Why Catholics Reject the Mormon “Great Apostasy” Theory

The Bible shows that if the Mormon claim is true, Jesus was either a liar or a failure

Deep Dive Podcast
Audio segment produced with AI narration summarizing Patrick Madrid’s written content.

SINCE ITS BEGINNING in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a.k.a. the Mormon Church, has denied any continuous historical connection with Christianity.

Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that in 1820 God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in the woods near his home in Palmyra, New York. Jesus said that for the preceding 1700 years (give or take a century, Mormonism can’t say exactly) the world had been living in the darkness of a total apostasy from the gospel.

This was the answer to a question young Smith had been pondering.

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of these sects was right, that I might know which to join. . . . I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all these sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong), and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me [Jesus] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that their professors were all corrupt.”

Although he had received a minimal formal education, Smith was by all accounts brilliant and had an immense native intelligence that was supplemented by his voracious reading and a gift for telling stories and preaching. Tall and handsome, his charisma and keen intelligence were magnetic to many around him. Part of Smith’s allure was his sheer earnestness, as he proclaimed to anyone who would listen that he had been chosen by God as the “prophet of the Restoration.”

Smith convinced his credulous followers, most of them simple rural folk, that he’d been chosen, in what Mormons have come to call the First Vision (there are multiple versions), to be the first post-apostasy prophet, God’s hand-picked agent charged with restoring the true gospel.

Over the next several years Smith purported to have received additional revelations from “heavenly personages.” He claimed that after establishing his church in Palestine, the resurrected Jesus appeared in South America to the Nephites (Jews who, Smith said, had migrated to the New World between 600 and 592 B.C.) and organized a parallel church there (3 Nephi 11-28).

The new prophet seized on Jesus’ words in John 10:16 (“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd”) as proof of the Lord’s impending South American travel plans. The exegesis might impress one unfamiliar with the New Testament, but the usual understanding is that the “other sheep” Jesus referred to were the Gentiles, to whom the gospel also was extended.

Smith claimed the Nephite church had the same hierarchy and ordinances as its sister church in Palestine, living prophets, twelve apostles, seventy disciples, but things didn’t go well for either church. Both collapsed under the weight of pagan influences, dissolving into complete apostasy.

The Mormon Church has 17.5 million members and is still growing. At the current rate of growth, demographers predict that there will be over 30 million members by 2050. The Mormon Church gets new members primarily through its aggressive missionary program that operates in most countries throughout the world.

At any given time, there are at least 84,000 full-time LDS missionaries; primarily young Mormon men most of them between 19 and 22 (as well as some young women and also retired couples known as “Senior Service” missionaries), who are knocking on doors in neighborhoods throughout the world seeking converts. Many of these converts are Catholics, and most of these Catholics are being scooped up in Latin America. Mexico, for example, now has over 1.5 million Mormons, according estimates by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this number is rising steadily.

One Saturday afternoon 30 years ago, my then 12-year-old son Timothy stuck his head in the door of my study and grinned, “Dad, there are Mormon missionaries on our front porch!” I grinned back. “Tell them to wait. I’ll be right there!”

Stopping to grab my Bible on the way out, I whispered a prayer to the Lord, asking Him to guide me in my discussion with the missionaries and help me help them come closer to the truth. These young men had come to my home to convert me to their religion, but I saw them as potential converts to the Catholic Faith, and I had to rely on God’s grace to be an effective witness to the truth.

We sat in the living room sipping ice water and chatted for nearly an hour. The discussion was friendly and low-key, revolving around several points of disagreement between Mormonism and the Catholic Church. When they stood to leave, we shook hands and they agreed to come back for another visit. They asked if they could leave some literature with me, and I said,

“Sure, as long as you’d be willing to read a little booklet I’d like to give you.”

I gave each of them a Catholic apologetics tract and invited them to come back.

No doubt you’ve had Mormons visit your home. Maybe you’re not in the habit of inviting them inside for a chat, but you know they come with a specific goal in mind: to convert you and your family to Mormonism. These missionaries are trained to challenge Catholics on a series of issues, so it’s important that you have solid answers to their questions, as well as some tough questions to pose to them.

Mormonism’s main argument against the Catholic Church is its claim that there was a total apostasy of the early Church, a.k.a. “The Great Apostasy.”

One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel. (ChurchofJesusChrist.org)

The unspoken here is that, in the view of Mormons, the Catholic Church is the apostate, counterfeit of the original. Mormons disagree with Catholics on many key doctrines (e.g., the Trinity and the nature of God, heaven and hell, salvation, etc.), but they recognize the antiquity of the Catholic Church.

They understand that the only other Church that can make a plausible claim to being the original Church, the Church Christ established, is the Catholic Church. The Protestant churches, Mormons are quick to point out, can only trace themselves as far back as the beginning of the Reformation (circa 1517), so none of them can be the true Church. But the Catholic Church can easily demonstrate its existence and continuity of doctrine back to the time of the first Christians.

As an example of this view, consider a popular book published in 1950 by then Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards (1886-1983) titled A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. 75 years after its debut, the book continues to sell steadily in Mormon bookstores, including the Deseret Books chain. In the book, Richards retells the story of a discussion between an unnamed Catholic priest visiting Salt Lake City and some Mormon leaders. Apostle Orson F. Whitney first told the story in a 1917 pamphlet, The Strength of the Mormon Position:

“Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became acquainted with him, and in the course of our conversation one day he said:

‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable position in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. . . .

‘The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they . . . went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago.’

‘If we have the continuation of the gospel from the days of the Savior, there was no need of such a man as Joseph Smith; but if we have not that continuation then such a man as Joseph Smith is necessary.’”

To that anecdote Richards adds his own view:

“I always add that the Catholic Church and the Bible cannot both be right because the Bible definitely declares an apostasy and a restoration in the latter days; that leaves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the only right in the world to claim to be the true church of Jesus Christ.”

This, of course, is the fallacy of non sequitur, in that it does not logically follow that if the Catholic Church is not the true Church established by Christ then the Mormon Church must be that church, but you get the idea.¹

When Mormon missionaries come to the door, it is important to remember that any discussion with them must be guided by charity. With that in mind, the best way to approach a discussion is to have your Mormon visitors focus on defending their claim of a “Great Apostasy” in the early Church. The truth is that there is no historical evidence to substantiate the claim of this alleged apostasy. The existence of the Mormon Church is entirely dependent on this theory and, if Mormons are unable to provide proof for this particular theory, all other issues become irrelevant.

The late Bruce McConkie (1915-1985), a Mormon apostle and, during his life, perhaps Mormonism’s leading theologian, explained things this way:

“This universal apostasy began in the days of the ancient apostles themselves; and it was known to and foretold by them. . . . With the loss of the Gospel, the nations of the earth went into moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was universal. . . [T]his darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored Gospel.”

McConkie spoke plainly about Mormonism’s attitude toward the Catholic Church:

“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church was most abominable above all other churches’ in [his] vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it,’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been part of this satanic organization.

“He saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and His apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it had perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it had deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this Church was the mother of harlots; and that finally, the Lord would again restore the gospel of salvation” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, 314-315).

Mormons believe the church Jesus established in the land of Israel, before its disintegration, was identical to the Mormon Church of today, with ceremonies such as baptism for the dead, a polytheistic concept of God (including eternal progression, the notion that God was a man who evolved into a god and that worthy Mormon males can evolve into gods), and other peculiar Mormon beliefs.

The fact that no historical evidence exists to corroborate this position doesn’t put much of a dent in the average Mormon’s mental armor. A chief reason is the devotion Mormons have for Joseph Smith. They hold he was God’s mouthpiece. His “revelations” came directly from God. This belief points to Mormonism’s weak point.

If you can demonstrate to a Mormon that Smith was wrong about the great apostasy, Mormonism crashes down in a heap. If Smith was wrong about this point, he could not have been a true prophet of God, and Mormonism loses its basis. (The Bible has strong words to say about false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:2-6 and 18:20-22.)

Mormonism’s claim to be the “restored” church hangs upon there having been a complete apostasy. The late James E. Talmage, prolific Mormon writer and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote,

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel, and re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the holy priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of priesthood and power, since the meridian of time [the time of Christ].

The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of this apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious.

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. (The Great Apostasy, iii).

Talmage is quite correct in evaluating the consequences, of course: if no apostasy, no restoration, and if no restoration, no Mormonism.

Mormons misconstrue many biblical passages, in this case those which do refer to a “great apostasy” from the Church, though none of them indicate a complete, total apostasy.

They read into the text a complete apostasy. Scripture mentions an apostasy in Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19. Most of these verses say “many” will fall away, and not one mentions a complete apostasy of the Church.

Another complication for Mormons is that these verses say the apostasy will take place at the end times, the “latter days” as the King James Bible renders it. The second and third centuries clearly were not the “latter days.”

The next time you encounter the apostasy argument, ask the Mormon to read the entire context of whatever verse he’s quoting and show you where the writer mentions a complete apostasy. Usually he’ll claim a complete apostasy was the intent of the writer and that it’s at least implicitly taught in the Bible.

Jesus Fails the First Time

If Smith were right about there being a complete apostasy, then Jesus was a pathetic failure when it came to establishing his Church. After all, what are we to think of his promises?

If there really was a complete apostasy, how do we explain our Lord’s claim that his Church never would be overcome, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18-19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16,26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?

Mormonism stands or falls on the premise that Christ was a failure, that His attempts at building a Church flopped. And if they flopped, He would be made to look foolish for saying,

“Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish’” (Luke 14:28-30).

Jesus Fails the Second Time

Smith also claimed that after His Resurrection, Christ appeared in South America to the Nephites, a group of Jews who, Smith claimed, had migrated to the New World between 600 and 592 B.C. (cf. 1 Nephi, chapters 1-18). He organized a parallel church there (somewhere in South America, Mormons claim), which was a mirror image of the church in Palestine.

But Christ’s second attempt at church building failed as miserably as His first, and soon His South American church collapsed under the weight of evil members and pagan influences, drifting into complete apostasy (cf. 3 Nephi, chapters 11-28).

A key difficulty for Mormons is that they can’t say exactly when the apostasy took place, nor can they point to any definitive historical event of it. Other than Smith’s claims, there is only an interior feeling or testimony on which Mormons can base their beliefs, but such subjective proof proves nothing.

There are only a few chosen choices:

• (1) Jesus’s promises in the passages just cited were misreported;

• (2) Jesus did in fact say these things but didn’t really mean them, at least not in the way they had been understood by Christians for the first eighteen centuries

• (3) Jesus was a liar, or

• (4) Joseph Smith was wrong and Jesus meant exactly what he said.

The best way to refute the Great Apostasy charge is to have the Mormon read Jesus’s promises regarding the doctrinal integrity and the temporal perpetuity of his Church:

“On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18);

“Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world” (Matt 28:20);

“The Father. . . will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16);

“The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you” (John 14:26);

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13).

Go through each text, pointing out that none mentions a total apostasy.

Look also at the many New Testament verses which speak of the Church as Christ’s own body, such as Romans 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; 5:21-32; and Colossians 1:18.

Since Christ is the mind and head of his Church (Ephesians 4:15-16), animating the body, the members enjoy an organic spiritual union with him (John 15:1-8). It’s inconceivable that he would permit his body to disintegrate under the attacks of Satan. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan (1 John 4:4).

First, read carefully the passages that speak of the Church being Christ’s own Body (e.g., Romans 12:1-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:4-6; 5:21-32; Colossians 1:18). Christ is the head of His Church (cf. Ephesians 4:15-16) and He indwells each member of His body, the members enjoying an organic spiritual union with Him (cf. John 15:1-8). So it’s inconceivable that Christ would allow His Body to succumb as a whole to Satan’s attacks.

Second, point out that Saint John reassures us that Christ is more powerful than Satan (cf. 1 John 4:4). Then read 1 Timothy 3:15, which describes the Church as the “household of God.”

Or, to put it another way, the Church is the “house that Christ built.” That house cannot be pillaged by Satan because “no one can enter a strong man’s house to plunder his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then, he can plunder his house” (Mark 3:27; cf. Matthew 12:29). Jesus Christ is the “strong man” who guards His household, the Catholic Church.

While it’s true that the devil can conquer individual Christians, who commit mortal sin and cut themselves off from union with Christ (cf. Romans 11:22; Galatians 5:4; 1 John 5:16-17), the Church as a whole is preserved by Christ, who promised, “Behold, I will be with you until the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). We are told that the “wheat and chaff” (good and bad) will be side by side in the Church until the end (Matthew 13:24-43, 47-50).

Built on the Rock

Jesus didn’t command his followers to do something He Himself could not do. “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock. The rains fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on a rock” (Matthew 7:24-25). It was no coincidence that Christ promised He would build His Church “on this rock” (see also Hebrews 11:10; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

Consider another of Jesus’ promises: “I will ask the Father and he will send you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans” (John 14:16-18). If Mormons are right about a complete apostasy, Jesus did leave us as orphans for 1700 years.

Although, tragically, the gates of hell can and do prevail over individual Christians who succumb to mortal sin and cut themselves off from life-giving union with Christ (Romans 11:22; Galatians 5:4; 2 Peter 2:20-22; 1 John 5:16-17), they can’t prevail against the Church Jesus built on the rock of Peter.

In a written exchange I had in the late 1980s, Mormon apologist Robert Starling, attempting to prove the divine origin of the Mormon Church, cited the chief Rabbi Gamaliel’s prediction regarding the New Testament Church:

“[I]f this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:38-39).

Starling unwittingly undercut his own claim of a great apostasy. Gamaliel was right. The Church Jesus built could not be destroyed.

In refuting Mormonism’s theory of a complete apostasy (and in the process Mormonism itself), Catholics should be able to explain how the integrity of the Church was preserved. The answer: apostolic succession, the unbroken continuum of apostolic authority transmitted via the office of bishop. This doctrine is the logical and scriptural alternative to the Mormon concept of an apostasy and restoration.

Jesus bestowed a unique authority on the twelve apostles. He conferred on them his power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth (Matthew 18:18).

He gave them his authority to forgive sins (John 20:21-23; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). He designated Peter as his vicar, giving him a special authority to govern the Church (Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-17).

He promised the apostles that when they taught, He spoke through them, and that whoever rejected their teachings rejected Jesus Himself (Matthew 10:40; Luke 10:16).

As the Church got off the ground, the Apostles transmitted this authority to their successors (Acts 1:15-26). St. Paul exhorted a newly ordained bishop,

“Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you by the prophetic words with the imposition of hands [ordination] of the presbyterate” (1 Timothy 4:14).

Later St. Paul reminded Timothy that the conferral of apostolic authority was not to be handed on to others without prudent consideration of a candidate’s qualifications: “As for the imposition of hands, do not bestow it inconsiderately” (1 Timothy 5:22).

Apostolic succession can be seen in early Christian writings outside the New Testament. Around A.D. 80 St. Clement, a disciple of St. Peter and his third successor as bishop of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians, expounded on many doctrines, including auricular confession, monotheism (Mormons claim the early Church believed in a “plurality of gods” and eternal progression), the ordained priesthood, and apostolic succession.

One of Clement’s most telling lines is this:

“Our apostles too were given to understand by Our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with the perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before and afterward and laid down a rule once for all to this effect: When these men [bishops] die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry.”

In A.D. 110, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and disciple of the apostle John, while on his way in chains to Rome to be martyred for the faith, composed letters to six major centers of Catholicism along the route (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, Smyrna, Rome). He provides us with valuable insights into doctrines and practices of the early Church at the close of the first century, only one generation removed from the time of Christ. His writings make it clear that the early Church was thoroughly Catholic.

Ignatius’s letters contain a recurring exhortation to remain in communion with the bishops who are successors to the Apostles:

“Be eager, therefore, to be firmly grounded in the precepts of the Lord and the apostles, in order that whatever you do you may prosper, physically and spiritually in faith and love, in the Son and the Father and in the Spirit . . . together with your most distinguished bishop and that beautifully-woven spiritual crown which is your presbytery and the godly deacons. Be subject to the bishop and to one another” (Letter to the Magnesians 13:1-2).

Another Church Father, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, explained in A.D. 180,

“It is possible, then, for everyone to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors [down] to our own times; men who neither taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which come down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies, 3,3:1-2, emphasis added).

The Mormon Church simply has no convincing answer to the ocean of biblical and historical evidence of which this is just a drop. All of it contradicts the complete apostasy theory. Yet there’s another problem with the theory: the problem of silence. There’s no evidence of any outcry from the first or second century “Mormons” denouncing the introduction of “Catholic heresies.”

Mormons might respond that, since Catholics gained the upper hand in the struggle for control of the true Church, they simply expunged any trace of the Mormons, a comforting but untenable argument. We have records of many controversies that raged in the early days of the Church (we know in great detail what turmoil the early Church passed through as it fought off various threats to its existence), and there just is no evidence, none at all, that Mormonism existed prior to the 1830s.

It’s unreasonable to assume the Catholic Church would allow the survival of copious records chronicling the history, teachings, and proponents of dozens of other heresies, but would entirely destroy only the records of early Mormonism.

If Mormons want their claim of a Great Apostasy (i.e., a complete apostasy) to be taken seriously, they must evince biblical and historical evidence supporting it. So far they’ve come up empty-handed. That won’t change.

Honest investigators will see the unavoidable truth: The Mormon “great apostasy” doctrine is a merely a myth. There never has been, nor will there ever be, a complete apostasy. Jesus Christ promised that His Church, established on the solid rock of Peter, will remain forever. We have His Word on it.

This article is expanded and adapted from my articles “Mormonism and the ‘Great Apostasy’ Theory” (1989) and “In Search of ‘The Great Apostasy’ A Catholic Response to Mormon Claims” (1998).

Copyright © 2025 Patrick Madrid. All rights reserved. All text, images, and other original content are the property of the author.

I hope you enjoy my articles here. If so, please tap the Share button above to post any of them on X or Instagram or to send it to someone who might be interested in it. And if you enjoy thoughtful, friendly, faith related content, you’ll appreciate my daily program on Relevant Radio. Listen here or get the free Relevant Radio app

.

1. McConkie’s view here echoes decades of similar statements about the “Church of Rome” made by many Mormon General Authorities. For example:
Orson Pratt (1811–1881), Apostle, In Journal of Discourses, Pratt repeatedly identified the Catholic Church with the “great whore” and “mother of harlots” of Revelation, equating it with Nephi’s “great and abominable church.” (1866):

“There is one church upon the face of the whole earth who sits upon many waters, and rules over many nations . . . and that church is the Church of Rome.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 34.

Brigham Young (1801–1877), President of the Church,

“The Roman Catholic Church is the one spoken of in the Revelation as the ‘mother of harlots.’” Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 249.

James E. Talmage (1862–1933), Apostle, was more veiled about directly identifying the Catholic Church as the “great and abominable Church” that arose out of the rubble of the purported Great Apostasy. His meaning is unmistakable given his references to that wicked church which featured: a priestly hierarchy, sacramental theology, Marian devotion, and papal authority. I 1909 he wrote:

“The thoroughly apostate and utterly corrupt condition of the Church of Rome as proclaimed by its history down to the end of the fifteenth century, was necessarily accompanied by absence of all spiritual sanctity and power whatever may have been the arrogant assumptions of the Church as to authority in spiritual affairs.” The Great Apostasy (1968 ed., Salt Lake City, Deseret Book Company, p. 150).

It’s worth noting that Talmage’s book, The Great Apostasy, remained an official text used by Mormon missionaries for decades.