Introducing Mormon-to-Orthodox Converts: Thomas.

This is the first in a series of interviews with Mormon-to-Orthodox converts I will be publishing periodically. I am looking forward to seeing what those interviewed have to share.

I first interviewed Mormon-to-Orthodox convert, Thomas. Here it is!

MtO: There seem to be two main categories that those with an LDS background fall into. First, there are individuals who are or were faithful, active participants, fulfilling their callings and other LDS-specific duties (i.e. temple service, mission service); then there are those who have an LDS background, but have never been particularly active, or have been semi-active at best. Tell us about your LDS background and whether or not you see yourself as falling into one of these two categories. Where did you grow up? Were you and your family active in the LDS faith? How many generations of your family have been LDS? Did you serve a mission? Did you marry in an LDS temple? (Please answer as few or many of these questions as you wish)

Thomas: I grew up in Whittier, California, and attended the 7th Ward. We were (active) and I was at maximum on activity. My mother converted when I was an infant, my father a decade later. I was sealed to them in the Los Angeles temple.

Did you leave the LDS faith before or after learning about Orthodox Christianity? If before, have you been an adherent of any other faith traditions along the way?

I left the LDS faith before learning about Orthodox Christianity. I realized I could not believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church while preparing for my mission. When I left I had no faith. I converted to Christ several years later while taking a required religion course on the Pauline Epistles. Instead of using the course syllabus I used a Catholic patristically sourced commentary.

This all occurred during your time at Brigham Young University, correct?

Yes. The class was at BYU.

How did you find out about Orthodox Christianity?

I began going to various churches but none felt right until I went to an Orthodox Church. I chose the GOA because this was the Church I went to.

What are the main factors that drew you to Orthodox Christianity? Did you ever consider any of the other so-called apostolic faiths (Roman/ Eastern Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy)? If so, why did you ultimately choose Eastern Orthodox Christianity?

I am a little different than most Mormon Orthodox converts because I did not reject other versions of Christianity. I followed God where he led me just as Joseph Smith taught me. I am very uncomfortable with standard antiMormon rhetoric. I simply followed the Light the Lord sent my way and I advise everyone to do the same.

That is great. I think it is beneficial to see conversion as acceptance of a chosen path rather than rejection of alternatives.

What is one thing about the Orthodox Christian faith, or your own personal conversion to Orthodoxy, that you would like LDS people to know?

I became Orthodox because of Joseph Smith not despite him.

Very interesting. One of the most pivotal points in the LDS narrative is indeed when Joseph Smith Jr. asks God to reveal to him the true faith. 

Do you have favorite saints? If so, why are they your favorite?

The Panagia (the Holy Virgin Mary) because I am attached to Mount Athos, her garden and I feel closest to her. Saint Simeon of Simonopetra because of being attached to the monastery and having visited his cave many times and hearing personal testimonies from the monks about his constant miracles and presence at the monastery. Mary Magdalene because I have venerated her incorrupt hand, the hand that touched the Lord, many times. Saint Thomas the Apostle because he was not a go along to get along guy.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, Thomas.

Roman Catholic Arguments for Papal Supremacy, part II: St. Irenaeus of Lyons and the meaning of "convenire"

In my previous post I considered what can and cannot be concluded from the text of Matthew 16:18-19, which is often used by Roman Catholic apologists to support their specific doctrine of Papal Primacy. In this post I examine the passage most frequently cited by Roman Catholics seeking to bolster their view of Papal Primacy, passage 3.3.2 from St. Irenaeus's Against Heresies:

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

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

In the first line of interest, St. Irenaeus says "...the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul..." which is interesting for two reasons. First, St. Irenaeus speaks about the church in Rome as a whole, making no effort to emphasize who leads the Church of Rome or drawing any special connection between the episcopate in Rome and St. Peter. In fact, Irenaeus speaks about both St. Peter and St. Paul as those responsible for the Roman Church's existence. Once again, there is no mention of any special connection between St. Peter and the episcopate alone since St. Irenaeus is focused on the Church of Rome as a whole.

If it was St. Irenaeus's objective to demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the primate over all Christendom because he succeeds St. Peter, he would have focused his attention specifically on the apostle who grants this authority, St. Peter, and on the Bishop of Rome himself whom Roman Catholics claim is the reason for the Church of Rome's preeminence. Instead, St. Irenaeus focuses on the Church of Rome in its entirety, basing its importance on both St. Peter and St. Paul.

When St. Irenaeus does refer to bishops, he says the following "...; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops." St. Irenaeus speaks of multiple successions of multiple bishops, thus referring to bishops both within and outside of Rome. Like other churches in Christendom, the Church of Rome is important and maintains legitimacy because it preserves and professes the same faith as all the other churches. 

The last and final portion best supports the Roman Catholic position, and is the section emphasized by apologists:
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority,that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

It is tempting to conclude that Roman Catholic apologists are correct in their interpretation of this passage, but closer examination undermines such conclusions. The first complication for the Roman Catholic apologist is the Latin word convenire, which in the passage above is translated as "agree with," but might also be translated as "come together," "assemble," or "meet." In fact, the Perseus classics resource database, run by Tufts University and held as the preeminent internet resource for classical Latin and Greek, doesn't even list "agree with" as one of the primary options. That said, there are numerous examples in Latin texts of convenire being translated as "agree with" based on the context in which it is used. The relevant question, then, is whether the context of the passage provides a reasonable basis for translating "convenire" as  "agree with," and it is here that the debate comes to a standstill since we cannot be sure how St. Irenaeus intended for his message to be translated since both "agree with" and "meet with" fit the context of the passage. What is clear, though, is that once again a passage Roman Catholic apologists claim clearly demonstrates their case is shown to be ambiguous.

Additionally, even if one concedes that St. Irenaeus claims all faithful should agree with the Church of Rome there remain obstacles for the Roman Catholic apologist. The first of these obstacles lies in why St. Irenaeus deems it necessary for faithful to agree/ meet with Rome. Is it because the Bishop of Rome holds Petrine authority over other churches? Is it because the Church of Rome as a whole has demonstrated is faithfulness to Christendom and its mission and thus has garnered respect? Once again, St. Irenaeus's meaning is unclear.

Because Roman Catholic apologists make a positive claim, being that the above passage from St. Irenaeus demonstrates their view of Papal Primacy, it is their duty not only to put forward this quote as self-evident, but to answer the questions I have raised in this post, namely:

1. How does this passage demonstrate that the Church of Rome's preeminence is rooted in the Bishop of Rome who is the unique successor of St. Peter?

2. Why is "agree with" the best translation of "convenire ad" in this passage?

For further reading, I recommend the following:

http://lettersonorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/a-discussion-of-the-papacy-and-irenaeus/

Roman Catholic Arguments for Papal Supremacy, part I: What can and cannot be established by the plain text of Matthew 16:18-20.

In this post I consider the most prevalent Roman Catholic argument for Papal Supremacy, being that Matthew 16:18-19 demonstrates that St. Peter, and thus the Bishop of Rome, acts as the head of the Christian Church's hierarchy in Christ's stead. I argue this inference in not justified by the plain reading of the text. I love my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters and I recognize that without Roman Catholic friends, colleagues, and resources I never would have found my way home. Although argumentative, I pray my words are interpreted in charity as I intend them.

To begin, here is the Greek text of Matthew 16:18-19. Each verse is followed by the English translation.

18κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν   ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 

^{And (I) to you I say that you are Petros (nominative), and on this petra (dative) I will build my assembly, and the gates of hades will not overcome/ prevail over it.
19}δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶνοὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς   ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν 
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 

I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and that which you bind on the earth is bound in the heavens, and that which you free/ loose on the earth will be freed/ loosed in the heavens.

In verse 18, as I have indicated, the nominative form, Petros, is first used. The nominative case in Greek is used to designate the subject of a sentence. The next use, petra, is in the dative case which, in this case indicates an indirect object to which an action will be applied. Some have used the dative use to indicate that "petra" does not refer to the person St. Peter, and, while this opinion is shared by numerous Church Fathers, I do not think that conceding that it is, in some sense, the person St. Peter upon whom Christ builds his ecclesia is problematic for Eastern Orthodoxy. Thus, for the sake of this article I will concede that Christ establishes his ecclesia on St. Peter.

Verse 18 establishes that Christ in some way uses St. Peter to establish his ecclesia on earth. That is it. This verse says nothing about how the ecclesia is to be governed, what St. Peter's role in that governance is, whether or not Peter is to have a successor or successors, or what authority his successor(s) would have. Thus Eastern Orthodox Christians can concede that Christ gives first the keys to St. Peter and that Christ uses St. Peter to establish his ecclesia without conceding anything to their Roman Catholic interlocutors.

In verse 19 St. Peter is given a special authority that essentially gives him heavenly power in establishing structure and laws of Christ's ecclesia. From the text we can infer that this inheritance is important and signifies legitimate authority; however, once again, what is absent are the very things Roman Catholicism needs to make its case: no mention of who is to succeed St. Peter. It is possible, then that St. Peter might have had multiple successors as did Charlemagne after his death.

It is clear that Matthew 16:18-19 itself does not establish the Roman catholic position. That being said, although there exist a surprising number of Roman Catholics who believe these verses alone establish their case, the majority of Roman Catholics acknowledge that Matthew 16:18-19 are only one piece of a larger historical and theological argument. In my next post I will investigate the broader scope in which this argument falls. I will first examine who the ante-Nicene Church Fathers saw as St. Peter's successor.

Note: Because I wish to maintain intellectual honesty and give this topic adequate consideration, I invite questions, rebuttals, comments, and suggestions. I would especially be interested in reading what arguments or quotes from the Church Fathers you think best support the Roman Catholic position.

My latest encounter with LDS (Mormon) missionaries, or: To debate or not to debate?

Since my departure from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, visits from LDS (Mormon) missionaries have become a semi-regular occurrence. As much as it pains me to admit it, when I finalized my departure from the LDS faith I harbored much disdain for the religion and its official representatives. When I saw missionaries approaching, or was visited by them at home, I thought only of ways to expose to them the errors of their faith, and I often wasn't gracious in my efforts to put my thoughts into action.

At some point, perhaps due to the grace provided me by my entrance into the Orthodox faith, my anger subsided and eventually disappeared altogether. This was most apparent yesterday when I invited two young men representing the LDS faith into my home. Rather than assessing the situation to determine the most opportune moment to pounce, I instead attempted to take interest in and listen to what the missionaries had to say. I was, of course, more interested in the missionaries themselves than the message they had to share.

The best part of the experience was that these two young men reciprocated. Whereas missionaries in the past were eager to remove themselves from my defensive, sometimes combative presence, my most recent visitors wanted to learn more not just about me but about my faith. I shared the Church's history and how Orthodox Christians view Christ, and they asked questions aimed not to lead the conversation back to Mormonism, but to learn more about my beliefs.

By attempting to show these two young men that I cared about them and what they had to say, rather than using them to practice my debate techniques and boost my ego, I shared the Orthodox Christian faith and it didn't fall on deaf ears. Mine is only one experience, but I did find that sometimes listening and sharing is more effective method than argument. This may be especially true with LDS missionaries who have been conditioned to see attacks against their faith as signs of their divine calling.

A follow-up by Jerry Thomas

Last week, Jerry Thomas offered a comparison of Mormon and Eastern Orthodox Christian temple theology. A reader by the name of Christian Piper offered a thoughtful critique. Here is Jerry's response:

Rather than respond to Christian Piper’s interesting observations via comments, I am responding with another posting. My response enlarges on the themes presented quite elliptically in the original post. 

First, you object to my breaking the arcana disciplina, the ancient promise among Christians not to speak of the Mystery, even avoiding mention that bread and wine were involved, let alone the theology of the “metabole,” the method, whatever it may be, by which the believer receives Christ’s flesh and blood in the Eucharist. While it is interesting to note that both the Divine Liturgy and the endowment are shrouded in mystery, the cat has been out of the bag so long for Christians that we forget even that it exists, as we constantly have to field questions about this topic. Since I openly discussed the theology of the veil being Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist as the fulfillment of our participation in the Temple—which is the most sacred thing I believe, the heart of it all—I thought that LDS wouldn’t mind “taking the lid off” of their rites, as has been done with Christian rites by hostile readers for many, many centuries, and comparing the Orthodox understanding of crossing the veil and the LDS understanding, which could not be accomplished without examination of the key moment in the central rite, secret or not.

Secondly, I agree that increasing understanding of the role of temples and how that became Christian liturgy makes Mormonism more like Orthodoxy than it is like other Christian faiths. Thus, the thing you like about Mormon temples, their exclusiveness, applies to the Orthodox as well. To “hide the Mystery” we’ve erected an entire battery of walls, screen, veils, curtains, and doors, but in Holy Communion all of those come down, and only those deemed worthy by a less rigid, but by no means less effective, policing of the matter by the clergy are allowed to approach and receive. Orthodoxy, while open to all to worship with us, maintains a tight control on who is actually “in the Church,” which means receiving Holy Communion.

I am from a Masonic family, as well as a Mormon family. My son is an active Mason. I understand that a direct comparison between the initiatory rites all Masons go through to become a Master Mason and the LDS endowment does not extend to the text. This is why I mentioned specific elements. I was undergirding my thesis that something changed between Kirtland and Nauvoo and we know among the things that changed was Joseph moving from not being a Mason to being a Mason. The Masonic rituals sparked his prophetic imagination and developing the endowment was part of an entire new program he was developing at the time of his death that was to culminate in his receiving publicly what had already been done in private, proclaiming Joseph Smith to be the “King of Israel.” Between Kirtland and Nauvoo, something happened.

As to your last point, I do think that not invoking the Holy Name of God when one passes through the veil in the Holiest Place is not in keeping with Temple Tradition. The only time in the First Temple when anyone entered the Holiest Place was on the Day of Atonement. And then only after sacrificing a goat with a sign on it reading, “YHWH,” and eating its raw flesh and drinking its blood, does the high priest, now bearing a sign saying “YHWH,” for it is YHWH’s blood that is shed and it is YHWH who enters the Holiest Place with His Blood, does the high priest dare to enter beyond the veil, bearing the blood and the incense, and stand before the Cherubic Throne. Now this action became the action of each and every Christian when receiving Holy Communion. Now each Christian bears Jesus’s Name (the Saving Name of God) and acts as a high priest in Israel, even infants, and eats of the flesh and blood of the bloodless sacrifice instituted by the Lord Himself. I find it quite odd that the endowment fails to invoke the Holy Name of Jehovah (keeping with endowment terminology) while crossing through the veil.

The Holy Name of God has power and is to be used sparingly and appropriately is a lesson we learn from Scripture and from the practice of the Second Temple to only utter YHWH’s Holy Name aloud on the Day of Atonement. The Name and Atonement go together. Leaving it out at the very moment when the Atonement is being ritualized does raise my eyebrow, for one. Although I don't know, nor can anyone know, why the Holy Name of God is lacking in the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, I can hazard a guess. Consistent with Joseph Smith's theological tendencies towards the end of his life, it seems clear that he was moving to a concept of God that we might call "transpersonal." It wasn't God the Father Himself who was "eternal," it was the "Priesthood," the culmination of which was the "Priesthood of God." In the Second Token the "mystery" is revealed: there is no Creator God but only an eternal "priesthood" that births the "gods."

Guest Post: "Health in the Navel: A Comparison of Mormon and Orthodox Christian Temple Theology" by Jerry Thomas

I am very excited to share with you a post by fellow Mormon-to-Orthodox convert, Jerry Thomas:

One unique feature of the LDS Church, especially considering its time and place of origin, is its insistence on the importance of temples. When the Saints were sacrificing in Kirtland to build the first Temple it was because the Lord had promised them an “endowment” with “power” upon completion of the temple. In Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph described the experience he had with Oliver Cowdery of seeing and hearing Jesus announce: “7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house. 8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.” The interesting feature of this “endowment” is that it lacked any of the features of the later “endowment” as developed in Nauvoo under clear Masonic influence. The vision of Christ that Joseph had in Kirtland, however, was immediately following the Lord’s Supper, the key event in the dedication.
Although the first Mormons got their ideas about temples from the Holy Bible, the Orthodox Church has been building and worshiping in temples since the founding of the Church. A true temple, in Orthodox understanding, is where “two or three” are gathered in Christ’s Name for the purpose of participation in the Holy Mysteries, particularly Holy Communion. These impromptu temples came first, often in people’s houses, and only later did the Church become established enough to build buildings.
In the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, with the Lord’s Supper as the central rite, we find ourselves well within the common Christian tradition. It is with the further development of the “endowment” as a separate rite, with the Lord’s Supper still celebrated in the temples on occasion, but no longer the centerpiece, that we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory in the traditions of Christianity. This new rite contained features taken directly from Masonic ceremonies, including the handshakes and the Five Points of Fellowship, as well as the penalties. Many of these elements were eliminated or downplayed in the 1990 revision of the endowment.

Even though the Lord’s Supper was eliminated from the central temple rite, “washing and anointing” were added. These can be seen as a repeat of baptism and confirmation (by anointing, as in the Orthodox Church) or both can be seen as a continuation of the rites accompanying the Day of Atonement when the high priest had to bathe in the ritual bath and vest to participate in the rite.  
In the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Lord (as His Body and Blood) comes out of the veil to be among His people (through their participation in Holy Communion). In the LDS Endowment, the opposite happens. The participant enters the Celestial Room through the veil after reciting the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The text of this is apparently the most sacred part of the Endowment, as it is often eliminated even in “exposes” of the Endowment. A careful examination of this text, then, is in order to understand what is happening in the Endowment. “Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews. Power in the priesthood be upon me and my posterity through all generations of time and throughout all eternity.” First, one notices that neither God nor Christ are invoked to cross through the veil! The first part seems to be an invocation for health and the second part invokes “the priesthood,” not God or Christ as the origin of the “power” to be passed on through all time. Second, while the Scripture ties together the “veil” and Christ’s “flesh,” making clear that Holy Communion is how one “enters through the veil” ([Heb 10:20 KJV] By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh) and this connection persisted at Kirtland, the Nauvoo endowment removes even mention of Christ from the action of entering through the veil. Third, while it is clear that the Scriptures are being quoted in the first part ([Pro 3:8 KJV] “It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones”) is there a Scriptural basis for the remainder? Job’s description of the mythical monster “Behemoth” is the only possible Scriptural basis for the remainder of the first sentence: “[Job 40:16-17 KJV] Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.” Here we find “strength,” “loins,” and “sinews” together, the only place this happens in the Holy Bible. The second sentence of the Second Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood may be alluding to these Bible verses: 
[Exo 29:9 KJV] And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. [Exo 40:15 KJV] And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. Here we find the idea of the “priest’s office” or the “priesthood” being “everlasting throughout their generations,” reminiscent of “the power of the priesthood” invoked to “be upon me and my posterity for time and all eternity.”  
In the New Testament and subsequent Orthodox teaching “priesthood” refers to several different concepts: 1) the Aaronic priesthood of the Second Temple 2) the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ and 3) the “priesthood of all believers,” which is participation through the Mysteries in Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood. In later developments, a fourth meaning was added, the “priesthood” of the Christian clergy, which priesthood derives from the “priesthood of all believers,” which priesthood is Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood. There is no role for the Aaronic priesthood, a hereditary priesthood, in the New Testament nor in the subsequent Christian Church. The titles, however, of the Aaronic priesthood were incorporated into the Church with “bishops” being “high priests,” “presbyters” being “priests,” and “deacons” being “Levites.”
Thus, the present-day Orthodox Church has buildings called temples with a “holy place” and a “prosthesis” (Table for the Showbread). Often the “holy place” is divided from the rest of the temple by a veil and an icon screen or wall. It is from this place that several “entrances” are done—with the gospel book before the readings and with the prepared sacrament before the blessing, culminating in the entrance of the Lord Himself as His Body and Blood during Holy Communion. It was following Holy Communion when Joseph Smith saw Christ in the Kirtland Temple. This is what one would expect based on the Holy Bible and Christian tradition. Between Kirtland and Nauvoo something changed and Holy Communion ceased being the culmination of the Holy Mysteries in Mormonism. Instead, an odd rite with Masonic roots culminating with an entrance of the believer into the “celestial kingdom” while invoking the power of the “priesthood,” presumably the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ, without reference to the Holy Name of Jesus or to Christ or to God, has taken the place of Holy Communion in Orthodox Christianity.

"Was there a Great Apostasy?" A great review from Soul Device

Some kind of “apostasy narrative” is required to explain why a group that did not exist for nearly 2,000 years can consider itself the true expression of Christianity. Obviously, if the Church founded by Jesus did not go into apostasy, there would be no excuse to create a new group or “restore” what was “lost.” Unlike most Christian sects that attempt to locate themselves (in some form) throughout Christian history, the Mormons accept and explain their non-existence by claiming the Church founded by Jesus Christ disappeared from the Earth shortly after its creation.

I wrote previously of the problem of the Latter-day Saint (LDS or Mormon) story of a “great apostasy” of the early ChurchHERE. Now I would like to expose some of the errors of the primary text used by the LDS in support of such an idea: Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage’s book The Great Apostasy: Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History (hereafter: “TGA”). Written in 1909, the point of Talmage’s work was to present “the evidence of the decline and final extinction of the primitive Church” as evidenced by “scriptural record and in secular history.” The reason this alleged apostasy is so important to Mormons is that it under girds their movement’s very existence. This is admitted on the very first page of TGA:

If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims. (TGA, Preface – emphasis added)

Read more at: http://souldevice.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/was-there-a-great-apostasy/