The Question Latter-Day Saint Apologists Cannot Answer
A refutation of the LDS “Great Apostasy” narrative
Why Didn’t the Apostles Ordain Apostles to Succeed Them?
Of all the debates, articles, podcasts, and videos I have seen by LDS Apologists explaining the Great Apostasy, I have felt that one of the most important questions, perhaps the most important, has been ignored. Why didn’t the Apostles ordain Apostles to succeed them? This question is one that Latter-Day Saints must provide an answer to; the entire Great Apostasy narrative depends upon it.
I believe that the broader debate around the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy is often quite weak on both sides. Catholics often try to appeal to Matthew 16:18 as a proof text that alone debunks the Great Apostasy; at other times, it is rejected based upon a simple intuition that God would not allow such a thing to happen. I believe that the treasury of revelation given to us by the Church is able to equip us with better tools to refute the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy.
In this article, I will focus on pushing back on the coherence of the LDS narrative in an internal critique (mostly). Then, I will briefly provide how a Catholic would make sense of the data I present. This will not be exhaustive by any means, and I am more than happy to engage in a follow up.
Anti-LDS apologetics are often devoid of charity. If anything I wrote in this article comes off as rude or aggressive, I apologize. I ask that those who join in this conversation try to stay charitable as well.
Before I am accused of strawmanning the Great Apostasy, I want to make it clear that I consciously do not treat every aspect of it (such as corruption of doctrine). However, this article is focused on the most essential aspect of it, the loss of Priesthood keys via the cessation of the Apostolic office. The loss of the Priesthood necessitates a restoration; the corruption of doctrine only necessitates a reformation.
Why Didn’t the Apostles Ordain Apostles to Succeed Them?
For Catholics, this is a straightforward question. It was because the Apostles knew their function was complete, that no men met the prerequisites for the office, and that God did not will its continuation.
Three claims, which I will later elaborate upon, establish this:
The Apostles completed their essential function, the promulgation of the deposit of faith.
By roughly 100 A.D., no living men met the conditions to be appointed to the office of Apostle by other Apostles.
God could directly appoint Apostles (even after they all died), but He chose not to.
Catholics and Latter-Day Saints agree that the appointment of new Apostles ceased after the first century; however, the LDS side introduces a positive claim, the frustration of God’s intent for the Church.
There are only two options: either God’s plan was frustrated by human resistance, or God did not intend to maintain the Apostolic office in perpetuity. The burden of proof lies upon Latter-Day Saints to show that God’s plan for the Church was actually frustrated.1
The LDS account of Apostleship:
Q: What was God’s intention for the Apostolic Office?
A: The Church was to be guided and ruled by the Apostles for perpetuity. These Apostles would serve as special witnesses to Christ, possess the Keys to bind and loose, and receive divine revelation.2
Q: Who was Eligible to be selected as an Apostle?
A: Any man with the Melchizedek Priesthood.34
Q: How are Apostles called?
A: Ordinarily, “They are chosen through inspiration by the President of the Church and ordained by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.” They can also be called by God directly. The final way they can be called is by divinely appointed witnesses (such as in 1835).
At least up to the end of the first century,
The Church had a need for Apostles (and God willed that it would have them).
The Church had men that could be called Apostles.
The Church had multiple ways to ordain new Apostles.
By this account, it seems that in principle, nothing should have prevented the calling of new Apostles.
Yet, no Apostles were called after the first century. Let’s explore some potential reasons for this from an LDS perspective:
1. The Apostles were killed too fast for them to appoint new Apostles.
2. The Apostles thought it was pointless to appoint new Apostles, since they would be killed immediately.
3. Nobody held the Melchizedek Priesthood and therefore could not be appointed.
4. The Apostles didn’t know the office was intended to be perpetual.
5. The Apostles wanted to let the Keys be lost.
6. The Apostles were directed by God to not appoint more Apostles.
7. The Apostles were too scared of persecution if they appointed more Apostles.
8. The Apostles couldn’t gather together to appoint new Apostles.
9. The Apostles appointed new Apostles, but they apostatized and the Keys were lost.
10. The Apostles believed Christ would return soon and thought ordaining Apostles would be unnecessary.
11. The Apostles only appointed Bishops as their successors, mistakenly believing this to be adequate.
12. Every eligible man was a heretic, and so the Apostles couldn’t ordain them.
13. No men were holy enough to be ordained as Apostles.
14. Heresy was so rampant that the Apostles thought the Church wasn’t salvageable.
15. The Apostles were deceived by Satan into not appointing new Apostles.
16. The Apostles were stuck in hiding and couldn’t appoint new Apostles.
17. The Apostles thought God would keep calling Apostles directly, so they didn’t have to.
18. The Apostles were waiting for divine signs that didn’t come.
These are the most plausible reasons that came to my mind as to why God’s will for Apostles to be appointed would be thwarted. Some I have heard, and some I created. For example, here is #2 from Jacob Hansen:
Hansen: "So if the Lord wanted to call more Apostles to lead this movement of Christians in the ancient world, what would have happened to them?”
Murph (Interviewer): “Well, the pattern was the previous ones were all killed. So, it's very likely the new ones might have been killed as well?”
Hansen: “Right, they just would have been killed. It would have been useless."
This argument goes:
If the Lord calls a new Apostle, the Apostle will be killed.
If an Apostle will be killed, it is useless to call him.
Useless things should not be done.
Therefore, the Lord should not call a new Apostle.
This exchange was a bit off the cuff; I am not putting this forward as if it is Hansen’s best argument. However, it does reflect common assumptions held by Latter-Day Saints about the landscape of the first century Church.
The second premise is false. Just because one will die (as all do) doesn’t mean that any work he does is meaningless, or he cannot accomplish anything while alive. Let’s take a more charitable interpretation; perhaps what Jacob intended to say was that they would be killed too quickly for them to accomplish anything. It seems exceptionally unlikely that the Apostles would let the Church disappear instead of risking a new Apostle being killed. This is not how the Apostles are characterized in the Acts of the Apostles. The twelve Apostles died over a span of 60-70 years!5 Further, the Apostles did not seem to believe appointing Bishops to be a waste, even if they would be killed. As I will show later, they foresaw this and planned accordingly.
The 18 possible explanations I previously listed can be sorted into 4 categories:
The Apostles were ignorant of their duty to ordain successors.
The Apostles were too scared to ordain new Apostles.
The Apostles were physically unable to ordain new Apostles.
The Apostles deliberately chose to not ordain new Apostles.
Addressing #1
This explanation would impugn Christ’s competence as a teacher. Additionally, the New Testament shows this was not the case. In Acts 1, St. Peter and the Apostles demonstrate their awareness of God’s will that Judas be replaced: “Let another take his office.”6
Addressing #2
This is inconsistent with the boldness of the Apostles displayed in the Acts of the Apostles, particularly in their willingness to face death and injury.
Acts 5:27-29, 32
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men… 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Addressing #3
This seems to be the most probable of the four theories from the LDS perspective. However, it has its weaknesses. First of all, the Apostles ordained many Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. They had the time and ability to travel to local Churches to appoint clerics.
Acts 14:19, 23
19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead… 23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
One might object that this narrative occurred in the 40s AD, and such things might not have occurred later in the century. Luckily, we have extra-biblical evidence that proves these ordinations continued.
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
-St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3), ~180 A.D.
St. Polycarp was born in 69 A.D. This is known because the account of his martyrdom in 155 A.D. claims he is 86 years old. His writings and those of his correspondents verify this timeline. This would indicate that his ordination likely occurred in the 90s A.D.
Tertullian, shortly after St. Irenaeus, wrote:
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.
-Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics (ch. 32), ~200 A.D.
The Apostle St. John lived until approximately 100 A.D.; he had plenty of time to appoint Apostles. If he appointed Bishops around Asia Minor, why wouldn’t he appoint Apostles? This is also strong evidence against the notion that no men were worthy to be ordained as Apostles.
Finally, the first century persecution of the Church was not universal; Jewish persecution was concentrated in Palestine and Roman persecution was local and sporadic. The systematic Roman persecution of Christians did not occur until the third century. The time was not quite as dangerous as we commonly imagine. See “Persecution & Martyrdom” in Early Christianity - World History Encyclopedia for a brief overview.
Addressing #4
If the Apostles deliberately chose not to appoint new Apostles, they did so either in accordance with or contrary to God’s will.
If they chose against God’s will, this would seriously undermine the credibility of the Apostles. It also seems inexplicable that God would choose such men to govern the Church, only to destroy it. The Apostles themselves would be the cause of the Great Apostasy. On the other hand, if this was done in accordance with God’s will, then the Catholic position is vindicated: God did not will the continuation of the Apostolic office.
The best argument the LDS could put forward here is a conditional intent: God only intended the office to continue if the people remained faithful, and they did not. This, however, relocates the problem. Now one must show that the Christians of the early second century were unfaithful enough to forfeit the Church itself. Yet, what we know of the piety and martyrdoms of these Christians does not fit this thesis.
The Old Testament makes this theory even more difficult. Here we must distinguish between breaking a covenant and revoking one. God tolerated the golden calf, child sacrifice, and centuries of idolatry without revoking Israel’s priesthood or the covenant. God continually remained faithful towards His unfaithful people. Jeremiah foretold that this new covenant would be even greater than the old covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Here, the Lord says that the new covenant will not be like the old covenant on account of a special grace that man will now possess, the law being written upon man’s heart. If the lesser priesthood (Aaronic) could survive Israel at its worst from Moses to John the Baptist, one must explain how the greater priesthood of Christ, a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13), could be forfeited within decades, by a generation of faithful believers. This aspect of the Great Apostasy requires that God respond to man’s unfaithfulness with a total revocation, a response that never occurred in the Old Testament. Additionally, if it is true that the early Christians were so wicked or unfaithful that they merited God revoking their Priesthood authority, we should expect the early members of the LDS movement to display a much greater faithfulness and moral character.
The Catholic Solution
Now, I will briefly present the Catholic case, from scripture and the early Church Fathers, for why the Apostles did not appoint Apostles to succeed themselves.
1. No Living Men Were Qualified by the Early Second Century
The New Testament shows us two modes of appointment to the Apostolic office.
The First Mode: Direct Appointment by God
Luke 6:12-16, RSVCE
12 In these days he went out into the hills to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
This also occurred after Christ’s resurrection in the calling of St. Paul:
Acts 9:3-6, 15-16
3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
15 But the Lord said to [Ananias], “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
1 Corinthians 9:1
9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
The Second Mode: Appointment by the Apostles
Acts 1:20-26
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and
‘His office let another take.’
21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
This scene in Acts 1 also tells us what makes one eligible to be appointed as an Apostle by the Apostles. James Talmage, an early 20th century LDS Apostle, lays these out in his book The Great Apostasy:
“To them Peter presented the matter requiring action, and emphasized the fact that the man to be chosen must be one who had personal knowledge and testimony of the Lord’s ministry, and who was therefore qualified to speak as a special witness of the Christ, which qualification is the distinguishing feature of the apostleship.”-Talmage, The Great Apostasy, p. 7
By the early second century, everybody that met these criteria would have been dead. Therefore, no new Apostles could be elected by men. God could have appointed new Apostles directly after this time, but He did not.
What about the other Apostles?
The New Testament also calls Barnabas, James the brother of the Lord, Andronicus, and Junia Apostles. Like Paul, these Apostles were not part of the twelve. Barnabas is the only one of these with an account of his calling, where God directly chose him:
Acts 13:2-3
2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
2. The Witness of the Church Fathers
This, I believe, is the strongest piece of evidence for the Catholic side. If the Church had lost the Keys of the Kingdom, the power to receive revelation, and the most central governing authority with the death of the last Apostle (as the LDS would frame it), wouldn’t we expect to see some kind of panic from the Fathers of the time? We don’t. It would seem as if the institutional Church had disappeared without anybody noticing.
Here, we can see how those who knew the Apostles (or knew men who knew the Apostles) understood their role in the Church. I will invoke two Fathers within the first two centuries: Pope St. Clement of Rome and St. Irenaeus of Lyon.
Pope St. Clement of Rome
St. Clement was the 4th Bishop of Rome and knew the Apostles personally. Early tradition identifies him as the same Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3. St. Clement was martyred around 100 A.D., around the time of the death of St. John, the last Apostle.
In his Epistle to the Corinthians, he wrote:
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
-Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians Ch.42
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
-Ibid., Ch.44
St. Clement tells us that
The Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons “having proved them by the Spirit”
The Apostles possessed a foreknowledge of the conflicts and deaths the Bishops were to face.
In light of this foreknowledge, the Apostles gave the Bishops instructions about appointing the Bishops who would succeed them.
By this, St. Clement gives us a picture of the role and lives of the Apostles within the first days of the Church. They spread the gospel, ordained Bishops to continue their work, and suffered martyrdoms having delivered the faith to the Church to hold fast to.
I believe St. Clement’s point about the foreknowledge of the Apostles is the most pertinent. If they anticipated the deaths of the bishops and set up men to succeed them, how is it that they could not have anticipated their own deaths and made the necessary preparations?
St. Irenaeus of Lyon
One thing Latter-Day Saints are correct in pointing out is the doctrinal strife within the early days of the Church. Around 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus took up the work of refuting the false doctrines of his day in his work, Against Heresies. St. Irenaeus was a spiritual son of St. Polycarp, having grown up in Smyrna. St. Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna and knew St. John the Apostle personally. So, while St. Irenaeus did not know the Apostles personally, he was only one generation removed.
In Book 3 Chapter 3 of Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus takes up the question, “how do we know which doctrines to believe?” There is a common proof text here for the Papacy, but this chapter is also incredibly relevant to the topic of the Great Apostasy.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
…
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles…
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
St. Irenaeus witnesses that the Apostles appointed Bishops to be their successors in order that the faith would be preserved and handed on. St. Irenaeus, being only one generation removed from the Apostles (through the St. Polycarp — St. John link), demonstrated the Catholic understanding of the Apostolic office and its succession through the episcopate.
Conclusion
Of the two interpretations presented in this article, I believe that only the Catholic answer fits the evidence. The Apostles deliberately established bishops, not apostles, as their successors. St. Clement wrote that they did this with “perfect foreknowledge,” giving instructions for the succession to continue “when these should fall asleep.” It is inconceivable that the Apostles could have planned for the deaths of the bishops but not their own. If the Apostolic office was, as St. Paul taught, the Church’s foundation (Ephesians 2:20), it makes sense that it would only be laid once. This is also why the heavenly Jerusalem bears “twelve names of the twelve apostles” on its foundations (Revelation 21:14).
The Church of the first and second centuries was full of Saints, not a wicked company of men who forfeited their authority. The new covenant they stood under, which is everlasting and better than the last, has been sealed with the blood of Christ. It is an abundant wellspring of grace, under which man and God can be and have been reconciled. The martyrs, following the example of the Apostles, endured torture and death before they denied the faith. This Apostolic faith has been clung to at all costs and in all ages; today we still receive it through the Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church.
This is not a strawman. Jacob Hansen, speaking about the Great Apostasy, stated “So God did his best. He worked with humanity as best he could, but he couldn’t establish the fullness of the institution of the Church because the institutions of the day just weren’t going to allow it.” -Was there a great apostasy with Jacob Hansen? at 52:29.
This raises a separate question: when did the Melchizedek Priesthood (distinct from Apostolic keys) disappear? As long as men held the Melchizedek Priesthood, they could have become Apostles.
St. James died in approximately 44 AD, and St. John died around 100 AD.
Acts 1:20, quoting Psalm 109:8