What if the strongest evidence for a Latter-day Saint “Great Apostasy” is not that Christianity disappeared—but that Christianity survived while covenantal authority, ordinances, doctrine, and ecclesiastical unity fractured?
That distinction matters.
Bill Young’s case against what he calls “New Mormonism” depends heavily upon collapsing several very different propositions into one. He moves repeatedly from “Latter-day Saint leaders historically spoke harshly about apostate Christianity” to “therefore modern Latter-day Saints who acknowledge truth, goodness, and authentic Christian discipleship outside the restored Church are rewriting Mormonism.”
But those propositions are not equivalent.
Historic Latter-day Saint restorationism has never required the belief that every Christian between the apostolic age and Joseph Smith was wicked, spiritually dead, devoid of truth, incapable of knowing Christ, or rejected by God. What Restoration theology actually requires is something more specific: that the covenantal fullness Christ entrusted to His apostolic Church—including divine commission, priesthood authority, authoritative ordinances, revelatory governance, and certain doctrines—was no longer present in its original fullness and therefore required restoration rather than mere reform.
That is an entirely different claim.
And once that distinction is placed on the witness stand, much of the prosecution’s case begins to look less decisive than advertised.
Bill Young deserves credit for doing something apologetic discussions often fail to do. He attempts to define his terminology. His working definition of “New Mormonism” is an approach that preserves allegiance to the Church while allegedly redefining earlier doctrine, recasting uncomfortable prophetic statements as opinion, and presenting Latter-day Saint belief in a more historically Christian form.
That definition deserves examination rather than dismissal.
Young is also correct about one important historical point: the traditional Latter-day Saint doctrine of apostasy cannot responsibly be reduced to the proposition that nothing whatsoever went wrong except the disappearance of an administrative priesthood credential. Official Church teaching speaks explicitly of both lost authority and corrupted doctrines, altered ordinances, and unauthorized ecclesiastical changes.
Any Latter-day Saint apologist who says, “The Great Apostasy was only about priesthood authority and nothing doctrinal changed,” has oversimplified the Restoration claim.
But acknowledging that does not establish Young’s larger thesis.
The real question is whether modern Latter-day Saints are inventing a fundamentally new religion when they distinguish between apostasy from covenantal fullness and the continued existence of truth, Christians, Scripture, spiritual gifts, moral goodness, and genuine devotion to Jesus Christ outside the restored ecclesiastical structure.
The historical and theological evidence says they are not.
Official Church teaching itself states that after apostolic authority was lost, “Good people and much truth remained.” The same material praises Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin as people who recognized corruption and sought truth, while maintaining that reform alone could not restore apostolic authority.
That is not an internet-age Gen-Z reconstruction.
It is Restoration theology properly distinguished.
Steelmanning Bill Young’s Case
Before cross-examining a witness, a competent attorney states the witness’s case accurately.
Young’s argument can be reconstructed into several propositions.
First, he argues that modern Latter-day Saint apologists increasingly describe historical LDS claims in softer categories than previous generations did. Instead of describing traditional Christianity as comprehensively apostate, they increasingly emphasize the loss of priesthood authority while affirming genuine Christian truth and discipleship among Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and others. He regards this as historical revisionism.
Second, Young argues that Joseph Smith’s canonical First Vision account cannot be reduced merely to an authority question. Joseph reports being told to join none of the competing denominations because they were wrong, that their creeds were an abomination, and that certain religious professors were corrupt. Young therefore argues that theological corruption belongs to the LDS apostasy narrative alongside priesthood loss.
On that narrow point, he is substantially correct.
Third, he appeals to 1 Nephi 13, where Nephi sees “plain and precious” things and covenants being removed, and argues that this implies sweeping doctrinal corruption rather than merely institutional discontinuity.
Again, doctrinal corruption is indeed part of the text.
Fourth, he cites statements from Brigham Young, John Taylor, Bruce R. McConkie, and older temple material as evidence that earlier Saints sometimes described historic Christianity in extremely severe terms.
That historical evidence should not simply be waved away.
Finally, Young argues that younger Latter-day Saints who reject the strongest rhetoric of earlier leaders are protecting an unfalsifiable belief system by deciding retrospectively which prophetic statements count as binding doctrine. He characterizes this distinction between authoritative doctrine and individual prophetic opinion as another hallmark of “New Mormonism.”
That is the case at its strongest.
Now it must survive cross-examination.
No comments:
Post a Comment