Editing Openai/691a45a6-8ed0-8010-a7d9-24657a41a9aa (section)

=== Assistant: Short answer: his argument is emotionally compelling for someone already inside the Latter-day Saint framework, but it’… ===
Short answer: his argument is emotionally compelling for someone already inside the Latter-day Saint framework, but it’s not strong as a historical argument. If you treat it as a claim about verifiable events in late-antique Christianity, it doesn’t hold up well.

Let me walk through why, piece by piece, without dunking on anyone’s faith.

===== Parts of it can be defended as theological interpretation, but not as historical causation. =====

He relies on a chain of claims:
* the apostolic church had a very specific organizational structure identical to modern LDS structures,
* that structure disappeared early,
* therefore divine authority left the earth,
* therefore a full restoration was required,
* and 1820 had the right political conditions.

The trouble is that every link in that chain is debatable when you look at actual first- and second-century documents. The early Christian world was wildly diverse, more like a sprawling ecosystem than a single fragile vine that snapped when one bishop died. The idea that “true authority” evaporated in some clean moment—like a switch being flicked off—doesn’t map well to what historians see in the record.

There’s also the Linus story. Smith’s argument hinges on a very particular sequence of leadership confusion in Rome. That reconstruction isn’t supported by mainstream scholarship. It’s one of those claims that circulates in devotional talks but evaporates the moment you go looking for primary sources.

So as a historical model, his version of events lacks evidentiary traction. As a faith model, it does what it’s trying to do—explain why a restoration is needed.

===== It depends on what you mean by “apostasy.” =====

If you define apostasy the way Hyrum Smith does—
the complete loss of divine authority, priesthood keys, correct doctrine, and the structure of Christ’s original church—then, purely on historical grounds, that scenario is not more likely.

Why?

Because the historical evidence doesn’t support the idea of a pristine, uniform original church that then fell off a cliff. The earliest Christian communities were already varied on doctrine, leadership structure, and practice. The New Testament itself contains disputes, competing teachings, and evolving interpretations. That suggests development rather than catastrophic loss.

From that angle, the “Great Apostasy” becomes a theological lens, not a historical event you could point to.

If instead you define apostasy more broadly—
Christianity drifted, fought, adapted, disagreed, reshaped doctrine, absorbed philosophical influences, and became something different from its earliest forms—
then yes, that absolutely happened. Every historian agrees Christianity evolved dramatically.

But that’s different from the LDS-specific claim that God’s authority vanished and had to be restored in upstate New York.

===== The question you’re brushing up against is interesting: =====
Did Christianity break, or did it grow?

Hyrum Smith’s talk assumes a break.
Most historians see growth—messy, uneven, sometimes ugly growth, but still continuity, not collapse.

Whether you interpret that growth as legitimate or illegitimate is ultimately a theological call, not something the historical record settles.

If you want, we can trace the specific LDS claims about authority loss (priesthood, apostolic succession, corruption, councils, persecution) and see how each one fares against what’s known from history. That’s where the analysis gets really interesting.