conjugal marriage relationships as vital social ideals. Among Latter-day Saints, marriage is not only a social ideal but a spiritual one. According to the scriptures, marriage is a requirement for the greatest blessings to which we can aspire. {{s||D&C|131|2}}

It is of course not possible for every Latter-day Saint to find a suitable spouse. Due to death, divorce, or other causes it is not always possible or wise for members to stay married. This means that many have been, are, or will be single. In 2007, First Presidency member, James E. Faust, reported that one third of the adult membership of the Church was single.<ref>{{Ensign|author=James E. Faust|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/08/welcoming-every-single-one?lang=eng Welcoming Every Single One]|date=Aug 2007}}</ref> This is a substantial proportion but it’s still a minority. The fact is single Latter-day Saints live in a faith community comprised of many married couples. Naturally, such an environment can be challenging.

Some may feel life as a single person is less than ideal. But an ideal is "a conception of something in its absolute perfection."<ref>''Dictionary.com', s.v. "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal ideal]" (accessed 17 July 2012).</ref> Married members of the Church don’t achieve perfection in their marriages during their lifetimes. Their lives are different from singles', but they too are also less than ideal. As the apostle Paul taught, all of us have "come short of the glory of God." {{s||Romans|3|23}} None of us—no matter what our marital status—is living an ideal life. In this we are all alike.

==== The time will come when the Lord bless all of His Father’s children with every blessing He can, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single ====

Speaking to single members, Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
I…remind you that there are those who are married whose lives are extremely unhappy and that you who are single and experience much of deep and consuming worry are not alone in your feelings. <ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|date=November 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Fortunately, the time will come when Christ shall "wipe away all the tears" {{s||Revelation|21|4}} and bless all of his Father’s children with every blessing they desire, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single.

==== Feelings of social awkwardness and marginalization are not limited to single people living in the LDS context ====

In popular Western culture, there’s a fairly steady stream of books, articles, and all kinds of other media produced about the difficulties of single life. People of all beliefs, not just Latter-day Saints, struggle to find a comfortable place in the world as singles. It is a widespread problem—one that was not created by the Church and one that cannot be escaped by avoiding the Church.

==== Statements of Church leaders ====

The challenges of single members are not unknown and unaddressed by Church leaders. President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, speaking of singlehood and childlessness among Church members, said:

<blockquote>
These are temporary states. In the eternal scheme of things—not always in mortality—righteous yearning and longing will be fulfilled.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article= And a Little Child Shall Lead Them]|date=May 2012|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/and-a-little-child-shall-lead-them?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Living as a single Latter-day Saint is more common for women than it is among men. In recognition of this, much of the counsel and consolation extended by Church leaders to single people is addressed specifically to women. This counsel includes assurances that members should not settle for unworthy or inadequate marriage partners just to satisfy what may seem like little more than a formality. Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

<blockquote>
You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Elijah the Prophet and His Mission|pages=51}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Comments like these have become ''de rigueur'' when Church leaders teach about marriage and families. Efforts are constantly made to acknowledge and address the circumstances of adult members of the Church who are not married.

Among these circumstances is the reality that there is no monolithic Latter-day Saint single member. President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of his distaste for the generic label "single":

<blockquote>
Though you are so diverse in your backgrounds, we have put a badge on you as if you were all alike. That badge reads S-I-N-G-L-E-S. I do not like that. I do not like to categorize people. We are all individuals living together, hopefully with respect for one another, notwithstanding some of our personal situations … when all is said and done, we should not be classified as married or single but as members of the Church, each worthy of the same attention, the same care, the same opportunities to be of service.<ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|date=Nov 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same address, President Hinckley condemned the thoughtless mistreatment of single members within LDS congregations, calling it "a tragedy" and "a betrayal."

==== Single Saints serving in the gospel ====

The New Testament contains the story of Anna, a woman called a "prophetess" who served in the temple at the time Jesus was born. By the time Mary brought the infant Jesus to the temple, Anna had been a widow for almost all of her long adult life. She was a single woman who was blessed for her faith and service with the privilege of recognizing and greeting the Lord. She had much to offer her community even though she had lived without a husband for eighty-four years {{s||Luke|2|36-38}}.

In the modern Church, single women also play important roles as leaders, teachers, and exemplars. One of the most storied women of the early days of the restored Church is Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum Smith, who crossed the plains from Nauvoo to Utah as a single mother. Emmeline B. Wells, the fifth General President of the Relief Society, was abandoned by her first husband.<ref>Julie Wardell, "Heroes and Heroines: Emmeline B. Wells." ''Friend,'' Feb 1985.</ref> Clearly, her status as a divorcee did not prevent her from holding a prominent leadership position.

Counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency have included Barbara Thompson and Sheri L. Dew, neither of whom has ever been married. Upon being called, Sheri L. Dew introduced herself saying:

<blockquote>
If there’s any message in the fact that a never-married woman has been called to the Relief Society general presidency it is that all women, regardless of their status or situation, are welcomed, loved, and valued…The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. We are all significant parts of the whole. I never think of myself as single; I think of myself as Sheri, a member of the Lord’s Church.<ref>{{Ensign|author=News of the Church|date=May 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Along with singleness there often comes childlessness ====
Along with singleness there often comes childlessness. Since many members of the Church have children, and see childbearing as a blessing and the ideal, single members may feel doubly marginalized. Married members may also struggle with the heartbreak of infertility.

Fortunately, motherhood is not merely a demographic or a reproductive state in Church doctrine. Instead, it is a spiritual gift in which all can participate.

In 2001, Sheri Dew, taught,

<blockquote>
While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living"—and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Sheri L. Dew|article=Are We Not All Mothers?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng |date=Nov. 2001|pages=96 {{eo}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on women? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading ====

Some claim that CHurch teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on LDS families, especially women.

Most women raising families, not just Latter-day Saint women, encounter "burdens" as they run their households. Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading. Recognizing the difficulties women face in family life, Church leaders have denounced male behaviors that add to these burdens. In speaking to women, Church leaders have reassured us that we are free to make choices—including choices about childbearing and service in our homes—that will better tailor our workloads to our individual strengths and abilities.

==== Childbearing in the Church ====

In 1995, the Church underlined its commitment to family life in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." The proclamation states: "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."<ref>{{Book:Church:Family Proclamation:1995/Full title}}</ref>

In harmony with these beliefs, Latter-day Saint life is often family life. In general, Latter-day Saints in the United States marry earlier than their neighbors outside the Church, are more likely to stay married, and have more children during their lifespans.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref> As the larger society surrounding the Church has moved away from traditional family life, the LDS lifestyle— or, at least, the stereotype of it—has become more conspicuous. For some, this raises concerns with regard to the roles women play in LDS families. Critics have inflamed these concerns—arguing mostly by assertion than with data—that the childbearing aspect of the ideal LDS family system places an unfair and unhealthy burden upon women.

==== Women's workloads inside and outside the Church ====

No matter how many other people live in it, running any household can be difficult. This is not a difficulty experienced by LDS women alone. Arlie Hochschild’s landmark work "The Second Shift" studied domestic workloads to see if household divisions of labor had become more fair for women as they started to take on non-traditional roles. What she found was that even when women worked at full-time jobs outside their homes, they still wound up doing most of the household chores themselves.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003. {{NC}}</ref> The assertion that women outside the Church are somehow immune from the burdens of running a household is simply wrong. Every woman—regardless of whether she’s involved in paid work, or how many children she has, or where she goes to church—is at risk of winding up doing far more than her fair share of household tasks. Inequalities like these are not limited to any particular religion or family structure.

==== The Church's position on domestic workloads ====

Despite the strong social pull of unequal household divisions of labor, leaders of the Church have counseled church members to alleviate the strains family life can have on women. Men overburdening women within families was denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley. Speaking of young mothers he said:

<blockquote>
I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: 'Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?' <ref name="hinckley">{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=To the Women of the Church|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/to-the-women-of-the-church?lang=eng|date=Nov. 2003}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While his approach to husbands was firm and corrective, President Hinckley took a different tone when speaking to wives in the same address:

<blockquote>
You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.<ref name="hinckley"></ref>
</blockquote>

Reassuring language like this has become a fixture in addresses made to the women of the Church. Another common theme is the assurance that there is no monolithic ideal of how to run a "proper" LDS household. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Marvin J. Ashton said in 1987:

<blockquote>
Sisters, do not allow yourselves to be made to feel inadequate or frustrated because you cannot do everything others seem to be accomplishing. Rather, each should assess her own situation, her own energy, and her own talents, and then choose the best way to mold her family into a team, a unit that works together and supports each other. Only you and your Father in Heaven know your needs, strengths, and desires. Around this knowledge your personal course must be charted and your choices made.<ref>{{Book:Ashton:Be of Good Cheer|pages=25–26}}</ref>
</blockquote>

What seems most important isn’t how LDS women shoulder their burdens but why they do it at all. In 1980, Melvin Wilkinson and William Tanner made a study of large family life in the LDS setting. The prevailing sociological wisdom was that large families yield less affection for children. However, the researchers found that the negative effect of large family life "is not so strong that it cannot be neutralized or even reversed."<ref>{{Book:Judd: Religion Mental Health and the Latter-day Saints|pages=93-106|author=Melvin L. Wilkinson and William C. Tanner III|article=The Influence of Family Size, Interaction, and Religiosity on Family Affection in a Mormon Sample|url=http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-mental-health-and-latter-day-saints/6-influence-family-size-interaction-and-religi}}</ref> Furthermore, they found that the key to reversing the bad effects of a large family wasn’t an increase of the amount of time parents spent with their children (or in other words, not an increase of the size of the "burden" placed on the parents) but an increase in the level of the mother’s commitment to the Church. Temple attendance was used as a measure of the mother’s religiosity. From there, the researchers went on to find that the higher a mother’s religiosity, the more affection the children in the family reported feeling.

Apparently, gospel living can actually provide relief from burdens—even those that seem universal and inevitable for all women running their households. As the Lord himself taught, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" {{s||Matthew|11|28-30}}.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women taught to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought"? ===
| state = closed
| content =
These claims are nonsense. President Spencer W. Kimball urged:

{{Epigraph|When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a ''full'' partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be ''silent'' partners or ''limited'' partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a ''contributing'' and ''full'' partner.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters|date=Nov. 1978|pages=106, {{io}}}}.</ref>}}

In an unpublished paper "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), women in the Church are said to be taught to be "subservient" to men and are considered "eternally unalterable second-class." Among some of its more colorful—if unfounded—statements are the claims that women are expected to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought."<ref name="ponder">Kent Ponder, "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," unpublished, 2003, online version accessed 30 May 2012, {{eo}}.</ref>

Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

* An overarching sexism and condescension, both overt and benevolent;
* A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women;
* The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials;
* Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms;
* Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women.

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not a useful analysis of gender politics within the Church. Instead, it is insulting, misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Statements
|summary=Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.
}}

==== '''Problems with Ponder'''—a feminist response to Kent Ponder’s work ====

The focus of this paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: [[Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants]].

==== Problems with underlying general sexism: "Thank the Lord I’m Not Female."<ref name="ponder"></ref> ====

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:
<blockquote>
"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..."<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>
This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once "needed and natural" is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we "tend to be more alert to social relations than men." The author writes at length about our abilities to "intuit." He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, "Women tell me they intuitively sense…"<ref name="ponder"></ref> In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that "The women notice too."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class by Ponder. In a section meant to show "The Larger Perspective," a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of Latter-day Saint feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots, such as an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

==== Benevolent sexism ====

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word "innocent" is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like "torment," "horrendous," and "anguish." To describe grown women as "innocent" is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the "needed and natural" male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women "innocent," they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an "LDS girl."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders—another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women. Depressed LDS women are called "unhappy campers"<ref name="ponder"></ref>-–a term often used to describe fussy infants—in another sexist diminution.

The author takes a simplistic view of women and presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women—those inside and outside his interview group—are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what "nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. "Near-infants" cannot report on their internal states, unless he considers that infancy to be extended by many years. That could explain his constant infantilization of adult women.

==== Sexism toward devout Latter-day Saint women in particular ====

An effective tool used by oppressive, small "p" patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations in which we will fight amongst ourselves. Such blatant tactics are obvious in the paper when the "best and brightest"<ref name="ponder"></ref> of LDS women—that is, the disaffected and depressed—are pitted against the rest of us.

One part of this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. One extreme of this kind of rhetoric, is the comparison of the religious convictions of devout LDS women to "people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up."<ref name="ponder"></ref> The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are "unable to comprehend"<ref name="ponder"></ref> the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of "intellectually curious"<ref name="ponder"></ref> yet devout LDS women. It even warns, "Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of "the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness"<ref name="ponder"></ref>. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her." <ref name="ponder"></ref>

Again, this claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and bigotry, nothing more. Ponder reveals himself to be far more sexist than the supposedly-evil system he is railing against.

==== Problems with misrepresentation of doctrine ====

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve.

He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 date of his article. This is not a writer who has intimate—or even cursory—knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

The fact that he does not realize this, and does not bother to inform himself, is further evidence of his condescension and ill-informed arrogance toward those he presumes to swoop in an 'help'.

{{ChurchResponseBar
|author=Gordon B. Hinckley
|summary=First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan."
...
No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance."
|title=Women of the Church
|publication=Ensign
|date=November 1996
|link=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/11/women-of-the-church?lang=eng
}}

Similar gaffes come to light in his description of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims "Any Mormon…will recognize"<ref name="ponder"></ref> as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items—such as tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings,—apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of CHurch doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women might lead the reader to wonder what the Church actually teaches girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The contemporary lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contained a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that "each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life."<ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." <ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

When addressing a worldwide gathering of Latter-day Saint young women in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/05/how-can-i-become-the-woman-of-whom-i-dream?lang=eng|date=April 2001}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it undermines his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman "learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband."<ref name="ponder"></ref> However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. {{s||D&C|131|2-3}}

He also contends that we require "permission from men"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim—not even any anecdotal evidence from his "nearly three hundred" interviews, or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. {{s||D&C|121|41-42}}

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, "they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion" ( {{s||Moses|5|53}} ).

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or more malign reasons.

==== Problems with methods ====

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done "extensive research"<ref name="ponder"></ref> through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified, though he claims to have corresponded with "nearly three hundred women."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like "church-active believers"<ref name="ponder"></ref> are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

He also fails to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like "very large" and "far more."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like "cognitive-dissonance headaches"<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like "One Size Fits All"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

==== Problems with personal confounding factors ====

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but "deeply offend[ed]."<ref name="ponder"></ref> We were to indulge in the kind of quasi-scientific pop psychology that Ponder uses, we might say that this represents the projection of his own neuroses onto others.

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

<blockquote>
What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo.<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>

While this may tell us a great deal about Ponder's behavior and personality, it doesn't tell us much about the Church.

He goes on to claim that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, "some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem—one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. <ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref>

For further discussions, see [[************LINK**************|above]].

Ponder admits feeling "ashamed" for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings—one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extinguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been—including Ponder and other critics—are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there some rule that states that women cannot open Church meetings with prayer? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings" ====

As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings."<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|pages=146|section=18|sub1=5}} {{link1|url=http://new.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng}}</ref>

There was a time in which by tradition men would typically stay opening prayers. There was never a doctrinal explanation or reason for this. It has not been the case for many decades.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women placed under covenant in temples to subordinate themselves to their husbands? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{templedisclaimer}}
In a previous version of the temple endowment, the covenant for women was phrased slightly differently than the men. We will not describe the details or wording, but offer the following thoughts:

# The covenant is conditioned upon the faithfulness and obedience of the husband. If the husband does not follow God's counsel, the woman is not obligated to honor his counsel.
# [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true/ The Family: A Proclamation to the World] states explicitly that men and women should work together as equal partners in their familial obligations. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."<ref> The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref> One objection to this may be that the The Proclamation states that men should "preside" over their families. However, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything other than "use priesthood to bless their families".
# How can men and women be "equal partners" yet one "preside"? Latter-day Saint feminist Valerie Hudson gave a perspective on this that is consistent with the covenant as currently revealed and may be beneficial to those wanting help with this. This talk, given at the 2010 FairMormon Conference, describes the covenant as the balancing of two trees—Eve being the first to bring us past the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam to bring us to the Tree of Life:

<blockquote>
I think it’s important to think about the fact that we have two trees and we have two people. Two trees, and a man and a woman. What I would like to address first is kind of an interesting interpretation of the fact that we have two trees and two people. Let’s address that by asking, Why was Eve created second? Now, I’m a convert to the Church, so I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

[. . .]

Let me offer a suggestion here. Could it be that Eve was created second to demonstrate Adam’s helplessness before the First Tree? Could it be—two people, two trees—that Eve was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree?

To answer that question, we must ask ourselves what partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means in a spiritual sense. And I think you know what it means. It means to enter into mortality with a mortal body, to enter into full agency, and to have awakened within us the light of Christ that will serve us so well as we pass the veil. Think—two people, two trees—whose stewardship does this sound like? It is through women that souls journey to mortality and gain their agency, and in general it is through the nurturing of women, their nurturing love of their children, that the light of Christ is awakened within each soul. And I would include in that list of souls Jesus the Christ. Even Christ our Lord was escorted to mortality and veiled in flesh through the gift of a woman, fed at his mother’s breast, awakened to all that is good and sweet in the world. Women escort every soul through the veil to mortal life and full agency. I believe that when we think about it—two people, two trees—that what we’re really thinking about is two stewardships. And that the fruit of the First Tree symbolizes the gift that women give to every soul that chose the plan of Christ. It symbolizes the role and power of women in the Great Plan of Happiness. It was not, in this view, right or proper for Adam to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree. It was not his role to give the gift of the fruit of the First Tree to others. It is interesting to think that even Adam, who was created before Eve, entered into full mortality and full agency by accepting the gift of the First Tree from the hand of a woman. In a sense, Adam himself was born of Eve.<ref> Valerie Hudson "The Two Trees" FairMormon Conference 2010 <https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref>
</blockquote>

We strongly encourage readers to see the full talk [https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees/ here].

In any case the endowment's separate wording was altered as of 2023—likely to prevent and preclude any such misunderstandings.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the position of The Church of Jesus Christ on elective abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently opposed abortion for all but a few rare situations.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', 7 June 2022, {{link|url=https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion}}</ref>

==== Except in certain rare circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin ====

{{ChurchResponseBar
|summary =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
 
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
 
*Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
*A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
*A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
 
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
 
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
|title=Abortion
|author=LDS Newsroom
|publication=LDS Newsroom
|link=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
}}

Except in rare certain circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin. However, the Church does not equate abortion with murder. Further, the Church acknowledges that women and men who have been involved in abortions can be forgiven and become members in good standing. The exceptions to the commandment prohibiting abortion highlight the Church’s commitment to women’s rights and to our intrinsic value apart from our biological roles as mothers.

==== Are there exceptions where abortion may be appropriate? Yes. ====

The Church has not adopted a simple, all-or-nothing approach to abortion. While the Church stands firmly by the commandment "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" {{s||D&C|59|6}} and Church members are cautioned that participating in abortion will usually bring their membership under scrutiny, allowances are made for situations where abortion may be necessary.

The Church recognizes there are cases when abortion is medically necessary. When a woman’s health would be severely threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term, the Church offers counsel and support while mothers themselves decide how to proceed. The same approach is taken even when the mother's life is not at risk but a pregnancy is medically deemed to have no chance of being viable. In such cases, the Church leaves the final choice of whether an abortion will be performed to the parents. There is no universal formula for how the exceptions to the Church's usual stance on abortion must be applied.

The list of situations where abortion may be appropriate demonstrates the Church’s commitment to women’s right to make choices. In cases of rape or incest (crimes sometimes known by other names but likely meant to describe any non-consensual sexual intercourse brought on by force or by the abuse of a position of power), the Church does not require victims to continue pregnancies arising from someone else’s abusive choices. If a woman does not consent to sexual contact, the Church does not consider her morally obliged to accept the consequences of it.

At a gathering of university students, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks quoted the following:

<blockquote>
The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The fact that an impending threat to the mother’s health is accepted by the Church as a valid reason for opting for abortion suggests that the Church prefers the life of the adult woman to the life of the unborn fetus—especially if there is no chance the fetus would be able to live if the pregnancy took its natural course. This preference is controversial to many in the mainstream Pro-Life movement. Clearly, however, women are not valued solely for their reproductive abilities. They are free to protect and preserve their own lives even if doing so directly compromises reproduction.

==== Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ====

In a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the ancient Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" {{s||Exodus|20|13}} was expanded to read "Thou shalt not…kill nor do anything like unto it." {{s||D&C|59|6}} Abortion has been interpreted to fall within the category of "anything like unto it." Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ''per se''. It is a less serious sin and one for which men and women can be forgiven.

While a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church President Russell M. Nelson said:

<blockquote>
So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And "as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion." Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/reverence-for-life?lang=eng Reverence for Life]|date=May 1985|pages=11}} See also {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng| article=Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless|date=Oct 2008|pages=32-37}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church does not persecute or demonize people involved in abortion. Instead, it reaches out to them with compassion and the promise of a possible redemption.

==== The Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion ====
As explained in the Church’s official statement on abortion, the Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion. However, Church members are free to express their own opinions and to be involved as individuals in political causes including abortion legislation.

The Church has come under criticism from conservative groups for not taking a more absolutist stance against abortion. At the same time, the Church is criticized by "pro-choice" groups for its extremely limited tolerance for abortion. Both sides of the argument accuse the Church of trying too hard to please the opposite side. Clearly, the Church’s stance on abortion cannot be the result of political pandering. If it's meant as a compromise, it would be a poor one that leaves both sides of the abortion argument angry and unsatisfied. In an argument as polarized as the abortion debate, no compromise would ever be acceptable. Rather than crafting a position that pleases either side of the debate, the Church position is a tempered one—one based on the application of revelation and true principles to a real, complicated world where difficult situations must be reckoned with on careful, individual bases.

Despite its lack of direct engagement in abortion politics, some Church leaders have warned members against aligning with movements that would promote the use of abortion beyond the circumstances of rape, incest, and catastrophic health outcomes accepted by the Church.

Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. …In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Adoption is encouraged as an alternative to abortion ====
Wrote the First Presidency in 1999:

<blockquote>
Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption .... 

Unwed parents who do not marry '''''should not''''' be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. Generally, unwed parents are not able to provide the stable, nurturing environment so essential for the baby’s well-being.

When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration. Placing the infant for adoption enables unwed parents to do what is best for the child and enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned.<ref>Cited in {{Ensign1|article=Policies and Announcements|date=April 1999|pages=80, {{ea}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church ====
Though the Church places a high value on families and regards the commandment given to Adam and Eve to "multiply, and replenish the earth" {{s||Genesis|1|28}} as still being in force,<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 1995.</ref> the use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church. Married LDS couples are not expected to limit their sexual contact to attempts to conceive. Sexual behavior between married partners is seen as wholesome and sanctifying even when there is little or no chance of conception. Birth control is meant to be used carefully and prayerfully but it is not forbidden.

==== Church leaders' statements on birth control ====

A recent statement explains the Church's stance on contraception:

<blockquote>
Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for a husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children within loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The scriptures declare, "Children are an heritage of the Lord." Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Birth control," ''Gospel Topics'' {{link|https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng}} (accessed 4 June 2024)</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1993, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, spoke in the Church’s General Conference saying:

<blockquote>
How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed, clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God’s promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families…In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks quoted the then President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, expressing similar sentiments:

<blockquote>
I like to think of the positive side of the equation, of the meaning and sanctity of life, of the purpose of this estate in our eternal journey, of the need for the experiences of mortal life under the great plan of God our Father, of the joy that is to be found only where there are children in the home, of the blessings that come of good posterity. When I think of these values and see them taught and observed, then I am willing to leave the question of numbers to the man and the woman and the Lord.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This moderate approach has a long history. In 1916, Church leaders, such as David O. MacKay, endorsed of the wisdom in using moderation and sensitivity when it comes to childbearing. MacKay said,

<blockquote>
In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme.<ref>David O. McKay, ''Relief Society Magazine'' (July 1916) 3:7.</ref>
</blockquote>

The language and tone may be old-fashioned but the message of mothers’ needs as the priority was a progressive one for its day.

==== Sexual behavior and emotional health ====

The Church has long taught that sexual relations are not only for the creation of children, but have other important roles within marriage. Late President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, taught:

<blockquote>
In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Cautions and qualifications ====

Church leaders have also issued frank warnings about the over-use of birth control. As late Church President, Ezra Taft Benson, taught:

<blockquote>
Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity.<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Mothers in Zion," Parents' Fireside, Salt Lake City, Utah, 22 February 1987.</ref>
</blockquote>

Even this statement contains the qualification that mothers enjoy "good health." Childbearing is never meant to be carried out with dogmatic recklessness. In all things, the LDS decision making process is a deliberate, thoughtful one where individuals "study it out in [their] mind[s]" {{s||D&C|9|8}} and receipt spiritual confirmation before acting.

President Benson knew this and added, "I would ask our young people to think seriously about these things, pray about them, fast about them. The Lord will give them the answers, because He wants them to have the blessings of a righteous posterity." <ref>{{TETB|start=539|end=543}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What do the scriptures say about the issue of abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently been against abortion.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', June 7, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion/.</ref>

Prophetic guidance often draws from—and is consistent with—canonized scripture. We here examine scriptural passages that have relevance to the abortion debate—though we must remember that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ derives fundamentally from modern prophetic guidance, and not an interpretation of past scripture. We can, however, use the prophets' current stance to explore scripture and see what we might learn.

==== {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}} ====

One of the most commonly cited and discussed scriptures relevant to abortion is {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}}:

<blockquote>
¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
</blockquote>

This is a type of ''casuistic law''— that is, it stipulates what kind of punishments should be inflicted on a person if they engage in certain kinds of acts. This is a case where two or more people are fighting and accidentally hurt a woman and her fetus. This would be an ''accidental miscarriage'' '''or''' ''accidental premature birth'' of a woman while two people are fighting.

The scripture stipulates that if the men make the woman miscarry/have this premature birth, they must first be confronted by the husband of the woman. The husband, along with judges, will jointly determine what kind of fine to impose on those who fought. The same procedure was presumably followed if the husband himself was one of the combatants in the altercation.

The passage further stipulates that if the woman herself is injured or dies (exactly which is not clear), then the people who engaged in the fight are liable for death and other punishments [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye lex talionis]. It’s important to note that lex talionis "is a principle of fair treatment of assailants and not necessarily a literal prescription for retaliatory treatment in all cases."<ref>Carol Myers, "Exodus," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press), 114. Importantly, Myers further states on the same page: "Note that compensation is sometimes acceptable (vv. 22, 26, 27) and that the rabbinic understanding of talion calls for paying damages."</ref>

Some have argued that this passage and, consequently, Israelite law treats the value of the mother as greater than the value of the fetus. But this argument depends on the correct translation of ויצאו (''wytsaw''. Translated as "depart from her" in the KJV above), how one translates the term אָסוֹן (ʾ''ason'') translated as "mischief", what that ''ason'' included, and who that ''ason'' is applied to. None of these questions can be answered with certainty.

''Wytsaw'' is [https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm typically translated] as "give birth prematurely" in modern, popular, English biblical translations, though other important translations say "miscarriage". "Premature birth" may be preferred because of 'ason which is typically translated as ''harm'' or ''injury''. Some say that it should be translated as "serious injury." Some take it to refer to death.

Who the injury, serious injury, harm, or death is inflicted on is also important. If it is only the woman, then the woman is being more valued than the fetus. If the harm is assumed to be to either the woman ''or'' her fetus, then both are being valued equally. If the harm is only to the fetus, then the fetus is being valued more than the woman. It's uncertain, but the first two options are more likely than the last. Injury to either a woman or a child would be negative.

Even if we translate and interpret the passage such that the fetus is miscarried and no other harm is brought on the woman, the passage ''still stipulates that a fine be paid''. This indicates that the fetus who was miscarried or born prematurely—and a fetus presumably at any stage of development— ''still had at least some value'' in the eyes of the Israelite law. This scripture under no circumstances allows a kind of ethic that sees the fetus as entirely expendable no matter the stage of development.

The very least that we can conclude from these passages is that this was an ''accidental'' situation (not a deliberate one as in the case of elective abortion), that both the mother and fetus were seen as valuable at least in some way, and that damages needed to be paid or punishments received commensurate with the harm inflicted on mother and fetus.

Given the fact that this was a case of accidental harm alone, we cannot use this scripture to support the deliberate end of a fetus's life.

We now consider some other relevant scriptures.

==== {{s||Numbers|5|}} ====
{{s||Numbers|5|11-31}} outlines what is known today as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water Ordeal of the Bitter Water].

The major talking point is concerning verse 27 and what happens as a priest makes a woman partake of the water.

<blockquote>
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
</blockquote>

The word "thigh" is a translation of the Hebrew yarek (יָרֵך) which does mean thigh but euphemistically refers to the genitals and other reproductive organs of a human being.

The passage says that a woman’s belly will swell up and that her uterus and perhaps vagina will either shrivel up or fall out (or maybe both).

Some have interpreted this passage to refer to miscarriage. The NIV translates this verse to say that "your womb [will] miscarry and your abdomen swell". But the passage doesn’t apply to just pregnant women. It applies to all those that have been caught in adultery, whether pregnant or not. The curses that {{s_short||Numbers|5|27}} is establishing refer to ''infertility''. Thus, it’s not that a woman loses her baby because of the trial, but loses her ability to ''conceive entirely''.

==== Thou shalt not murder ====
Texts that may be relevant to the abortion debate include those that condemn murder. There are many such texts in the scriptures that are so well-known that we will not cite them here. The question is, "Does abortion really constitute murder?"

Certain leaders of the Church have analogized abortion to murder in the past.<ref name="ortner"></ref>

The current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that abortion does not necessarily constitute murder. The Church most frequently cites a text contained in the Latter-day Saint canon: {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|59|6}}. It tells the Saints "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it." Abortion has typically been seen in the "nor do anything like unto it" clause.

The first mention of "kill" clearly refers to murder. But there are obviously other categories of sinful killing that are not murder. (Some killing, such as in self-defense, could be considered not sinful at all.)

This is where abortion is situated by the Church: not necessarily murder, but still an act of unjustified killing ''like'' murder.

==== Impeding obedience to other commandments ====

Scriptures that apply to abortion and it's ethical implications are not only those which discuss murder. Other commandments and other moral considerations might be broken or encouraged if we endorse abortion.

One of these would be the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" given by God in the creation accounts contained in both the scriptures and the temple ( {{s||Genesis|1|28}}; {{s||Moses|2|28}}; {{s||Abraham|4|28}} ).

Marriage is another command that applies. Elective abortion is often treated as a safety net for individuals that want to have unprotected sex without the consequence of an unwanted child. Abortion can thus disincentivies marriage. Scriptures forbidding extramarital sexual acts are many, and not cited here.

Latter-day Saint scripture portrays the body as a treasured thing—crucial to our learning. {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|93|33-34}} tells us that a fulness of joy can only be obtained when the spirit of a person and his or her body are inseparably connected by resurrection. It is clear in scripture that bodies are wanted by both righteous and wicked spirits ( {{s||Matthew|8|28-32}}; {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|45|17}}; {{s_short||D&C|138:14-15,18,50}} ).

It is clear, as Dallin H. Oaks as observed, that "[f]rom the perspective of the plan of salvation, one of the most serious abuses of children is to deny them birth" and especially to deny them birth within the environment most-aptly suited for their progression through mortality: marriage.{{Ensign|Dallin H. Oaks|Protect the Children|vol=42|num=11|date=November 2012|pages= 43|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/11/saturday-afternoon-session/protect-the-children?lang=eng }}</ref>

Some abortion debates focus on when the soul enters the body—presuming that killing an ensouled fetus or child would be murder, while an unesouled one might be aborted without concern.

==== The scriptures provide no guidance as to when ensoulment happens ====
Some believe that the question is resolved by Genesis where God grants Adam his "first breath" so that he becomes a living soul. By these lights, one can know that the soul has entered the body when a person ''breathes''. The Latter-day Saint temple appears to teach that God first places Adam’s spirit in his body and then afterwards grants him his first breath. Furthermore, if first breath is truly when personhood is thought to begin, exactly which "breath" should we be treating as someone's first? Fetal breathing (though not ''strictly'' breathing for oxygen exchange) can begin as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy and about as late right before birth.<ref>Coleen de Bellefonds, "How Babies Breathe in the Womb," What to Expect, July 19, 2021, https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-health/how-babies-breathe-womb.</ref> A "first breath" standard for when personhood begins might prohibit a large number of abortions.

Others believe that ''blood'' is what grants personhood and indicates ensoulment. Oftentimes it is thought that blood in connection with breath grants full-personhood in Israelite law. This has at least some merit when considering the thought world of the authors of the Bible. Here again, though, the answers are not as clear-cut as we might like: "By the end of the fifth week [of gestation], the heart of the fetus is able to pump blood throughout its body."<ref>"Medical Animation: Prenatal Heart Circulation," St. Louis Children's Hospital, accessed April 5, 2023, https://www.stlouischildrens.org/health-resources/pulse/medical-animation-prenatal-heart-circulation.</ref> So does a fetus' working circulatory system at the fifth week of gestation grant them personhood?

Some believe that the answer as to when a fetus receives its human spirit/gains personhood is when a fetus is "quickened" or when it first begins to move inside of a woman’s womb. There are some scriptures/statements from leaders of the Church that may be used to justify this view.

*{{s||Luke|1|44}}, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This scriptures discusses John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth. The New Testament mentions that Elizabeth hid herself for five months. Thus we might deduce that a soul was in John’s body after five months when Mary visited Elizabeth.
*President Brigham Young once said that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" ([[Journal of Discourses/17/22|''Journal of Discourses'', 17:143]]).

(We now know that fetal movement begins much sooner than the mother can feel it—the sensation is only when fetus is large enough and its movements strong enough to be felt by the mother.)

President Young’s view stands in mild contrast with an official statement from the First Presidency in 1909 which is less certain about when life enters the body:

<blockquote>
The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened '''at a certain stage''' by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.
</blockquote>

Thus there is no definitive answer about when the soul enters the body from the scriptures nor The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some believe that full-personhood for fetuses is asserted by what they perceive as the continuity of personal identity displayed in biblical passages such as {{s||Job|3|3}}, {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}, and {{s||Jeremiah|1|5}}.

* {{s||Job|3|3}} – "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived." This verse does not assume personal continuity of identity as some have claimed. It merely asserts that Job wishes he weren't conceived nor born.
* {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}: "For thou hast possessed me reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee ; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." This may indicate a kind of continuity, but it's not certain. The Lord at the very least here sees a kind of form that he intricately weaves the psalmist's bones and other members according to. It is certain that the Lord, according to the psalmist, takes a special concern for/interest in and performs a special creative act on the unborn.
*{{s||Jeremiah|1|5}} – "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This is perhaps the strongest scripture in favor of continuity of personhood (though still not entirely certain). The Lord ordained unborn Jeremiah, like the prophet servant of the Lord in Isaiah ( {{s||Isaiah|42|1}}; {{s_short||Isaiah|49|6}} ), to be a prophet unto the nations.

As before, these scriptures are suggestive, but not definitive.

==== Biology as it may relate to personhood ====
Biologically, asking "when life begins" is absurd—the egg is alive from the moment it is fertilized. In a fallen world, cells that are dead do not come back to life. And, if the egg is not "human" life, then what kind of life is it? The cells involved come from humans, are only produced by humans, and develop into a human.

Thus wholly 95% of biologists agree that a new, distinct human life begins at conception: when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm.<ref>Steven Andrew Jacobs "Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins’," SSRN, August 6, 2018; "Life Begins at Fertilization," Princeton, accessed May 7, 2022, https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html; Steven Andrew Jacobs, "Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate," (Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2019); Steve Jacobs, "I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular," ''Quilette'', October 16, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/.</ref>

One can only wonder about the other 5% of biologists—presumably they understood that the question was poorly posed, or didn't like the ideological implications.

The fertilized egg is certainly alive—it metabolizes, replicates DNA, divides, differentiates, etc. There is never a point at which the egg is "dead" and then becomes alive again. Nor is there a point at which the embryo or fetus is not alive.

"When does human life begin?" is thus a sloppy way to ask the real question: ''When does a fertilized human egg acquire any rights or moral standing? At what point does killing it have moral implications?''

We kill things that are alive all the time—we kill billions of bacteria without a thought. The key question is, ''Is killing a human embryo like killing a bacteria? Or is it like killing a toddler? Or something in between?''

Our laws do tend to treat human bodies as persons regardless of their current brain function, heart function, lung function, sentience, etc. And, there is never debate about whether these people are ''alive''. Of course they are.

====What to do in the face of uncertainty?====
Some have argued that there are moral duties even when we are not certain of all the facts. There are, with abortion, at least three possibilities:

# Abortion is the equivalent of murder, killing a fully-human (in the sense of having full human rights, not in the biological sense).
# Abortion is still a serious moral act, even if it does not rise to the level of murder.
# Abortion is of no moral consequence regarding the fetus.

In the face of uncertainty, we could choose to
* support or participate in an abortion; or
* oppose or participate in an abortion.

If it turns out that abortion is murder or a serious moral wrong (option #1 or #2) then it is far better to have chosen to oppose abortion. Standing by would be like doing nothing to stop slavery, or not attempting to stop the slaughter of prisoners of war.

If abortion turns out to have no or few moral consequences (#3), we have at least not committed a murder or murder-like crime. We would have opposed the right of women to do something that they wanted to do—and that ''would'' be a moral wrong. But it is surely not as grave a moral wrong as the mass killing of the innocent and defenseless.

Which risk should we run if we are not certain?{
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women ====

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.<ref>The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections {{sv||D&C|20|}}, {{sv||D&C|84|}}, and {{sv||D&C|107|}}. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, {{sv||D&C|20|60}} reads "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him." </ref> Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book]) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.<ref>It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 here].</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood ====

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

<blockquote>
the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842|pages=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to offices in the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

<blockquote>
Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, 'elect lady'.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "[http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/desnews8/id/3945/rec/5 Female Relief Society]," ''Deseret News'' (22 April 1868): 81.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’ ====
Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’<ref>Eliza R. Snow references {{s||Articles of Faith|1|6}} in her article.</ref> Likewise, in an interview, Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

<blockquote>
Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.<ref>Quoted in {{Dialogue|author=Tina Hatch|article='Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present|vol=37|num=33|pages=68-69}}. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies]," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012). {{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2012 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

If seen as a companion to the priesthood—as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

==== Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood ====

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, Joseph said:

<blockquote>
Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|4-5}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood ====

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)<ref>See {{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=6|pages=9|date=17 March 1842}} See also {{JDmini|vol=21|pages=368}} (below) where he appeals to that experience.</ref> wrote:

<blockquote>
Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|date=8 August 1880|vol=21|disc=40|article=The Order and Duties of the Priesthood, Etc.|start=367|end=368}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Given that President Taylor ordained the first Relief Society presidency under Joseph's instructions, he was well-placed to know whether this was an ordination to priesthood office or not.

==== President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church ====

But, his reference to a priesthood held "in connection with their husbands" reminds us of Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

<blockquote>
He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|38-39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Latter-day Saint women in the 19th century ====

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands.<ref>For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" ''The Journal of Mormon History'' 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.</ref> This had apparently caused some discussion as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century. The very name of the society, after all, described its purpose of bringing relief to the poor, sick, or suffering.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

<blockquote>
He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|37-38}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843:

<blockquote>
The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.<ref>(See {{HC|vol=5|start=510}})</ref>
</blockquote>

When this was prepared for publication in the ''History of the Church'', this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

<blockquote>
He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands; that the Saints whose integrity had been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer.<ref>{{HC|vol=4|pages=604}} See also {{TPJS|pages=226}} For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.</ref>
</blockquote>

This interpolated idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood—though it is not found in Joseph's original. We note too that the "keys" in this reading are the keys of knowledge and revelation.

Bruce R. McConkie emphasized that 'keys' "have two distinct and yet related meanings:"

<blockquote>
1—They are the right of presidency; the right to govern and direct all the affairs of the Church or kingdom; and the power to authorize the use of hte Priesthood for a particular purpose. In this sense keys are held by those only who are in presiding and governing positions.

2—Keys are also ''the way and means whereby knowledge and intelligence may be gained from God. In this sense, they are possessed by every Priesthood bearer and ... by many faithful membres of the Relief Society.<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|148}}.
</blockquote>

It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=History_of_the_Church_(6-volume_history)
|subject1=Editing practices for the ''History of the Church''
|summary1=The ''History of the Church'' was assembled in the 19th century, and followed different authorship, editing, and source conventions.
}}

==== Keys and the Relief Society ====

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

<blockquote>
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.<ref>{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|40}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers ====

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that "I now turn the key to you"? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1950:

<blockquote>
What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them. ...

[T]he door was [also] opened whereby the faithful sisters, with their husbands, could communicate with God and receige blessings at his hands. What was it the Prophet said? "Knwledge and intelligence shall flow down (i.e. from God) from this time henceforth."<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|151}}.
</blockquote>

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

<blockquote>
Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.<ref>"A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued," ''Woman’s Exponent'' 12 (15 October 1883): 75. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/WomansExp/id/10944/rec/27}}</ref>
</blockquote>

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the Relief Society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

<blockquote>
"We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up," she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: "The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’" Snow described the Relief Society as "self-governing" and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. "Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood," she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that "all must act in concert or nothing can be done," she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests "are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors."<ref>Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.</ref>
</blockquote>

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

<blockquote>
The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=19}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

<blockquote>
We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=3|author=Joseph F. Smith}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

<blockquote>
Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=13|start=155|disc=18|article=Building Up Zion—Temperance in Eating and Drinking}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed ====

Joseph Fielding Smith:

<blockquote>
While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Women and priesthood in a temple context ====

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

<blockquote>
I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.<ref>Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888, in “Memorial Anniversary. Report of the Relief Soicety Meeting Held in the Ogden Tabernacle, July 19th, 1888, in Commemoration of the Last Public Visit and Instructions of President Brigham Young, on Invitation of President Jane S. Richards, to the Relief Society and Young Ladies’ Improvement Associations of the Weber Stake of Zion, Just Eleven Years Ago the 19th Inst.,” Woman’s Exponent (Salt Lake City, UT), Sept. 1, 1888, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 52–54.{{link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-4/4-20?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President. He mentioned the habit of providing temple annointing and washing ritual to women for health reasons:

<blockquote>
Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.<ref>Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, Church Archives.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

<blockquote>
"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."<ref>{{Book:Talmage:House of the Lord|pages=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage ====

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

<blockquote>
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133 'Let Us Think Straight']," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.</ref>
</blockquote>

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

<blockquote>
Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.<ref name="oaks">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng|date=May 2014}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Women act with delegated priesthood authority====

President Dallin H. Oaks emphasized this point when he pointed out that "since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” ({{s||D&C|107|5}}), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority."<ref name="oaks"></ref>

When we understand this, we see that most ''men'' do not perform their duties with their "own" priesthood authority, most of the time. Instead, both men and women ''usually'' act in their Church callings by designated or delegated authority.

====Most people—male and female—act with delegated authority====
For example:
* a ward clerk or executive secretary performs his duties by delegated authority.
* Sunday school teachers—male and female—teach classes under designated authority.
* Primary Presidencies, Young Women's Presidencies, Young Men's adult assistants, Sunday School presidencies—all act under delegated authority from the bishop when they are set apart.

In fact, there are only a few callings that exercise keys and priesthood authority that resides in them, rather than as delegated:
* priesthood quorum presidents
* bishops
* stake, temple, and mission presidents
* apostles

President Oaks expressed this idea when he emphasized:

<blockquote>
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.<ref name="oaks"></ref>
</blockquote>

Most members, then, will spend all or most of their Church ''callings'' functioning under delegated authority, not authority to which they are ordained.<ref>Men will, however, often be called on to exercise priesthood in the performance of ''ordinances'', such as blessing the sacrament, blessing the sick, baptizing, or confirming—these duties are not carried out as part of a calling, but in one's role as an ordained holder of the priesthood.</ref>

And, that delegated authority is even used by women in temples to administer sacred ordinance, see [[#Women and priesthood in a temple context|above]].

====We need a more expansive view of how priesthood authority is used by all faithful Church members====

President Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized this in 1959:

<blockquote>
While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” ''Relief Society Magazine'', Jan. 1959, 4; cited by Oaks, 2014</ref>.
</blockquote>
}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures ====
The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam ({{b||Exodus|15|20}}), Deborah ({{b||Judges|4|4}}), Huldah ({{b|2|Kings|22|14}},{{b|2|Chronicles|34|22}}), Noadiah ({{b||Nehemiah|6|14}}). The New Testament mentions Anna ({{b||Luke|2|36}}). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

==== The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy ====

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet." In this sense, ''the'' prophet is a priesthood position held by the senior apostle on earth. As President Dallin H. Oaks noted:

<blockquote>
The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood. ...

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”
</blockquote>

In the same way, "The Prophet" is certainly a prophet, but he is not the only one who can or should possess the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

<blockquote>
...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in {{s||Num.|11|25-29}}; {{s||Rev.|19|10}}.<ref>{{BD|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61|article=Prophet}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics {{s||Joel|2|28-29}}. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word "prophetess" is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

==== The false prophetess ====

In the New Testament, the word is applied to "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess."{{s||Rev|2|20}} According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy—a dark parallel to the woman and child that reprsent the Church of God (see {{s||Rev|12|}}, especially [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12?lang=eng&id=p1-p17#p1 JST Revelation 12:7]. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

It does not preclude righteous women from acting as prophets any more than the existence of false male prophets precludes men from doing so.

The negative use of "prophetess" shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church.

==== Why are there no female prophets today? ====

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today:

<blockquote>
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ({{b||Exodus|19|5-6}})
</blockquote>

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" ({{b|1|Peter|2|9}})

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets:

<blockquote>
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! ({{b||Numbers|11||29}})
</blockquote>

If we cannot perceive Latter-day Saint women who are prophets, we may be thinking of "prophet" as a position of influence or power, rather than as a spiritual gift to which all are called to be worthy.
{{To learn more box:women: priesthood}}
</wt>
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Was ist die Stellung der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage zur Geburtenkontrolle?]]
[[de:Frauen und das Priestertum]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Maternidad]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Mujeres en la cultura mormona]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Participación en la Iglesia]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y el sacerdocio/Mujeres]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la posición mormona sobre el aborto?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la postura de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días sobre el control de la natalidad?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿El mormonismo devalúa a aquellos que no están casados o que no tienen hijos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hay alguna regla en el mormonismo que establezca que las mujeres no pueden abrir reuniones de la Iglesia con la oración?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las enseñanzas del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón") sobre la maternidad representan una carga inadecuada para las mujeres?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") colocadas bajo convenio en los templos se subordinan a sus esposos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Se enseña a las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") a ser "agradecidas a los hombres mormones" y que las mujeres no deben "aspirar ... a un pensamiento independiente"?]]