The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »

History has always fascinated me especially Ancient and Medieval Europe thus one of my hobbies being Medieval Recreation (SCA). The Arthurian Legends in particular. When I found Chris Tolworthy’s research on the Apostasy, the 1260 year prophecy and the Celtic Church a light went on and things fell into place. Here is a synopsis:

1.The Church didn’t fully apostatize till 570 AD
2.The last vestige of priesthood authority was in Brittan in the Celtic Church.
3.There was a war of ideas between the Roman and Celtic Church.
4.The Legendary Arthur was alive at this time and may have tried to save Brittan and the Church.

Since there is a lot of information here I will post it in chapters.


The loss of the true faith in Britain- an abomination that led to desolation

Celtic Christianity: part 1 of 3


After the deaths of the apostles the Church of Jesus Christ drifted into apostasy. Churches had been set up throughout the empire, but one by one they all fell under the power of the "little horn". Some parts came under the control of the horn sooner than others. The church in Britain was perhaps the last to be defeated.

The horn probably represented Europe. Its power was both political (the "fierce appearance" of the invading barbarian kingdoms) and religious (the "mouth speaking great things" - apostate Christianity). When we look at how these forces affected the British church, we can see more clearly how the apostasy happened.

The Ancient Apostles in Britain

The first missionaries

The sixth century British historian Gildas said the gospel came to Britain at a very early stage - in the last year of Tiberias, AD 37 (perhaps as a result of the scattering described in Acts 8:1-4). For this and other references in this section, see "Saint Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury" by Lionel Smithett (London: Mowbray & co., 1922).

The Seventy

Aristobulus (according to Strong's Concordance) was one of the Seventy. He may have been Peter's father-in-law. Several sources (Hippolytus writing in AD 160, the Martyrologies of the Greek Church, and others) state that he preached the gospel in Britain. He is only mentioned in the Bible in passing, in Romans 16:10)

The Apostles

Latter-day Saints will be familiar with Joseph Smith's claim that ancient prophets walked the British Isles. This may be confirmed by the great church father Eusebius, who stated that Apostles did come to Britain. According to Doretheus (bishop of Tyre, writing in AD 303), the apostle Simon Zelotes was crucified in Britain.

It may be interesting to note that Bruce R. McConkie, following the writings of Edersheim (1:521-22) indicates that Simon Zealots may have been a cousin of Christ through on Joseph's side. (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.2, footnotes, p.113)

Aristobulus, mentioned above, traditionally worked under Paul. Clement of Rome (AD 30 to 100) states that, before his martyrdom, Paul went "to the extremity of the west". Theodoret (writing in AD 435) and others say that Paul came to Britain.

Joseph of Arimathea - and the Lord himself?

Some people make great claims for the importance of Britain in early Christianity. These are discussed elsewhere.
Whatever the truth, there is plenty of evidence that the church in Britain, these "Isles of the sea", could trace its authority to Christ, through the apostles, without going through Rome.

AD 166-380: The Influence of the church of Rome

When the apostles died, the churches began to be tossed

Since Rome had more political power, weaker churches tended to look to her for support. Even Britain may not have been immune. As early as the year 166, the British king Lucius allegedly asked the Roman bishop Lucius to send missionaries to baptize him. However, other scholars reject this, and say that Lucius simply asked for one of the British saints at Rome to do the job.

Later history indicates that there must have been increasing tension between the British church and what Rome was becoming. But just as the second century in the empire is suspiciously lacking in records (Nibley refers to it as "when he lights went out"), so the period from the late second century to 380 is a blind spot in British church history. Commenting on the alleged discovery of a fragment of the cross, recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 199, a later footnote to the Chronicle adds:

"This and other notices of Ecclesiastical matters, whether Latin or Saxon, from the year 190 to the year 380 . . . may be safely considered as interpolations, probably posterior to the Norman Conquest [1066]".

So the victors were re-writing church history.

The Year 381: the Great Battle Against the Little Horn

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was a history of Britain written before by the Angles and Saxons, the Germanic tribes who conquered Britain in the period in fifth and sixth centuries. It says the following about the year 381:

"This year Maximus the emperor obtained the empire; he was born in the land of Britain . . . [there follows a few words about how he replaced Gratian]. In these days the heresy of Pelagius arose throughout the world."

That was the Saxon (German) view. But who were Maximus and Pelagius, what exactly did they do, and why did they do it?

The Britons in 381

The Britons could no doubt see how the church was declining throughout the empire. They could see the invading barbarians (from firsthand experience of the Scots and the Picts). They could see the church subtly changing and distorting the doctrines of Christ. In the 380s they launched an audacious double attack on the European monster. Two powerful men arose from Britain who may had the strength to turn the tide. The first, Maximus, might have stopped the advance of the Germanic tribes. The second, Pelagius, might have stopped the decay in Christianity.

Maximus - battling to save civilization

The late fourth century was disastrous for the Roman Empire. In 376, the emperor Valens allowed the Visigoths to settle inside the empire. Valens was soon replaced by an even weaker emperor - an eight year old boy called Gratian. Gratian then chose an assistant emperor - the four year child Valentinian!

They could not halt the Visigoth advance. (The Visigoths eventually sacked Rome in 410). The British knew that their culture (and with it their already weak church) could not survive if the barbarians won. Even apart from his military losses, Gratian was heavily influenced by St Ambrose, and was giving more and more concessions to the Roman church. The British knew they had to do something.

At that time, Magnus Maximus commanded the Roman troops in Britain. He was (according to Bede) capable and courageous. He was British (or possibly Spanish), of humble origins, and thus not infected by the madness of Rome. The British troops saw their chance. Maximus was declared emperor. He soon gained the support of Gratian's advancing troops, but unfortunately Gratian turned and ran, and was killed by Andragathius. Maximus then made a truce with Valentinian. In 384 Theodosius agreed to allow Maximus to rule the western part of the empire. But sadly we will never know what Maximus might have achieved. Theodosius did not like sharing power. He eventually defeated Maximus in 388, and the empire continued to decline. Rome was sacked 22 years later, and 66 years after that the last western emperor was deposed by the Ostrogoths.

A note about Gildas' history.

Some readers may notice that later historians, including Gildas, looked on Maximus as a villain. This is all part of Gildas' fatal flaw - taking the Roman view of history as the truth. Modern historians agree that, when writing about events before his birth (or the birth of his father's generation), Gildas was extremely unreliable. It is my belief that, in rejecting the Celtic view in favor of the Roman view, Gildas himself may have lost the last thread of early Christianity. Hence the early church died when Gildas died, in 570.

Pelagius - battling to save the truth

Pelagius came from Britain to Rome in 380. He was an extremely able preacher and was greatly respected because of his high standards. He saw that the doctrine of being saved purely by grace was leading to the church becoming lazy and corrupt. He dedicated his life to showing by word and example that good works were needed. He attacked false teachings like "original sin".

"The rigorous asceticism of his adherents acted as a reproach to the spiritual sloth of many Roman Christians, whose moral standards greatly distressed him. He blamed Rome's moral laxity on the doctrine of divine grace. . . Pelagius attacked the teaching on the grounds that it imperiled the entire mortal law and soon gained a considerable following in Rome." (-Britannica).

Pelagius was strongly opposed by Augustine, the architect of medieval "Christian" doctrine. This was the great battle of the late fourth and early fifth century: Augustine (infant baptism, predestination, good works are not essential) versus Pelagius (baptism of believers, we are free to choose, good works are essential). Despite the fact that a synod in Jerusalem could not find anything in the scriptures to censure him, Pelagius was finally silenced. Augustine won.

AD 429-447: The Counter-Attack

The church of Rome was very concerned about these "Pelagian" beliefs in Britain. It sent the very capable Germanus (an appropriate name given that the other great threat came from the Germanic invaders) to sort things out. Germanus arrived in 429 (according to Bede), and was a powerful preacher of the Roman version of Christianity.

The same year he arrived (429) he had many great successes. He managed to suppress or change much of the British "Pelagian" faith. He set up schools to ensure that new priests were taught in the Roman way. He left and only returned in 447 when he heard reports that some people were returning to their previous Christianity. But when he arrived he found that actually "but few had gone astray".

But why had any gone "astray"? Why had some of the Britons rejected the new Roman Christianity? Because, quite simply, accepting the Roman ways was causing the British nation to slip into sin. This was exactly what Pelagius had been trying to prevent.

An Abomination that led to Desolation

Several times in the Bible we read of abominations that lead to desolation. The phrase refers to times when the church commits abominations (usually involving false gods) and consequently the land is left desolate. The first and biggest example is the fall of Israel to the Assyrians (discussed here). Another example was the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman armies (foretold in Matthew 24 and elsewhere). Daniel uses the phrase more than once in his prophecies. And British history gives us another example.

The abomination

Pelagius (from the British faith) was closer to the truth that Germanus (of the Roman tradition). Pelagius reacted against the sinfulness of Rome, and taught the need for good works, and other issues such as saying that infant baptism was wrong. But the British people rejected Pelagius in favour of Germanus. They were giving in to the false teachings of Roman Christianity.

Britain before Germanus: repentance and prosperity.

Readers of the Book of Mormon will be familiar with the classic cycle of national decline, where hardship is followed by humility and repentance. This righteousness is followed by prosperity. This leads to pride, then destruction. Fourth century Britain illustrates this quite neatly.

Describing the period 400-414, Bede records how the invading Picts and Scots had reduced Britain to a sorry state of war and famine. The chronologically next chapter covers 426 to 447, when the Britons drove out the invaders:

"When, however, the ravages of the enemy at length ceased, the island began to abound with such plenty of grain as had never been known in any age before"

He does not make the link explicit, but a later chapter indicates that this was exactly the time when the faith taught by Pelagius had taken hold. (Chapter XVII records how Germanus was sent in 429, because "some few years before their arrival, the Pelagian heresy... had sadly corrupted the faith of the Britons").

The influence of Germanus

Germanus arrived in 429 and had almost immediate success:

"The apostolic [i.e. Roman] priests filled the island of Britain with the fame of their preaching and virtue; and the word of God was by them daily administered, not only in the churches, but even in the streets and the fields, so that the Catholics were everywhere affirmed, and those who had gone astray, corrected."

Chapters XVII to XX of Bede (book 1) record the great success of Germanus. When Germanus returned to Britain in 447, "They found the people constant in the faith as they had left them, and ...but few had gone astray". So what was the result of the Roman faith having such great success between 429 and 447?

Britain after Germanus: pride and wickedness.

The following is Bede's description of the period 426 to 447, when the teachings of Germanus are taking hold. It follows on from the famine in 414, the increasing influence of Pelagius' call to repentance, and the national prosperity.

"with plenty luxury increased, and this was immediately [during the teachings of Germanus, though Bede will not make the connection] attended with all sorts of crimes; in particular, cruelty, hatred of truth, and love of falsehood; insomuch, if any one among them happened to be milder than the rest, and inclined to truth, all the rest abhorred and persecuted him, as if he had been the enemy of the country [exactly the treatment Germanus' followers gave to the Pelagians].

"Nor were the laity only guilty of these things, but even our Lord's own flock, and his pastors also, addicted themselves to drunkenness, animosity, litigiousness, contention, envy, and other such like crimes, and casting off the light yoke of Christ."

Remember that Pelagius' teachings had been motivated by the shocking wickedness of Rome, which he directly linked to their belief that good works were not essential. Now Pelagius had been defeated and Rome had won. And sure enough, the British became like Rome.

The desolation that followed these abominations

To quote Bede (Ecclesiastical History, book I chapter XV):

"In the meantime, on a sudden, a severe plague fell upon that corrupt generation, which soon destroyed such numbers of them, that the living were scarcely sufficient to bury the dead ... not long after, a more severe vengeance, for their horrid wickedness, fell upon the sinful nation ..."

Vortigern, chief of the Britons, did just what the Roman emperor Valens had done a generation before. He invited in the Germanic tribes (in this case the Angles) to defend the country. Instead, the Saxons, with their allies the Angles, were far worse than the Scot and Picts had been.

"having on a sudden entered into league with the Picts, ...they began to turn their weapons against their confederates. ... the barbarous conquerors ... spread the conflagration from the eastern to the western sea, without any opposition, and covered almost every part of the devoted island. Public as well as private structures were overturned; the priests were everywhere slain before the altars; the prelates and the people, without any respect of person, were destroyed with fire and sword ...

"Some of the miserable remainder, being taken in the mountains, were butchered in heaps. Others, spent with hunger, came forth and submitted themselves to the enemy for food, being destined to undergo perpetual servitude, if they were not killed even upon the spot. .. Others, continuing in their own country, led a miserable life among the woods, rocks, and mountains, with scarcely enough food to support life, and expecting every moment to be their last."

So it was that the land of the Britons was laid desolate. The land was given a new name. England - the land of the Angles.

"In short, the fire kindled by the hands of these pagans, proved God's just revenge for the crimes of the people; not unlike that which, being once lighted by the Chaldeans, consumed the walls and city of Jerusalem." - Bede, book 1, chapter XV.

Very little of the "Christian fabric" survived

This not only destroyed the land, but the church as well. According to the history of the church at" onclick=";return false; :

"The material achievement of the Roman rule [in Britain] was largely destroyed, and with it a great part of the Christian fabric too. St. Gildas, writing a century and more after the events he describes, hands on a tradition of churches destroyed, of priests massacred, of loot and sacrilege, and of a wholesale flight of the survivors."

Thus, only a handful of the original Christians survived in Britain into the sixth century. The next page looks at how every last remnant was wiped out by the year 570.

the bottom line

Long ago Britain had true Christianity. How it was lost is a story of heroism and tragedy. ... nt-britain

The reason I started this thread is I just began reading Jack Whyte’s “The Camuloud Chronicles” who put historical research into the legend of King Arthur without the magic. I enjoy historical fiction and so far Whyte’s is the closest to what I have imagined as what may have given birth of the Arthurian legends.

User avatar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13360
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Thinker »

I really like that picture - classic!
It is interesting to see how religion has evolved.

I've read that many Christian principles were adopted by Aristotle & some theorize that the origins of Christianity were actually gnostic.
Gnostic = Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.
And of course, Agnostics believe that much is unknowable - yet I see Agnosticism as somewhat more humble than both Atheism and Theism because it involves a never-ending search for truth (good news/gospel) rather than pretending to have found all truth.

When I consider the word, "apostasy" (The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief)... I think of Jesus. He apostasized to the point that they crucified him. I also think about people like William Tynsdale who was persecuted and eventually killed for translating the bible into English. Joseph Smith also had the guts to "apostasize" from religions of the day & I believe he & Jesus encouraged us to keep searching for truth & never to be so conceited as to think we've "arrived."

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »

Thinker when the victors write the history books they get to define who the apostates are and who were “teaching” the truth. Unfortunately it was the Great and Abominable who won in 570 so they made Pelagius the heretic.

If you liked “God Speed!” by Edmund Blair Leighton then you will like his “The Accolade” which is my favorite.



"King Arthur", the sixth century, and the end of the Old Church

Celtic Christianity, part 2 of 3


In the late sixth century, Gregory came to power in Rome, and turned his attention north and west. Through the highly effective Augustine, and eventually the Synod of Whitby, he ensured that Celtic Christianity was largely a memory.

The power was given to Rome.

When Gregory called the Angles "angels", he did not realize the tragic irony. By converting the Angles to Roman Christianity, he was possibly destroying the very last scrap of the heavenly truth.

AD 518: "King Arthur", Britain's last hope

The Battle of Badon Hill

Britain made one last heroic (in every sense of the word) effort to regain its former freedom. There was one last great victory over the Saxons, the battle of Badon hill in 518, led by a general whom legend has named Arthur. The great battle of Badon Hill gave the Britons some breathing space. According to legend, Arthur tried to bring back a land of good works and high standards, a land of Justice and peace.

Arthur's religion

Arthur was not a priest, but he did what little he could to reform the church. According to Gerald's 'Journey', he moved the Archiepiscopal See (the local church headquarters) further away from Saxon influence - from Caerlon to Menevia (in western Demetia by the Irish Sea). According to legend, he established an order of knights in order to defend the country, re-enthrone righteous behavior, and recover the lost "Holy Grail".

Arthur was at heart closer to Pelagius than Germanus. As Sinclair puts it (p. 14, 18), "The heresy of salvation through good works was the inspiration of the knights on the quest for the grail".

The Holy Grail was never regained

Arthur did his best. But ultimately he failed to restore the golden age. He was killed. It has been argued that he succeeded long enough that the original barbarian invaders were replaced by a somewhat more civilized second and third generation, and thus some trace of the British way of life was able to survive. But his main aim was not achieved. The Angles and Saxons won. The Grail was not restored.

AD 570s: There was "no Arthur"

But there was "Merlin," and great interest in St George

Gordur "was no Arthur"

Arguably the earliest record of the name "Arthur" is from the late sixth century (some scholars believe it is a ninth century work). One of the most important sources for Arthurian history "is the collection of heroic death-songs known as Y Gododdin, relating to a battle fought in the late 6th-century. In recent years there has been considerable debate over the statement in Y Gododdin that Gordur 'fed black ravens on the rampart of a fort, although he was no Arthur' ". (See: This seems to refer to the battles around AD 570 - especially the Battle of Dyrham in 577. The article goes on to discuss how Arthur, by this time, was known as the kind of hero who had gone forever.

N.B. the above article argues at great length that Arthur was not a literal person, but a symbol of the times. That is pretty much what I am saying here. The legends of Arthur are significant mainly because they show that something extraordinary and terrible was going on in Britain in the sixth century.

Merlin and the dragons

Although Arthur probably lived in the early sixth century, Merlin probably lived around the year 570. As Nikolai Tolstoy describes in "Quest for Merlin:"
“...Merlin was indeed an historical figure, living in what are now the lowlands of Scotland at the end of the sixth century authentic prophet, most likely a druid surviving in a pagan enclave of the north.”

In the twelfth century, the depths of the Dark Ages, when the powers of the world controlled the church, Geoffrey of Monmouth published what he claimed were the prophecies of Merlin. (For a translation from the Latin, see "Merlin, the Prophetic Vision and Mystic Life," Penguin Arkana, 1994. A New Age commentary is at Although much of may be doubtful there are indications that he claimed to be copying from an authentic earlier source. I am not claiming that hese are true prophecies, but at the least they do reflect how the medieval British saw their history.

According to Monmouth, Merlin spoke of the Celts (British) and the invading Saxons (Germanic tribes) as dragons battling eachother. The prophecies speak of Arthur defeating the Saxons, then several other kings maintaining his success, then final defeat, which is assumed to mean to the Battle of Dyrham in 577. The important point is that the date for Britain's final defeat is given as the 570s. (Monmouth goes on to describe the occasional success in later centuries, but the initial damage has been done. The unbroken line of British freedom was over.)

George and the dragon

In this context, it is significant that interest in St George (who later became England's patron saint) parallels the interest in Arthur. Like Arthur, it was about a chivalrous knight who rescues his land, it was popularized at the height of the Dark Ages (in the book "The Golden Legend" in 1265) and it looked back to an earlier, golden age. Like Arthur, the need for a hero came in the period around 570, although the historical George was from much earlier. "The origin of the legend of the dragon remains obscure. It is first recorded in the late sixth century." "St George's popularity flourished during the sixth century when his renown spread like wildfire throughout the east and travelled along the established routes of the Mediterranean waters and hinterland to the farthest Christian outpostsof the ancient Western world. Numerous legends, that is written accounts to be read in Christian assembly, of his sufferings and death started to appear and multiply during the sixth century."

".... Legends about him as a warrior-saint, dating from the 6th century, became popular and increasingly extravagant. ... George's slaying of the dragon may be a Christian version of the legend of Perseus, who was said to have rescued Andromeda from a sea monster near Lydda....." - Britannica online.
A sea monster? This seems to draw on the legend of leviathan - the Beast who gained control in the sixth century.

AD 570: The death of Gildas, the triumph of the Saxons, the end of hope

With some decisive advances around the year 570, the Saxons were victorious. With the British culture submerged, there was nothing to stop the dominance of the Germanic tribes and the Roman church - the "little horn".

Most of what we know of this period comes from the great British historian Gildas. He charted the decline of Britain in the sixth century. Gildas may have been a keystone of the Celtic church. "The busy connections within the shrunken Celtic world are constantly referred to". (Lehane, p.96)

Gildas was anything but impartial when it came to Celtic culture, calling the invading Saxons "the scum of the earth" (Lehane, p.96).

While he did not make the direct connection between the new Roman religion, he seems to imply that the church had lost its spirit. As Bede puts it (book 1 chapter XXII),

"Among other most wicked actions not to be expressed, which their own historian Gildas mournfully takes notice of, they added this - that they never preached the faith to the Saxons, or English, who dwelt amongst them".

The "Watershed"

Gildas and the death of the English Celtic church

Concerning the dying Celtic church, Lehane writes (p.96):

"Flickers of glory there may have been. [but] The general scene was of dying embers. And Gildas was not of a sanguine disposition. He was of the mould of Job, and the name of his surviving work is 'Concerning the Destruction and Overthrow of Britain'."

Gildas died in 570. The previous few decades had seen the Angles and Saxons totally defeat the Britons. The Britons (the Celts) had been fighting a losing battle for some time, but this period signaled the end of all opposition. The great plague of 547 had affected the Britons far worse than the Angles and Saxons, who spent the remaining years mopping up the remnants and ensuring Anglo-Saxon supremacy in England.

"The years around 550 were the real watershed for Britain. . . . [The plague provided] the impetus for another surge against the weakened natives. . . . Many libraries may have been destroyed, and the shape of England's political and dynastic landscape for centuries to come was formed."
(Magnusson p.33, emphasis added).

Why did the English church give up?

As the Angles and Saxons mixed with the Britons, we might expect that the cultures would mix - that some of the Britons' Celtic Christianity would be shared with the Saxons. But it did not. The British church, as its members died, made no attempt to share what they had. This is particularly surprising when we remember that early Christianity thrived on persecution.

As noted above, the Britons did not even attempt to preach the gospel to the invading Angles and Saxons. Something happened in this period that made the English church give up hope. The Irish church fought bravely, and with much success, but the English church just gave up. While the Irish were vigorously preaching their gospel across political borders, while the Roman church had turned its political oppressors (the Roman state) into its friends, the English church did not even try. It had had given up. Something had happened that made it decide that either (a) it no longer had the spirit for it, or (b) it had nothing to offer.

I will argue further on and on the page on the grail that the reason the English church was so defeatist, the reason they gave up, is that in the sixth century they lost the one thing that justified their existence: priesthood authority.

St Brendan

St Brendan, the last vain hope

Celtic culture had once flourished in England, Ireland, Cornwall, and Wales. Gildas had seen it entirely destroyed in England, and the kingdoms of Wales and Cornwall were being ruled by wicked men. His only hope was Ireland, and his contemporary, Saint Brendan.

Just before Gildas died, he was visited by the great St Brendan. He knew Brendan was coming because of a vision, and referred to Brendan as "a second Peter the apostle". But Brendan could not save Celtic Christianity. The Irish Celtic church had claimed many things, but it had never claimed the authority to run the church. Only England had claimed that authority (through Glastonbury). And somehow, whether by a continuing decline, the popularity of hiding their light in monasteries, or due to the violence of the Saxon invaders, English priesthood authority - its most precious possession - had been lost.

St Brendan, miracles, and America

Saint Brendan was a remarkable man, a great missionary, leader, and a man of miracles. There is evidence to suggest that he followed earlier seafarers in making a sea voyage to America. The accounts have been greatly exaggerated (as is normal for early medieval accounts of saints), but enough clues remain (such as descriptions of icebergs and volcanoes) to suggest that the accounts may be based on truths. Some scholars think the native American legends of Quetzalcoatl, the fair, bearded visitor from the east, may have been influenced by Brendan's visit. (Lehane, p.84)

Just seven years after Gildas, Brendan died too. And something irreplaceable died with him. Brendan, and the earlier Celtic saints, were known for their great signs and miracles (see Mark 16:17-18). But later Celtic saints, though great men in their way, were increasingly known for more earthly works. "It was the end of an era". (Lehane, p.99)

The modern day St Brendans

Latter-day Saints may be interested to note that Brendan died in 577 (according to Lehane). Precisely 1260 years later, in 1837, a new era began - proclaimed as a restoration of the ancient gospel. Missionaries with British ancestry came from the land that Brendan may have once visited - America - to bring the long-promised priesthood back to Britain and Ireland.

The first of these missionaries, Heber C. Kimball, experienced powerful spiritual manifestations (especially in the Ribble valley area near Preston). He was later told by the prophet Joseph that this area had been dedicated for the future preaching of the gospel by ancient prophets who had walked this land. For who these ancient prophets might have been, see the page on Joseph of Arimathea

The Celtic church after 570

The Celtic church achieved many great things after 570, with missionaries from Iona, and the rise of scholarship. But missionaries and scholarship are not the same as authority. Ireland had the strength but not the apostolic authority. England had once claimed the authority, but everything worthwhile in England had (according to Gildas) been destroyed by the invading Saxons. The Celtic church after 570 was not characterised by heavenly miracles or ownership of the grail". That had been lost.

AD 570, Gregory, and Augustine

570 was the year that Gildas, the man who devoted his life to saying "something is dreadfully wrong", died. This was also the year that Gregory came to power - Gregory, the man who was to reverse the decline of Rome, and later create the medieval Papacy.

Gregory's attention had been turned to the north by the invading Lombards in 568-571. Long before he became Pope, Gregory he had seen people from Britain in a Roman slave market and asked to be sent as a missionary to convert them. He probably considered it his life's work, and had his success in converting them inscribed on his tomb. (For details, see Bede). Gregory was prevented from going himself as a missionary to Britain - he was too popular in Rome. But when he became Pope he sent Augustine to convert the British to the Roman way.

The case against Augustine

When Augustine arrived, he asked the Britons to submit to Rome. The Celtic church sent seven wise men to see if Augustine was from God. They asked a holy man for advice. The holy man told them that Jesus and been meek and humble, and gave them a simple test to see if Augustine was a humble man of God - would he rise to greet them, or would he stay seated on his throne? Augustine failed the test. (See Bede, book II chapter II)

When Augustine saw that the Britons would not obey him, he "prophesied" (other historians say "threatened") that the Britons would receive death at the hands of the invading Angles.

The seven wise Britons came from the town of Bangor of S. Dunod. By the time of Augustine's death, most of the nation, especially the invading Angles and Saxons, had embraced Roman Christianity. Soon after, an army of Angles invading Bangor. Their leader, Ethelfrid, sent some of his soldiers to massacre twelve hundred unarmed Celts who had come to pray. As one historian puts it, "Something more than suspicion rests upon the Anglican Roman Catholic Mission with respect to this massacre of Christian ministers." ( - The Pictish Nation, by Archibald B. Scott. Edinburgh: T.N.Foulis, 1918 p. 182-185. The entire chapter, entitled "Changes in the Sixth Century", is worth reading).

The synod of Whitby, confirming the death of Celtic Christianity.

Finally, as a result of the conflict between the Roman and Celtic churches, a synod was called at Whitby in Northumbria. This was officially to decide the date of Easter (the Celtic church insisted on the date that John, the last surviving apostle, had given, but the Roman church disagreed). But the actual significance of that synod was far greater.

The synod of Whitby saw the official defeat of the remains of the Celtic church at the hands of the Papacy. It also saw the reversal of the earlier success of the Irish Celtic church. It simply confirmed what had happened a few years earlier: the Celtic church was, to all intents and purposes, dead.
Concerning the synod of Whitby, Lehane writes (p.208-9):

. . . this is not to overstate the case, though the context and conduct of the trial seem modest and restricted. . . . In England, Whitby was a turning point, a necessary climax. It turned the scales in favour of Rome. From now on the city of Peter was to be the center of civilisation and the arbiter of religion. . . . The Irish had restored the faith in Britain and in a large part of the continent . . . and now they were reversed, banished for the felonies of tonsure and calendar by men who were newer to religion than they. . . . Nobody can calculate the loss to both parties."

The wrath of God

There was a sign in the heavens that something terrible was happening. Shortly before the great synod had reached its decision, there was a total eclipse of the sun. The zone of totality passed right over Whitby.

I have mentioned elsewhere that the changes of the late sixth century were accompanied by plagues of unprecedented scale. The tragedy of Whitby was no exception. How can we avoid concluding that this was the wrath of God, when we read (Lehane, p. 210, emphasis added):
"Almost immediately after the synod an epidemic of plague that had taxed the continent broke out in Britain and Ireland. It must have killed thousands, for all the English bishops save one were victims." Just as had happened during the abomination under Vortigern, the church leaders had chosen to forsake the true church and had again paid the price.

For how the Bible may have foreseen this, see the page on the number of the "Beast".

the bottom line
Celtic culture (and Celtic Christianity) is seeing something of a minor revival. Just look at the number of web sites devoted to it. They know they had something priceless, something unique. Once. A long, long time ago.

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »


"The Shadow" (Circa 1909)
A knight, in full chain mail, stands in profile before a castle wall, absolutely still and
unhurried, while his beloved traces the shadow he casts with a piece of charcoal vine. The presence
of a ship in the harbor, though distant, creates the sense of his impending departure - likely to
battle - and gives significance to her drawing as possibly the only remembrance she may have of
him for some time to come.

Part 3

The death of the Celtic Church:
Issues, notes and sources

Celtic Christianity, part 3 of 3

The big picture

"Certainly the legend of King Arthur's court started in the Middle Ages... but the putative figures on which the legends are based, appear to come from before the Fall of Rome, i.e., Antiquity. In the shadows between Classical Antiquity and the Dark Ages lived prophets and warlords, druids and Christians, Roman Christians and the outlawed Pelagians, in an area sometimes referred to as Sub-Roman Britain...

"It was a time of civil war and plague -- which helps explain the lack of contemporary information. Arthurian scholar Geoffrey Ashe says: 'In dark age Britain we have to recognize various adverse factor, such as the loss and destruction of manuscripts by invading armies; the character of the early material, oral rather than written; the decline of learning and even literacy among the Welsh monks who might have kept reliable records. The whole period is plunged in obscurity from the same causes. People who were certainly real and important are no better attested.' ”
- From the ancient history page on "Merlin"

Notes on the historical sources

What is Celtic?

"Celtic" was just a Roman term for "barbarian". So "Celtic" culture was not one homogeneous whole, but represented many different strands. For example, Celts in Britain were not the same as Celts in Germany. Celtic Pagan religion was not the same as Celtic Christian religion.

Nobody is pretending that early British Christianity was the purest form of the faith, but then neither was Roman Christianity. Neither could avoid having many errors, so many years after the deaths of the apostles. But, evolving so far apart, under such different conditions, no doubt each had preserved some of the original truths that the other had lost. But when Gregory the Great came to power, with his plans to consolidate the power of the Roman church, another part of that "gene pool" had its death warrant signed.

Piecing together the puzzle

History is written by the winners. The Roman church defeated the Celtic church, and very little remains to tell us what the Celts did. Langer (encyclopaedia of World History) simply says of the period 350-597, "The history of Britain for two centuries (c. 350 - 597) is obscure".

The greatest British historian was the Venerable Bede. When Bede looked at the available sources, he found that everything really started in the late sixth century - before then, much of the original evidence had either been destroyed, or was lost. What remained was scarce and contradictory. His "verifiable historical horizon" only stretched back to the late sixth century, the "550s at the earliest". (Magnus Magnusson, in "LIndisfarne - The Cradle Island", Stocksfield: Oriel Press, 1984, p. 33)

So something happened to the written records some time on the late sixth century. But writing isn't the only tool at a historian's disposal. There is also archaeology, and oral history, or mythology. What clues can archaeology give us? Archaeology does not have much to say about matters of revelation, but it does indicate that something happened to change things. For example, recent excavations in East Anglia have unearthed burial sites that date from this period. Strangely, women were buried in the main burial sites clearly identified as separate from the men, up to 570/580, but not thereafter. This seems to have also happened in the European Merovingian cemeteries. Why? Why did the religious rituals change? We may never know for sure. But something happened.


To understand what was really going on in the sixth century Celtic church, I strongly recommend "Early Celtic Christianity" by Brendan Lehane (London: Constable, 1994).

Besides general encyclopaedic articles, other books used here include:

"The Holy Grail" by Malcolm Godwin (London: Bloomsbury, 1994).
"The Discovery of the Grail" by Andrew Sinclair (London: Century, 1998).

For a fuller discussion of the lost priesthood, see "The Search for the Grail" by Graham Phillips (London: Century Books, 1995).

Did the Celtic Church know exactly what happening at the time?

Although the church knew it was losing something important, it probably did not know at the time what that something was at the time. When you catch a disease, you know something is wrong, but you generally do not know the cause until you see a doctor. But if there is no doctor around, you are left to guess. This was how the church was in the sixth century (especially in Britain). It knew there was something wrong, but did not know what. By the time of the reformation most of the church realized, in hindsight, that they had lost what was most valuable. But by then it was too late.

Spiritual leeches

Gildas, for example, could see the country languishing in sin, and all he could see was that they should hold stronger to the Roman faith. He did not see that the Roman faith was the cause of the problem, just as it had been at the time of Germanus.

Spiritually, the medieval world was using leeches. In medieval medicine, when someone was sick, doctors often applied leeches to draw out the infection. In actual fact, the leeches made the patient even weaker. But the medieval experts did not understand.

Gildas was not a Mormon

Hence, when we look at the life of Gildas (or Cassiodorus, or John Malalas, or other church leaders who died in 570), we should not expect to find prophets battling for the truth. They knew something was wrong, but did not recognise the cause. If they had recognised the cause, the church may have struggled on for a while longer. But they had lost the truth. It is quite possible that one of these people was the last person to hold authentic priesthood authority. But they did not appreciate its significance. And when they died in 570, it was lost for good.

The Celtic church in Ireland and Scotland

The crucial difference between the English and Irish churches

The tragedy of the period 547 (the plague) to 570 (the death of Gildas) may not be obvious at first. After all, throughout this period, and even up to the Synod of Whitby, the Celtic church did some great things. The late sixth / early seventh centuries saw such great missionaries as St Columba and Columban. But this was the Irish branch of the church, not the English branch. That difference is crucial.

The English branch claimed apostolic authority through Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury. The Irish branch claimed many things - and achieved many things - but it never claimed that apostolic link. (See Lehane, p.106)

The tragedy of the monks

What had happened in Ireland? In a word, monks. The records have now been lost, but it seems there was a kind of revolution in the sixth century:
•The church was not strong in the third and fourth centuries.
•Great men appeared, individuals of power and testimony.
•But instead of the old church being revived, the people started up new churches, built on the memory of these great men.
•So, whereas before there had been one church, a hierarchy with bishops and priests, now there were a large number of lone churches, groups of monks who remembered their particular saint.

"Something like a revolution took place in the Irish church in the sixth century, as a result of which its organization and administration became predominantly, if not exclusively, monastic."

"The primitive churches have dropped into insignificance, so that it is impossible to tell what was their status. It would seem therefore, that something like a revolution was wrought in the Irish church in the sixth century, and that it was the work of the famous saints of that era."
(For details see p.372 and 293 etc. of "The Early History of Ireland - Ecclesiastical" by Kenney, from the Irish University Press, republished by Octagon Books in New York, 1966)

So although the Irish church was so successful in the sixth and seventh centuries, it was not the same church that had the authority from Bible times. It was led by new (and unbiblical) monks, and not the original (biblical) bishops.

This may also be how the English church finally lost its authority. "We know that monasticism was well rooted in Britain by the sixth century". (Kenney, p.159). Instead of being inspired by the great saints like Brendan (below), to go out and rescue the church, the men of faith instead shut themselves away as monks, and the church died.

The move to a monk-based church was finally completed with Gregory the Great, the first monk to become Pope, and founder of the Medieval church.
But what about Scotland?

If the English church was dying, and the Irish church could not help, what about Scotland? Its version of Christianity came straight from Rome. The first records of Christianity are through St Ninian (circa 360 to 432) who learned his faith in Rome. He was a good friend of Martin of Tours, famous for spreading the idea of monks and monasteries. Ninian's "White House" church became a seat of learning for later Irish and Welsh missionaries. Unfortunately, Scotland could offer no help.

When the last outpost, the English church, died, there was no-one left to replace it.

The Holy Grail was lost. And all that western civilisation could do was mourn.

The bottom line
As the western wall was to the Jews, so the "grail" was to the Christians.

User avatar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13360
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Thinker »

Both of those pictures gave me the chills... awesome! :ymhug:
And good point about history being written by the victors... important to remember as we study his-story.

I'm going to re-read & think more about what you wrote... interesting.

captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by believer »


This is very interesting. Thank you for posting it.

I have heard reference to a legend about the Prophet Jeremiah. According to the legend, he did not die in Egypt, but went west, and finally settled in Ireland. There he taught the gospel which resulted in a Golden Age with the people there.

I also saw a documentary about a super volcano eruption in approximately 535 A.D. It was a much larger explosion of Krakatoa than the one in the 1800's. It caused such climate changes that it brought down Rome, the England after Arthur, and the Mayans. Many people starved because food could not be produced. The sun was blocked out for years afterward.

Later I found an article describing the same event, which I will post after this:

History's Greatest Secret

Global Cataclysm in 535 AD!

by Michael Relfe

History repeats itself. And the greatest secret of history, what you were never taught at school or college, is that our planet had a global catastrophe in living memory, in 535 AD. You won't find this information elsewhere on the internet either. Something happened which caused the light of the sun to be dimmed greatly around the globe for 18 months. During this time, many trees did not grow at all. This event was followed by 30 years of unprecedented droughts and some flooding. This caused the death of a vast percentage of the population through starvation and disease.

It is likely that the cause of this catastrophe was the eruption of the super volcano Krakatoa. (Note: The terms "Super volcano" is used for a volcano with hundreds of times the power of any that we have visually recorded in the past few hundred years. Use the term "super volcano" for further research). We now have two super volcanoes showing signs of getting ready to erupt. Each is bigger than Krakatoa. One is in Naples Italy and the other in Yellowstone USA. The Powers That Be know all this and are keeping this knowledge to themselves. That is probably one reason why they have so many DUMBS (Deep Underground Military Bases). They are planning to turn this knowledge to their own advantage to take control of us. However, with the knowledge of what may come in our life time, you can prepare so that you and your family are not affected.

“In AD 535/536 mankind was hit by one of the greatest natural disasters ever to occur …. It blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and resulted, directly or indirectly in climatic chaos, famine, migration, war and massive political change on virtually every continent”.

This is in the opening page of “Catastrophe” by David Keys, 1999, a book that should have been on the best seller lists but very few people know of. The book took four years to write and research, and is extremely well researched. One can only assume that the Powers that Be are happy to keep this knowledge from the public. This article is an attempt to summarize that book and discuss some of the implications.

The contemporary Roman historian Procopius described the mystery climatic disaster: “The sun gave forth its light without brightness like the moon during this whole year.”

Sixth century historian and prominent church leader John of Ephesus wrote of 535 AD in his ‘Historiae Ecclesiasicae’ (‘Church Histories’), “There was a sign from the sun, the like of which had never been seen and reported before. The sun became dark and its darkness lasted for 18 months. Each day, it shone for about four hours, and still this light was only a feeble shadow. Everyone declared that the sun would never recover its full light again.”

Another 6th Century writer Zacharias of Mytilene wrote, “The sun began to be darkened by day and the moon by night.”

A Roman official known as John the Lydian reported that “the sun became dim for nearly the whole year.”

In Italy a Senior local civil servant, Cassiodorus Sentaro wrote in 536, “We marvel to see no shadows of ourselves at noon….We have had a spring without mildness and a summer without heat.”

According to Keys, this one global disaster directly or indirectly caused the deaths of a huge percentage of the world’s population. It indirectly affected the politics on every continent and contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. The 100-year period after it occurred is the heart of history’s so-called Dark Ages.”

In 536 the Japanese Great King Senka wrote, “Yellow gold and ten thousand strings of cash cannot cure hunger. What avails a thousand boxes of pearls to him who is starving of cold?”

Here is some more evidence from the book that there was a major global disaster in 535 AD.

“In the late 1960s an American tree-ring specialist, Valmore La Marche of the University of Arizona, collected a substantial number of high-altitude bristlecone-pine tree-ring samples from Campito Mountain in California. They showed a reduction in tree-ring width (i.e. tree growth), suggesting climatic deterioration, from 535/536 with a much more serious deterioration in 539. Growth did not then return to normality until the late 550s.”

“In the 1980s, another American academic, Louis Scuderi of the University of Boston, collected a large number of foxtail-pine tree-ring samples from California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains and these told a similar story, although the foxtail-pine data suggested that the period of climatic deterioration lasted even longer … almost 40 years”.

(Note: He does mention that low-altitude tree-ring evidence from New Mexico and Arizona shows no evidence of climatic problems in the years following 535).

“In Yucatan (south-east Mexico) … painstaking analysis of lake deposits over recent years has revealed evidence of a severe multi-decade (20 to 50 years) drought which seems to have started in the mid sixth century…. The research carried out by scientists from the University of Florida and published in 1996 revealed that the sixth century drought was the first such event for almost 1,000 years and was not repeated for another three centuries.”

“Tree-ring evidence from Scandinavia and western Europe also reveals a huge reduction in tree growth in the years 536-542, not recovering fully until the 550s.”

“Tree-ring evidence from the British Isles shows that tree growth slowed down significantly in 535-536 and did not fully recover until 555”.

“In South America, tree-ring data obtained from ancient Fitzroya conifer timbers have revealed that a dramatic cooling of temperature took place in AD 540… 540 was the coldest summer for the past 1,600 years.”

“Continuous tree-ring chronologies, going back to the 6th century AD and beyond, exist for Finland, Sweden, the British Isles, central Europe, the Aegean, Siberia, North America, Chile, Argentina and Tasmania. In a substantial percentage … the period 535 – 550 stands out as a time of unusually low tree-ring growth. In several key chronologies, that 25-35 year period contains many of the narrowest ring sequences known for the past 2,000 years…. From 538 or, in many places, 540, there was an almost universal massive decline lasting between two and eight years…This was particularly marked in the Southern Hemisphere.”

(This next study is especially interesting because it suggests that the US government has been aware of the 535 disaster for some time and were prepared to spend a lot of money to study it): “Back in 1983 a team of US scientists from Ohio State University’s Institute of Polar Studies climbed onto Peru’s 18,711-foot-high Quelccaya Glacier and succeeded in extracting two roughly 530-foot-long, 3.25” diameter ice-cores… Refrigeration equipment could not be flown in… (The ice-cores) had to be broken up into 6,000 2” long samples, each of which was packed in its own individual container and allowed to melt.

The Ohio team then had to carry the 6,000 samples down from the glacier using mountaineering ropes and crampons… The material finally arrived in Ohio…The analysis revealed several episodes of dust storms, almost certainly caused by drought. By far the most intense and long-lasting episode, and the one that started most abruptly, was a period of drought which appears to have struck in the mid sixth century and to have lasted around 30 years.”

“In Columbia…an analysis by Columbian archaeologists Clemencia Plazas and Anna Falcheti revealed that the mid to late sixth century was the driest period in … 3,300 years. From 100 BC to AD 1,000 the climate was almost uniformly wet – except for the mid to late sixth century.”

“A recent total reassessment of the evidence has now led archaeologists to redate the collapse of the great Mexican city of Teotihuacan to the Sixth Century A.D….An American anthropologist, Rebecca Storey of the University of Houston, has analyzed data from more than 150 skeletons … Her findings reveal that in the years prior to the collapse, 68.3% of the working class population were dying before the age of 25, compared to 38.6% in more normal times.”

He argues persuasively that it was this climatic disaster that indirectly caused the many plagues at that time, including the ‘Great Death’. Normally mice in wild areas in East Africa carry fleas which carry the plague harmlessly among wild animals. Keys believes that unnatural weather following the 535 incident, especially an excessive drought followed by excessive-rainfall, caused the spread of these rodents to other areas. Eventually the rodents met and passed the flea onto the black rat which normally did not have plague. The black rat in turn passed it onto humans. The plague reached Egypt in 1941. Trade in ivory by ships from Egypt to Europe carried the plague with it, killing whole cities. Up to 1/3 of the Roman Empire died horribly in the first massive outbreak of plague. People would get a sore on their body and be dead within 2 or 3 days. More died in subsequent outbreaks. Extrapolating from death rates of the much better recorded plague in the 14th Century, in Britain possibly somewhere between 60% and 90% died of plague, both peasants and members of the elite.

The 535 event was associated with some kind of dust / chemical pollution. In 541 the 13th Century British historian Roger of Wendover wrote, “There dropped real blood from the clouds, and a dreadful mortality ensued.”

“In China in 536 there was drought and famine and “yellow dust rained like snow… The crops were ruined the following year by snow in August.””

“Starting in the 530s, a horrific 32-year long drought devastated parts of South America.”

The global catastrophe caused drought and flooding. Climactic extremes continued for roughly 30 years after the event.

“An analysis of British weather between 480 and 650 confirms that the period 535-555 was abnormally unstable.”

What caused the global cataclysm?

Keys says that the disaster must have been caused by an asteroid impact of about 2.5 miles wide, a comet impact or a volcanic eruption. He gives a number of reasons why it was not an asteroid or comet. For example, the last time we got hit by a cosmic object of this size was 52 million years ago. Comets are also very rare. Both would have created at least a 25 mile wide crater or have produced such a tidal wave that would have rivaled Noah’s flood. We do not know of either of these things happening so recently. Most importantly, neither would have produced enough dust to have darkened the sun for so long.

The most likely culprit is a super volcano, because in order to dim the sun, tons and tons of dust had to be thrown into the sky. A super volcano can do this by forcing huge quantities of sulphur into the stratosphere, which become sulphuric-acid aerosols, capable of staying aloft and directly changing the weather for several years.

Here is more evidence that the Powers That Be know all about this and how important it is:

“In 1978, a joint Danish/Swiss/US Scientific team landed on the south-Greenland ice cap in several large freight aircraft specially fitted with giant skis. The planes – US military C130 Hercules – carried massive quantities of equipment, including generators, refrigeration units, prefabricated living quarters – and a huge drill.

This later piece of hardware was used to extract – in 6.5 foot lengths – some 1.25 miles of ice-core! In temperatures of between around 14 degrees Fahrenheit and minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit, engineers and scientist from Copenhagen University worked in three shifts, 24 hours a day, drilling deeper and deeper into the ice cap at roughly 400 feet per week.

Then, early in the second year of the operation … the team extracted some lengths of core covering the second quarter of the sixth century AD. … Chemical analysis of this … ice revealed that there had been two substantial volcanic eruptions. These same eruptions were then detected in a second core drilled in summer 1990 in central Greenland.

… The dating of ice-cores is at that time depth is only roughly accurate…. For eruption (number) one the core gave an apparent date of 527… while the (other) core … yielded an apparent date of 530.

The volcanic explosion must have been very substantial, as evidence … shows that acid-rich snow was falling at the (first) site… in Greenland for more than two years and at the (other) site for at least a year.

The final clinching evidence, however, comes from 10,000 miles to the south – from deep inside the Antarctic ice cap. … Scientists, again using ice-cores, discovered evidence of a truly massive volcanic eruption. The ice-core material revealed that acid snow had cascaded down on the Antarctic for at least four years running….(This) occurred sometime between 490 and 540.”

It is very possible that both Greenland and Antarctica events were the same event.

So, then the next question is, which volcano was the culprit?

After putting a lot of different facts together, Keys pinpoints the culprit as “Krakatoa, the notorious island mountain which brought death and destruction to Java and Sumatra in the 1880s. Could a former bigger eruption of Krakatoa have been responsible for the catastrophe that tormented the world in the mid sixth century AD?...

Buried deep in a little-known and normally ignored Indonesian chronicle is an extraordinary passage … describing a huge volcanic event in the Sunda Straits area... where Krakatoa is located…The earliest surviving manuscript of this chronicle dates form 1869…

“There was a furious shaking of the earth, total darkness, thunder and lightning… Then came a furious gale together with torrential rain and a deadly storm darkened the entire world.”

The chronicle – known as the “Pustaka Raja Purwa (‘The book of Ancient Kings’) … claims that the eruption was so massive that …. “After the water subsided the mountain (which had burst into pieces) and the surrounding land became sea and the (single) island (of Java/Sumatra) divided into two parts. This (event) was the origin of the separation of Sumatra and Java.” “

One problem with this text is that it was written 1,300 years after the event. But Keys explains how it was possible that that information was a real event, and how it was recorded and passed down through the generations.

“One key piece of evidence (that this is a true record) is that volcanologists who have read the eruption account in the 1869 manuscript of “The book Of Ancient Kings” say that it is a very good description of the type which almost certainly did occur in the Sunda Straits…. They believe that neither western scientists nor Javanese scholars in the 1850s or 1860s would have had the geological data to reconstruct the probable sequence of events and geography.”

Reconstructing the Eruption

“Typically, volcanic eruptions are preceded by increasingly frequent and violent tremors. Often, the larger the eruption, the longer the seismic run-up to it will be…. Throughout the second half of 534 earthquakes would have struck the region at the rate of one or two a day. In the weeks immediately before the eruption , the rate would have accelerated to a peak of 50 per hour in the final 24 hours, mainly in the 1-3 Richter Scale range.

Although it is a controversial proposal, it is geologically possible that Sumatra and Java were one island prior to the 535 super-eruption – exactly as the Javanese “Book of Ancient Kings” describes. The 535 eruption would therefore have burst forth from a volcanic mountain…..

(In) the first phase of the eruption …a vast cloud of ash would have billowed forth, followed by a column of read-hot magma…The second phase began with a vast explosive event that shot even larger quantities of molten magma into the air at up to 1,500 mph – reaching heights of perhaps 30 miles… The shock wave from the explosion would have devastated everything in its path for up to 20 miles…. The heat (would have) forced the ash cloud heavenwards. As the mushroom cloud increasingly blotted out the light of the sun, and day was turning into night, ash would have rained down on forests and fields alike up to 1,000 miles away…The water-vapour component (in the stratosphere) would have condensed to tiny ice-crystals. It is estimated that the entire eruption may have generated up to 25 cubic miles of ice crystals, which, spread out in a thin layer in the stratosphere, would have caused sunlight diffraction and cooling over vast areas of the globe. Super-fine volcanic ash and huge quantities of sulphur and carbon dioxide would have had similar effects. Unlike ordinary volcanic ash, which falls to the earth within a few months, hydro-volcanic ash, high-altitude frozen-water-crystal clouds and sulphuric-acid and carbon-dioxide aerosols (minute drops) can stay in the stratosphere for years.

In the second phase part of the mushroom cloud would … have collapsed back, spreading horizontally…This hot, poisonous wall of destruction would have moved outwards to perhaps as much as 40 miles…killing anything in its path.”

In the third phase, even more explosions etc. would have happened. Because the magma chamber was empty, the land fell downwards and the sea rushed in.

This affected the sunlight, and the weather, for years to come. This in turn affected the food and water supply of everyone on the planet.

“Today, all that is left of this massive collapse is a 25-mile diameter, mainly underwater caldera

“Krakatoa … is among the half-dozen largest calderas … in the world.”

“Procopius, referring to the darkened sun, later wrote that “from the time this thing happened, men were not free from war, nor pestilence, nor anything leading to death.”

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »

I read of this event Believer. It was the cause of the fall and birth of civilizations and a great migration of peoples searching for food.
Here is another article on the subject. Can’t wait for the Millennium to read and speak to those who lived history.

Were the Dark Ages Triggered by Volcano-Related Climate Changes in the 6th Century?

Couldn’t resist. :))

What was the Holy Grail?
And where is it now?

The earliest legends

According to most scholars, the original source of the Grail legends is the Celtic myth of a horn (or cauldron or other vessel) of plenty. This was the source of all things good - unquenchable food, health, success in battle, etc.

Obviously, we do not have a clear idea of what the Celts taught, or the symbolism they used, or what was Christian and what was pagan. But if we assume that the horn of plenty had religious symbolism, what is the source of all things good in religion? What represented God's favour? What allowed leaders to expect loyalty and commitment (and thus success)? What if not divine authority?

More literally, what in the Bible allowed Elijah to provide a widow with a barrel that never emptied, or allowed Jesus to feed five thousand, or Joshua to command the sun to stand still so a battle could be won, or allowed the apostles to heal the sick? The answer is divine authority, the basis of ancient kingship, priesthood, success, and salvation.

The origins of Arthur

The Arthurian legends, taken together, are too big, too contradictory, and cover too much time, to refer to one historical figure. Historians agree that there probably was a Celtic chieftain called Arthur in the fifth or sixth century, but that other beliefs and desires have been attached to the story. Similarly, the story of the Grail is generally believed to have its origins in actual Celtic beliefs, and to only have developed into the story of a mystical cup in later centuries.

Originally, Arthur and the Grail may have been separate (if related) issues. The background for Arthur's exploits is clear from Gildas' history - Celtic peoples resisting the advance of the Saxons. Arthur is a story of fighting against the approaching doom. But the Grail stories come from later (the best developed stories are from the twelfth century and later), when the battle had long been lost.

The grail romances

The earliest fully developed Grail story is Parzival, in which the Grail is held by the Fisher King in his castle. But, being unworthy, the Fisher King has been struck dumb and is unworthy to use the Grail. The emphasis is on purity and righteousness - these are the only ways that the Grail can be used.
In later stories, the Grail has been lost. While Joseph of Arimathea brought it to Britain and it stayed here for generations, now it had gone. The noble and pure in heart search for it, but cannot bring it back.

The grail legends were most popular in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the darkest of the Dark Ages. Godwin (in "The Holy Grail") makes much of this. Europe was in a spiritual wasteland, and looked longingly at the grail legends, stories of a lost golden age, and the efforts to regain it.

The grail legends: a summary

The Grail, according to legend, was the source of divine favour. It was had by the Celtic chieftains for generations. By the time of Arthur (fifth or sixth century), the Grail was still in Britain, but its guardians could not use it because of unrighteousness. Later it disappeared completely. The pure in heart tried to get it back - it was their most important goal - but they could not.

The abuse of and loss of the Grail was the most keenly felt, tragic loss, that marked the start of the Dark Ages in Britain.

What exactly did the grail represent?

The "Holy Grail" is traditionally the cup that Jesus used at the Last Supper, or a cup that caught Jesus' blood as he hung on the cross. By the time of the crusades it was considered to be just another relic (albeit an important one). But the earliest Grail romances, and the people's response to it, suggest something else.

In the early Grail stories, the Grail is sometimes a cup, sometimes a plate, sometimes a cauldron, sometimes a stone. Its real significance is not in what it is, but what it represents. The Grail was first held by Joseph of Arimathea, and then by his descendants down to Percival (a central character in the most important Grail stories). Possessing it was a major concern of King Arthur's knights. To cut a long story short, I will quote Phillips (p.47-48):
"Here lies the Grail's importance - it is a visible, tangible symbol of an alternative apostolic succession".

Did the Celtic church have genuine apostolic authority??

The Medieval Catholic church claimed the priesthood authority through the apostle Peter. It was important to them that they be the only church that could claim such authority. But the Celtic church claimed equal authority, also by a direct line direct from the Lord. They claimed their authority through Joseph of Arimathea and through the apostle John. At the famous synod of Whitby, 't was never questioned that the Celtic beliefs came from John. The issue was just whether the weight of the Roman church implied their claims were more important.

Whether or not the Celts in Britain really had such authority, or if that authority was kept intact until 570, may never be proven. But there is plenty of evidence that they did at some point - see the page on Celtic Christianity.

Joseph of Arimathea

Joseph of Arimathea, according to the apocryphal Evangelium Nicodemi (Gospel of Nicodemus), was an early leader in the church. According to the apocryphal Vindicta Salvatoris, after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Joseph set out to establish a church in the "far north". According to the Celts, Joseph came to England and lived at Glastonbury, where he ordained his successors. The Celtic Church claimed this was an apostolic succession, just like that claimed by the church of Rome. The church of Rome naturally saw the Celtic church as a threat.

According to William of Malmesbury, writing around 1125, the apostle Philip sent Joseph to Britain in AD 63. Glastonbury was traditionally the first church in the British Isles. Augustine went so far as to say (on his mission here in 600) that Glastonbury church was first constructed "by no human art,but by the hands of Christ himself". For this and other quotations, see "Saint Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury" by Lionel Smithett (London: Mowbray & Co., 1922) and "The Early History of Glastonbury"by John Scott, a translation of Malmesbury's medieval history (Bury St Edmunds: Boydell Press, 1981).

How much authority did Joseph of Arimathea have?

In some versions of the Grail romances, Joseph is taught "the secret words of Jesus" by the Lord himself. Joseph was the one chosen to dress and prepare Jesus' body for burial (See John 19:38-40). The significance will not be lost on Latter-Day Saints.

Just how much authority did Joseph of Arimathea have? His alleged successors "claimed to have secret knowledge, unknown to the established church". According to the Grail romances, the holder of the Grail (the priesthood?) was called the "rich fisher" or "fisher king", apparently referring to Peter, the fisherman.

The belief in the English Celtic church was that they traced their authority back directly to Christ, without going through Rome. Indeed, Malmesbury (in about 1125) refers to Glastonbury as a "second Rome". Some go even further, and believe that the evidence shows that the British church was far older than that of Rome, and built on stronger foundations.

The Grail and the Medieval Roman Church

The Holy Grail, according to many, is nothing else than the priesthood authority, as preserved in a far flung corner of the Lord's vineyard, away from the corruption of Rome. When it was lost it was sorely missed.

"The legends of Arthur and the Grail were to enshrine the resistance of many peoples to the authority of the Holy See" (Sinclair p.19).

So it was all the more important for these traditions, once absorbed by the medieval church, to be changed into a simple story of a cup, just another relic. It was essential to the medieval church that Christians should not be reminded of what they had lost.

The Grail and Gregory the Great

When the Celtic claims died, the Catholic claims were born (through the unique contributions of Gregory the Great). When the Roman church defeated the Celtic church, it inherited the grail legends. There is a fifteenth century Flemish painting called "The Mass of St Gregory". If I had copyright permission, I would reproduce it here. You can see a full page copy in "The Holy Grail" (Godwin) page 90.

St Gregory - Gregory the Great - made great claims to pre-eminent authority, and effectively invented the Medieval church, including revising the Mass and Eucharist. The painting shows him at a table on which is a sacramental cup or grail. Resting on the cup is apparently the sacramental bread. Above the cup is a vision of a naked Christ. It seems to recall the climax of the grail legends, where the pure knight Sir Galahad eventually finds the Holy Grail:

"A naked Christ then appears from out of the holy vessel and feeds them with the bread. He tells them that they have won a place at his table, which has not happened since the last supper when twelve disciples were there."

Galahad is told that "Britain is no longer worthy to harbour such a glory". Galahad and his companions take the grail to a holy city, and after two years Galahad dies and the Grail is taken to heaven. (See Godwin, p.134-35 for details and references.)

The timeframe is especially interesting. Godwin, after reading all the grail legends in depth, concludes that Perceval was a contemporary of St Brendan. Perceval is a key figure in the grail legends, and companion of Galahad in the legend just cited. In that legend, he died just a year after Galahad. Brendan may even have been the original source for some of the tales written about Perceval (Godwin p.115). Brendan is discussed on the page on the Celtic church.

Perceval / Brendan's career ended just as Gregory's began. It was around the year 570.

An alternative theory

A popular theory put forward in recent years (in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail") is that the grail was in fact the blood lineage of Christ. The early evidence the authors uncover could equally be used to support that claim that the grail was priesthood authority. It would be easy for the two concepts to be confused - if only one or two priesthood holders survived in hiding, it would make sense to pass the authority from father to son, and it would inevitably come to be seen as some kind of secret knowledge. And if the authority had indeed been lost, it is understandable if future generations tried to claim it based purely on lineage.

The importance of the Franks

According to the bloodline theory, the grail was preserved in late antiquity by the Merovingian blood line in what is now France. The most famous Merovingian was Clovis, who effectively began the Frankish empire and the history of France as we know it. Did he have some fragment of the "true" religion? Clovis' apparent conversion to Catholicism may have had more to do with the political advantages it gave him, allowing him to expand his empire in northern Europe.

The disaster called Chilperic

Clovis' son Lothair continued his work. But according to the bloodline theory, the next rightful heir was Clovis' grandson Chilperic, who reigned 539-584. Chilperic can be described in one word - evil. His murders and betrayals became infamous. Gregory of Tours (540-594) wrote the definitive history of the Merovingians. He described Chilperic as "The Nero and Herod of his Age". If heaven had not withdrawn its authority before that time, it would certainly have been lost under Chilperic.

The aftermath: the Carolingians take over

Chilperic's most infamous crime was having his wife, the queen, murdered, circa 570. According to the Britannica, "The consequences of this crime [having his queen murdered] constitute virtually the only clearly discernible thread in the tangled skein of Frankish history over the next four decades". Chilperic's grandson, Dagobert I, became king of all the Franks from 629 to 639, but was the last king of any consequence (according to Grolier). There was a steady decline and eventually the Carolingians took over. The Carolingians, good Roman believers, produced Charlemagne and the "Holy Roman Empire". And the rest is history.

What year was the grail lost?

All the physical evidence points to the sixth century in general, and 570 in particular.

•The first Arthurian legends (the Gododdin and Llongborth poems and those attributed to Taliesin) are based on material from the late sixth century.

•"What appears to be one of the earliest images of the grail" is on a sixth century tomb in Ravenna, Italy (Godwin, p.95).

•One of the "thirteen treasures of Britain", allegedly guarded by Merlin, is "a clear counterpart to Chretien's grail" (Chretien is the author of the first and most important grail romance). The treasure in question is "the Dysgl of Rhydderch, sixth century king of Strathclyde" (Godwin p.52). Strathclyde, in Scotland, was in the northernmost parts of Celtic Britain, and would therefore have been one of the last outposts to fall to an enemy.

•The name "Arthur" first became well known around the year 570: "Arthur map Petr of Dyfed is one of a number of princes Christened with this name in Britain around 570. Before this time, it is recorded only for Arthur, the battle-leader of the Britons. This suggests that the name was already revered around this time, a generation or so after the death of the original Arthur, when the Angles and Saxons were again on the move, threatening to undo all of Arthur's achievements. This, along with the reference by Taliesin in The Gododdin (598) to Arthur, apparently as a warrior to be emulated, constitutes the earliest references to Arthur's name and fame." - from "The Ruin and Conquest of Britain 400 A.D. - 600 A.D. As told by the Primary Sources" at ... tml#Arthur

•If the Grail is the authority of the Celtic church, then along with the health of the church in England, it must have been lost some time around or before 570, the death of Gildas, and the time when archaeologists see a visible shift in religious practice (discussed on the Celtic church page).

•If the grail was held by the Merovingians, it is likely to have been lost during the reign of Chilperic I, who murdered his wife circa 570.

•If the grail just symbolises an alternative to the Roman church, it was lost when Gregory came to power. Gregory's power dates from his campaigns against the Lombards from 570 (which is why the church wanted him to be pope some years later). It was Gregory, with his concern for the Britons, Franks, Lombards, etc. (see the quotations on the Europe page), who sent Augustine to "convert" the Celtic Christians to the Roman church.

•Many scholars believe that the grail seeker, Perceval, was based on Peredyr, King of Ebrauc. Peredyr's famous and last great victory was in 573. But he was unable to take advantage of this victory, and seven years later was killed.

•If Perceval is based on Brendan, as suggested above, this would confirm a date for the loss of the grail at around 570.


The quest for the Grail is a story of failure, of attempt after attempt to regain it, attempts that come to nothing. The priesthood was lost. The loss, like the loss of the Celtic church, dates from the late sixth century - in other words, the period around 570. But once it had been lost in AD 570, God had decreed that it would stay lost for 1260 years - until God Himself decided to return it.

The promised restoration would not be of the Celtic priesthood, which may or may not have been an authentic memory of the original. It would be a full restoration of what had been had in the days of Jesus' ministry, in all its original glory and purity. No wonder the saints in 1830 got so excited!
The spirit of the times

The Germans have a word (or so I am told, I do not speak the language), "zeitgeist", or the spirit of the age. Is it coincidence that the legends of Arthur date from a period that ended in the late sixth century, but their finest hour was not for another 1260 years, when they were re-discovered by the early Victorians? There was occasional Arthurian interest before then, but nothing like that of the early nineteenth century: Malory has been in print since 1826, Tennyson wrote his first Arthurian poem in 1832 (The Lady of Shalott), and then the floodgates were open for Sir Walter Scott, the pre-Raphaelites and others. And they in turn led to an upsurge in interest in all things Celtic. After 1260 years in the wilderness, the old ideas were coming back!

The once and future king

According to legend, Arthur would return at the time of England's greatest need. If we treat Arthur as a representative of the English who tried to preserve the true faith at a time of great opposition, this may have already been fulfilled.

It is my claim that the Holy Grail was the priesthood authority, and that this priesthood authority was restored after 1260 years, and is held by what the world calls the "Mormon" church. The Mormons are in this sense the new Celts.

There was a time in Mormon history, the mid nineteenth century, when the church was under tremendous pressure from outside, and almost did not survive. In the year 1837, when great numbers were leaving (or being excommunicated from) the church, some of the best missionaries were sent to the British Isles. Over the next decades, tens of thousands of men and women in Arthur's land answered the call. There was even a time when there were more "Mormons" in Britain than in America. It is no exaggeration to say that the British saints saved the church from extinction. This time the Grail would not be lost again. Arthur had returned!

The bottom line

The Mormons have the Holy Grail - priesthood authority that can be traced to the Lord Jesus Christ, without going through the medieval catholic church.

User avatar
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: West Virginia

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Deborah000 »

How interesting! Thank you so much for this information. Half of my family lines are from the British Isle areas and I love to read about the celtic peoples.

captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by believer »

This is all so very interesting.

Since there is a possibility that the Celts and others in Northern Europe and the British Isles are part of the Lost 10 Tribes, especially Ephriam, (and I believe they are), then they would have been visited by Christ himself after he visited the Nephites. If so, then they had the complete gospel taught to them by non other than the Lord.

Like you said before, "It will be so interesting when we can see the history and the people, and what effected what.

Thanks again for posting all of this.


the Heir Of Numenor
Posts: 4229
Location: UT

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by HeirofNumenor »

Very interesting thank you

captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by believer »

P.S. And I really like the pictures too.


User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »

This is all so very interesting.

Since there is a possibility that the Celts and others in Northern Europe and the British Isles are part of the Lost 10 Tribes, especially Ephriam, (and I believe they are), then they would have been visited by Christ himself after he visited the Nephites. If so, then they had the complete gospel taught to them by non other than the Lord.

Like you said before, "It will be so interesting when we can see the history and the people, and what effected what.

Thanks again for posting all of this.

It could very well be that the Savior did visit the portion of the Ten Tribes who were left behind in Northern Europe. If He did then they also apostatized just as the Nephites did. We know they don’t have prophets today as the Ten Tribes and we do.

Believer, have you read what Skousen has to say about this in the thread below?

Cleon Skousen and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel ... 14&t=21402

captain of 100
Posts: 145

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by highfive »

Great posts! I may have to read the Venerable Bede. this is a jewel of a thread.

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »



The Briton who almost saved the church


This page is not so much about "proving" anything, but it is a tribute to a hero of mine. Outside the restored gospel I have two heroes. One was Michael Faraday. The other is Pelagius – though his real name was Morgan, and his friends called him Brito.

At first it might seem that Pelagius is not as important to the prophecies of the Dark Ages as Constantine or Augustine or Gregory. But unlike them he shines as a beacon of light in the darkness. He offered one last chance for the church to escape from the jaws of The Beast. Truth is always more important than error. So Pelagius stands head and shoulders above all the other figures in the crucial period of decline, AD 100 to 570.

He is of special personal interest to me because, like me, he was tall, overweight, and British. I hope I can become like him –a man of great integrity and wisdom, admired by all who knew him, yet genuinely not wanting admiration. He focuses on one or two key issues that have concerned me personally (I will not bore you with which ones). As a man of outstanding learning, ability, modesty and righteousness at a key moment in history, he deserves to be remembered.

Unless stated, the quotations on this page are from the Celtic Orthodox Christianity website at If that site is down, much the same material can be found at

Quotations, as usual, are in blue.

Grace and works

Pelagius should be of special interest to Mormons. Like us, he believed that both grace and works are necessary for salvation. Like us, he opposed much of Augustine's teachings as being opposed to the spirit and the letter of the original gospel. But like us, he is falsely accused of believing in salvation by works alone, and of opposing orthodox Christian teachings.

Who was he?

Augustine’s "chief opponent", condemned as "the West's chief heresiarch."

Around the year 400, Saint Augustine created the theology on which all Catholicism and Protestantism is based. Pelagius was Augustine’s "chief opponent". While Augustine taught that mankind is basically evil and his works do not count toward salvation, Pelagius was horrified to see the practical effects of this: wickedness in Rome. People did not try too hard, and righteousness declined. Pelagius spent his life teaching that righteousness is essential to the gospel. Pelagius taught that when Jesus said "be ye therefore perfect", he meant it.

As a person

"Tall in stature and portly in appearance (Jerome, loc. cit., 'grandis et corpulentus'), Pelagius was highly educated, spoke and wrote Latin as well as Greek with great fluency and was well versed in theology. Though a monk and consequently devoted to practical asceticism, he never was a cleric; for both Orosius and Pope Zosimus simply call him a 'layman'. In Rome itself he enjoyed the reputation of austerity, while St. Augustine called him even a 'saintly man'…" - From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"[contemporary] commentators have described Pelagius as 'a cultivated and sensitive layman,' 'an elusive and gracious figure, beloved and respected wherever he goes,' always 'silent, smiling, reserved,' certainly a 'modest and retiring man.' "

In context

His background

"He inherited in his theological formation the Romanised Celtic tradition, 'with its emphasis on faith and good works, on the holiness of all life and the oneness of all.' Consequently, once in Rome, he became impatient with the moral laxity that surrounded him. The Christianization of the Empire was not making true Christians of people, he believed, only 'conforming pagans.' "

This is important to any LDS readers who are expecting to read about a prototype Joseph Smith. I am not saying that Pelagius received new revelation. He was simply a righteous man who could not ignore the most serious falsehoods when he saw them. He did not concern himself with other doctrines. So, for example, he accepted the prevailing beliefs regarding the trinity.

This is rather like the church in the 1830s. An atheist friend of mine used to delight in showing me hymns in the first LDS hymnbook that referred to "three in one". But we must remember God does not reveal all the truth all at once. We could not accept it if he did. Truth must be revealed "line upon line", "milk before meat". Clearly the falsehood of the "trinity" doctrine was less important compared to more pressing matters.

"The main focus of his preaching was never theological, but practical moral advice."

His teachings and the opposition they aroused

His teachings

"The first hint of theological controversy came around 405, when Pelagius heard someone reading from Augustine's Confessions, 'Give me what you command and command what you will.' This verse annoyed Pelagius very much; he believed this and other Augustinian teachings contradicted the traditional Christian understanding of grace and free will, turning man into a 'mere marionette, a robot.' Soon after, he wrote his famous Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, in which he set out his opposition to such Augustinian doctrines as the inherited guilt of original sin, rigid predestination, and the necessity of baptism to spare infants from hell."

Powerful Opposition

"Unsurprisingly, Jerome and Augustine were not convinced by the conclusions at Jerusalem and Diospolis. They decided to direct all their energies to attacking Pelagius and the British monk soon found himself 'out-maneuvered and out-gunned.' "

"After the Synod of Ephesos in 431, it became a crime to be in possession of any Pelagian works, so they were transmitted under others' names. The great irony of this letter is that for centuries it [Letter to Demetrias] was considered to be one of the works of Jerome and was included in his corpus of writings."

His simple message – righteousness – was a threat to the church

"Today, historians of the Church realise that Pelagius was not condemned simply on theological grounds. Rather, Pelagius's teaching was seen as a threat, a 'potentially dangerous source of schism in the body social and politic.' His central message that there is only one authentic Christian life, the path to perfection, left no room for nominal Christians. If he had gone off into the Syrian or Egyptian desert, he would probably have been a revered 'abba.' Instead, he clashed with the comfortable Christianity which had become the basis of unity in the Imperial Church, and, as a result, he has gone down as the West's chief heresiarch."

In his own words

A great believer in faith, repentance, baptism, and eternal progress

"This theme of baptismal rebirth is taken up again as a direct exhortation to the young Demetrias:"

"Consider, I beseech you, that high rank with which you have been made glorious before God and through which you were reborn in baptism to become a daughter of God."

"Another dominant theme from Scripture is Pelagius's stress that progress in the spiritual life is all-important. . . . No hour should go by for a Christian, he insists, without some measure of spiritual growth."

His central teachings: keep the commandments

"There is nothing that Pelagius abhors more than people forsaking the path to life because it is too hard or difficult, because 'we are but men, we are encompassed by frail flesh' (16:2). To deny, as Augustine and Jerome did, man's innate goodness and capacity to live a holy life is not only moral pessimism, it is real blasphemy: for it means that God does not know what he has done or commanded, or that he does not remember the human frailty which he created, or that God has 'commanded something impossible' and therefore seeks not our salvation but our punishment and damnation (16:2).

"The Lord of Justice wished man to be free to act and not under compulsion; it was for this reason that 'he left him free to make his own decisions' and set before him life and death, good and evil, and he shall be given whatever pleases him."

"His central argument, though, is from the Old Testament; he produces a lengthy roll-call of the patriarchs and Old Testament saints (5:1ff) whose examples of holiness prove that it is possible to follow the commandments. Again, Pelagius emphasizes the practical moral implications of this doctrine of human goodness:

"We can never enter upon the path of virtue, unless we have hope as our guide and companion and if every effort expended in seeking something is nullified in effect by despair of ever finding it."

"The view of his opponents that there is something in nature which compels human beings to sin strikes Pelagius as 'blaming nature' for what is really the choice of free human persons. He writes:

"If it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scriptures, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under the constraint of nature."

"For the British monk, it was not true to say as Augustine did that all men sinned in Adam and thus inherit his guilt; human beings of their own free will simply imitate Adam and re-enact the Fall in themselves."

What he did NOT say


Some of those who heard him were so impressed that they went further. So it is important to note that Pelagius did not go as far as some "Pelagians" who denied the central role of God’s grace in salvation. And he did not agree with his friend Celestius who believed that, since we are not guilty of "original sin", then Adam was just like us and was mortal right from the start. In fact, most of what we know about Pelagius comes from his enemies, so we have to be very careful what we attribute to him.

"Few churchmen have been so maligned as Pelagius in the Christian West. For nearly 1,500 years, all that anyone has known of the British monk's theology has come from what his opponents said about him — and when one's opponents are as eminent as Augustine and Jerome, the chance of getting a fair hearing is not great. Consequently, it has been easy to lay all manner of pernicious heresies at Pelagius's doorstep. Only in the last couple of decades have scholars been able to recover and examine Pelagius's works directly. What they have found is that very little of what has historically passed for 'Pelagian' heresy was actually taught by him."

He did not make wild claims

"I did indeed say that a man can be without sin and keep the commandments of God, if he wishes, for this ability has been given to him by God. However, I did not say that any man can be found who has never sinned from his infancy up to his old age, but that, having been converted from his sins, he can be without sin by his own efforts and God's grace, yet not even by this means is he incapable of change for the future."

"While he was totally committed to the possibility of a completely sinless life, Pelagius was thus reluctant to admit anyone had ever achieved it."

Pelagius is remembered as an ascetic - one who lives on the simplest of material goods and fasts a great deal. But even here he did not go to extremes.

"The reason for moderation is clear: 'the body has to be controlled, not broken' (21:2)."


Pelagius - Morgan the Briton - was the only man who could usefully oppose the great Augustine. His message was profoundly positive. You are a child of God. You are not basically evil, and you can live righteously if you choose. He preached this for twenty years in Rome. But Rome did not want it. Pelagius was condemned him as a heretic and his writings were banned. Like Ezekiel a thousand years before, he had stood as the watchman. He had seen the approaching destruction and had warned the people. What more could he do?

In summary

"He began preaching with the fervent desire to lead everyone to live an authentic Christian life according to the Gospel. Pelagius believed that the grace and renewing power of baptism had brought the opportunity to struggle on the path to perfection; but instead, he saw Christians squandering their baptism and 'lapsing back into their old, comfortable habits of self-indulgence and careless pursuit of Mammon.' "

A hundred years after he was silenced, there was one last attempt to reform the church

"Pelagius's lonely and thankless struggle against the novel doctrines of Augustine and Jerome was eventually taken up by monks in southern Gaul. … They saw the Augustinian theological system as a threat to grace as synergy, as a partnership between God and man. … These noble Gallic monks were later branded 'Semi-Pelagians,' and their doctrine of synergy was condemned at the Synod of Orange in 529."


For more details, see "A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius" on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, from Wheaton College at

The Celtic Orthodox Christianity website at a similar article at

the bottom line

God did not leave the world helpless to its fate. Even at its eleventh hour, he sent a teacher of righteousness. But he was ignored and rejected, as were the prophets who were before him.

captain of 100
Posts: 301
Location: Westward Ho!

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Glenn »

Joseph of Arimathea - and the Lord himself?

Some people make great claims for the importance of Britain in early Christianity. These are discussed elsewhere.
Whatever the truth, there is plenty of evidence that the church in Britain, these "Isles of the sea", could trace its authority to Christ, through the apostles, without going through Rome
I came across a curious book titled "The Drama of The Lost Disciples" by George F. Jowett. The book was out of print and part of a esoteric collection of books. I had an opportunity to purchase the book and something impressed me to do so....What a vein of Gold! It is an amazing book that discusses details about the Savior's ministry in Jerusalem. It also dives into the aftermath of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Lord. It presents a fascinating story of the early Church including Joseph of Arimathea. The Early Saints referred to their journey as "The Way"..The book documents that the transfer of authority was passed by the "laying on of hands". To make a long story short, Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man who owned TIN mines in the British isles. Allegedly, Joseph A, Mother Mary, and others fled the Middle East and relocated there.

The book is very well written, very inspiring, and fairly well researched. I believe there is much truth within its pages, and it feeds into the subject matter of this thread.

captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by believer »

OMD----I read in the "Church History" by Joseph Smith where Joseph Smith said that the Lost 10 Tribes were on a star. It has been quite a few years ago that I read it, but if I remember correctly, he was at someone else's home. He pointed to the "polar star" and said that the 10 tribes were on the "little twinkler" to the side of it.

Cleon Skousen has been a hero of mine ever since I was a little girl and he was with the FBI. When he was in Phoenix on a case, he would stay at our house. When I went to BYU, he was no longer there, but was the police chief in SLC. I have read many of his books and other works, but not all. Many of the things that I read, I had forgotten. I have not pulled all of the things said about the Lost 10 Tribes together like you have, so to read what you have posted is very informative to me, and I appreciate it. Thanks for posting it.


P.S. This whole thread is very interesting.

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Oldemandalton »

I came across a curious book titled "The Drama of The Lost Disciples" by George F. Jowett. The book was out of print and part of a esoteric collection of books. I had an opportunity to purchase the book and something impressed me to do so....What a vein of Gold! It is an amazing book that discusses details about the Savior's ministry in Jerusalem. It also dives into the aftermath of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Lord. It presents a fascinating story of the early Church including Joseph of Arimathea. The Early Saints referred to their journey as "The Way"..The book documents that the transfer of authority was passed by the "laying on of hands". To make a long story short, Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man who owned TIN mines in the British isles. Allegedly, Joseph A, Mother Mary, and others fled the Middle East and relocated there.

The book is very well written, very inspiring, and fairly well researched. I believe there is much truth within its pages, and it feeds into the subject matter of this thread.
Thanks for the tip, Glenn, I’ll have get a copy.

OMD----I read in the "Church History" by Joseph Smith where Joseph Smith said that the Lost 10 Tribes were on a star. It has been quite a few years ago that I read it, but if I remember correctly, he was at someone else's home. He pointed to the "polar star" and said that the 10 tribes were on the "little twinkler" to the side of it.

Cleon Skousen has been a hero of mine ever since I was a little girl and he was with the FBI. When he was in Phoenix on a case, he would stay at our house. When I went to BYU, he was no longer there, but was the police chief in SLC. I have read many of his books and other works, but not all. Many of the things that I read, I had forgotten. I have not pulled all of the things said about the Lost 10 Tribes together like you have, so to read what you have posted is very informative to me, and I appreciate it. Thanks for posting it.


P.S. This whole thread is very interesting.
I was lucky enough to take Skousen’s Book of Mormon class years ago.

While going through a used book store one day in St George I found a copy of his book “The Cleansing of America”. Found a lot of good stuff as usual plus references to where the Lost 10 Tribes may be. I went through his other books and found what I posted on the “Cleon Skousen and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel” thread. I have always admired the man and his depth of knowledge of the gospel AND what is going on politically in the country.

More from Chris Tolworthy:

Israel, Britain, and early Christianity


Israel, Britain, and early Christianity
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariots of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.


Did Jesus visit Britain? Did his mother Mary die here? Did Peter, and Paul, Luke, Simon, and other apostles preach here? Was the first Christian Church built here? All these claims and more are contained in ancient documents that most people do not read, or reject as apocryphal. But could they be true?
It is a stirring and inspiring story. Could it be true? It is, after all, based on documentary evidence. The claims of the "British Israelism" movement are listed on this page, together with comments from the point of view of conventional scholarship and the restoration.

General comments

This topic is too big to do justice to on one page, so I will just list the major claims. The information is from "The Drama of the Lost Disciples" by George F. Jowett. Page numbers refer to that book. This and similar publications can be ordered from Covenant Books, 8 Blades Court, Deodar Road, Putney, London SW15 2NU, or online from . Please note that these publishers are nothing to do with the LDS church!

The "Messenger" site has a good page on Joseph of Arimathea at" onclick=";return false;. This is part of a fundamentalist (i.e. pro-polygamy) web site. It contains some great material - well researched and thought through. I am very impressed by the site. But there are fundamental errors with fundamentalism.

The British Israelite position

At its simplest, the British Israelite believers say that Joseph of Arimathea visited Britain some time after the crucifixion. (Joseph was the man who provided Jesus' tomb - see Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 16:43-46, Luke 23:50-53, John 19:38). The story is that Joseph was a tin merchant who sometimes came to Cornwall (the ancient center for tin mining). This is quite a modest claim, and backed up by several ancient traditions.

At its most developed, there are claims that the British are literal descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, and that Britain, not Rome, is the true cradle of Christianity in the years following the crucifixion. Jesus himself had visited this land while a young man, and many of the apostles visited at later times. This legend is best expressed in Blake's famous poem "Jerusalem", later set to music by Parry.

Do modern scholars take these claims seriously?

Possibly not. But how many scholars do you know who even read the sources? The British Triads, the Roman histories, the Byzantine Martyrologies, and so on? And how many of these even take them seriously? If we do not take them seriously, it is only because we filter them through modern points of view. It seems to me the "British Israelite" believers have simply read he works that we ignore, and said "maybe they were telling the truth".

That isn't to say that every claim will turn out to be true. Every scholar has to revise his work, especially where ancient history is concerned. But after seeing the mess that many scholars make of the Bible, I am personally inclined to trust the people who trust the ancient sources.

How important are these claims?

I have not investigated the "British Israel" theory as closely as I would like, so I cannot say whether all the claims (or even most of them) stand up to scrutiny. I am not an expert. But the claims deserve to be heard. After all, few people would disagree that at least one of Christ's original apostles may have visited Britain as part of their command to go into "all the world". So it is reasonable to assume that Britain had a claim to apostolic authority. It is also safe to assume that the British church would have developed a little differently to the church in Rome, if only because of the great distance between them.

But if these claims are true, they are significant for three reasons:

•They shed new light on the Great Apostasy. It shows another fulfillment of how the Lord uses far flung corners of his vineyard in an attempt to preserve the truth - see Jacob chapter 5 (Book of Mormon).

•We see that the apostasy was not a quiet slide into obscurity, but a life and death struggle between the outlying churches and Rome, dramatically reconstructed in the book "The Drama of the Lost Disciples"

•Many (if not most) of the early Latter-day Saints traced their roots back to Britain, and most of these are (according to patriarchal blessings) literal descendants of the house of Israel.

The claims

Each of these claims are defended and developed at length in the books published by Covenant and elsewhere. Here I just list them with minimal comment.
A summary of the boldest claims:

In brief, it is claimed that the following visited Britain at least once:

•Jesus Christ (with his uncle, Joseph, long before his ministry began)
•Mary, mother of Jesus (and she died here)
•Simon Zelotes (who was martyred here)
•Joseph of Arimathea
•Mary Magdalene
•Lazarus (whom Jesus raised from the dead)
•Maximin (whose sight was restored by Jesus)
•and others


•The word "Christian" was first used in Britain
•Britain also saw the first Christian church
•British people began the church in Rome
•The bodies of Peter and Paul are in Britain
•and so on.

Why was Britain chosen? Because the claim is that the British people have Hebrew origins, had never been defeated, worshipped Jesus by name in pre-Christian times, and so on. Let's look at this in a little more detail.

Claims regarding Joseph of Arimathea

1. Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy Roman - called "nobilis decurio" in the ancient texts. Traditions say he was a tin merchant. Cornwall was the center of the tin trade, so it is likely he made regular visits.

2. The apostle John, given responsibility for Mary (mother of Jesus), saw that he could not offer her the safety she needed, made Joseph her "Paranymphos" (guardian)

3. According to the Talmud (?), Joseph was Mary's uncle. When Mary's husband died, Joseph of Arimathea could have become Jesus' legal guardian. This would explain traditions that say Jesus visited Britain - he would have come with his uncle.

4. According to the Catholic historian Cardinal Baronius, in AD 36 Joseph and other important Christians were set adrift from Palestine in a boat without oars. They drifted finally to Marseilles in France, and from there went to Britain.

5. According to Baronius, quoting "The Acts of Magdalen" and other manuscripts, Joseph brought with him Mary Magdalene, Martha, Lazarus (whom Jesus raised from the dead), Maximin (whose sight was restored by Jesus) and others. Other sources say that Philip and James also accompanied Joseph.

6. One record states that Joseph was ordained by the apostle Philip, and this was done on three separate occasions.

7. According to Gildas (Britain's foremost early historian, writing in the sixth century), Joseph introduced Christianity into Britain in the last year of Tiberius - AD 37.

8.According to contemporary Roman accounts, Claudius' campaign against the British (soon after Joseph's party arrived) was a war of religious extermination.

9. According to Melchinus in AD 450 (and also William of Malmesbury), Mary the mother of Jesus was buried at Glastonbury.
What other scholars say

Some other scholars disagree with all this. But if you examine their arguments, they come down to "the ancient historians were always changing history to suit themselves so we don't trust them". But they are unable to prove that the ancient historians were mostly liars. Personally, I trust the ancient historians more than the modern ones.

Claims regarding Jesus and the early Church

1. According to religious teachers in India, Jesus visited the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal while a young man. They state that he the went on to "The Sacred Isles of the West", to "Britashtan, the seat of religious learning" (note what Gildas said about British universities).

2. It is noted that the tribute money in Mathew 17:24-26, often assumed to be the temple tax, is stated in the text to be for strangers (verses 25-26). The fact that it was requested of Jesus may imply that he had been away from Palestine for some time before his ministry began.

3. British tradition is that the young Jesus visited the site of Avalon (later Glastonbury) and built a wattle altar or church (wattle was the usual building material at the time). St Augustine later referred to this in a letter to Pope Gregory.

Claims regarding the early Christian church

1. Writers in Bible lands first heard the word "Christian" at the sea port of Antioch. But Sabellus (writing AD 250) says the word was used prior to that in Britain.

2. According to Bishop Lightfoot and others, Paul's epistle to the Galatians was probably written to Gaul, and not the less important outpost of Gaul called Galatia. Hence Paul moved through what is now France. The British Isles were not as inaccessible as was once thought.

3. According to various Roman Catholic statements, the church in Rome accepted until recently that apostles were in Britain before Rome.

4. According to Pope Pius XI (in 1931), it was Paul (and not Augustine) who first introduced Christianity into Britain. According to Polydore Vergil (a famous catholic at the time of Henry VIII), "Britain... was of all kingdoms the first to receive the Gospel". Another Catholic leader, Robert Parsons, states that "The Christian religion began in Britain".

5. According to Matthew 21:43, the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and be given to "a nation" that could deliver its fruits.

6. According to St David (AD 546), the Glastonbury church was the first land the Christian church owned anywhere.

7. During the time that the apostles visited Rome, the main Christian stronghold (where the apostles tended to stay) appears to have been the Palatium Britannicum, the British Palace. It became the first Christian church in Rome. It was owned by the British general Caractacus, whose son Linus became the first bishop of Rome, according to the Apostolic Constitutions.

8. According to Eusebius (as quoted by Simon Metaphrastes), Peter visited Britain during he time he was at Rome.

9. According to various early sources, Aristobulus preached in Britain.

10. According to Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography, St. Luke preached in Gaul and elsewhere, and made frequent trips to Britain.

11. According to Dorotheus (in AD 300), Simon Zelotes was crucified and buried in Britain. Adding together the various sources, the lists of saints buried at Glastonbury is superior to any other site in the ancient world.

12. According to the Pauline manuscripts at Oxford, and also the British Triads, Paul preached in Britain for a short time. (The New Testament is silent for six years of Paul's mission, and many scholars assume he preached in Gaul for this time).

13. According to Bede, the bodies of Peter and Paul are in Britain - they were moved here centuries after their death after a request from the king to the Pope at the time.

There are plenty more claims of this nature, but listing them all is beyond the scope of this page. I am sure you get the general idea by now.

Claims regarding the nation of Britain

Claims regarding the ancient Britons (Before Christ)

Many "British Israel"ers make the grand claim that the ancient British were predominantly Hebrew. I have looked at many sources relating to the ancient Britons, and the evidence does not seem to say this. The LDS point of view is that most modern Britons do have some blood of Israel in them. But this could just as well mean we are all on average1% Hebrew and 99% Gentile - that would still mean we have the blood of Israel.

Nobody can be sure

Of course, nobody can be sure. If anybody says "the evidence PROVES this or that" they are lying, because:

1. There are no surviving ancient Celtic or Druidic books from before Christ - we do not have their own version of events

2. There are many different groups that are classed as Celtic. Just because one had a particular belief, that does not mean that all had that belief.

3. We have relatively few remains, so there is a lot of guesswork. For example, a lot of conclusions are based on a single example of an ancient Celtic man who's remains were preserved in a bog. How realistic is it to draw conclusions on an entire society based on a single individual?

4. Many of the written sources come from enemies. For example two sources speak of human sacrifice among the ancient druids. But one is from a Christian writing long after the events, who considered them all to be non-Christian pagans. Another is from the Romans who were busy fighting them at the time and would want their people to hate them. There is an example of a preserved corpse that seems to have been ritually killed, but for all we know it could have been a criminal or from a minority group.

Claims regarding the medieval Britons (long after the early apostles)

Many "British Israel"ers claim that Britain is so strongly descended from Israel that the Biblical prophecies regarding Israel are fulfilled in Britain. Most scholars strongly disagree. The LDS church also disagrees. Israel in the Bible refers either to the nation of Israel or to the church. The case for Britain being predominantly biological Israel is weak. And the case for Britain representing the true church died in the Dark Ages, the Great Apostasy.

Statements by modern day prophets- what is the LDS view of "British Israelism"?

A definition of Israel - Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.437

Israel -- Who are Israel? They are those who are of the seed of Abraham, who received the promise through their forefathers; and all the rest of the children of men, who receive the truth, are also Israel. My heart is always drawn out for them, whenever I go to the throne of grace. 1:107.

Israel is diluted and mixed with other nations - Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.437

Israel is dispersed among all the nations of the earth; the blood of Ephraim is mixed with the blood of all the earth. Abraham's seed is mingled with the rebellious seed through the whole world of mankind. 16:75.

Brigham Young also said that the Anglo-Saxon race has the blood of Ephraim. But given that Ephraim's descendants have been spread thinly over all the world, and that most of them (us) are in a state of apostasy, we should not be surprised if most of the world does not look or act like Israelites!

Some misunderstandings regarding changing blood

Again, if a pure Gentile firmly believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yields obedience to it, in such a case I will give you the words of the Prophet Joseph: "The effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham."- Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.437.

Some people think that the LDS church teaches that blood physically changes when someone is baptized. Other people think that the idea of the "blood of Israel" is racist. Both ideas are false. Anyone who joins the church, if they are not Israel already, are adopted into the house of Israel. As John the Baptist said to those who relied on their blood ancestry:

Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

"Purging blood" just refers to cleansing the inner person, including cleansing of anything bad inherited from the past ("foolish traditions of their fathers" as the Book of Mormon bluntly states it). It is explained in Hebrews 9: 13-14:

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Now let us return to the separate issue of the legacy of Joseph of Arimathea:

Whitby and the loss of early British Christianity

The "Golden Age" then the Great Apostasy

All this refers to the time before Gregory the Great sent Augustine in the late sixth century to "convert" the British.

The teachers of the "British Israelite" theories do not directly admit that the sending of Augustine was a tragedy that destroyed whatever good the British church had preserved. But by their own evidence that is exactly what happened. Page 162, speaking of the synod of Whitby, says:

"Though the British Church [up to this point] steadfastly refused to recognise the recently instituted authority of the Pope, A.D. 610, flatly denying the worship of Mary or the use of the term 'Mother of God', proclaimed by the Roman Church A.D. 431, at the council of Ephesus, or the doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory the Great about the year A.D. 593, they shared the same communion".

In other words, they drank from the same poisoned goblet, and in time the British church accepted all these things and more. The book will not say that giving in to Rome after 600 years, was a disaster. All it will say is, in the very next paragraph:

"The first six hundred years following the Passion of Christ can truly be called the Golden Age of Christianity"

When Gregory sent Augustine to "convert" the British, all was lost.

A criticism of British Israelitism

The British Israelite theory (as far as I have seen) teaches that the British retained its truths even through the dark Ages. I think this is a great weakness in the theory. it ignores the testimony of history. If Rome had so many errors, how could Britain be ruled by Rome and accept those errors without becoming polluted?

No wonder people cannot accept the evidence that the British church as once great, when they are also asked to swallow the idea that its greatness continued through the ignorance and evils of the Dark Ages. Plainly the British church as as mixed up as every other church for that period. People see it and say "the British church is not so great - British Israelitism must be rubbish". Yet perhaps the British church was great, once, before it became just another satellite of Rome?

Reformation or Restoration?

The "Lost Disciples" book tries to say that the British church was revived by the Protestant reformation, which rejected much that was Roman and unbiblical. But even here it has to admit the truth. Henry VIII is credited with bringing about the reformation in England. yet he turned out to be even worse than the Roman church leaders. On page 145 we see that the British church headquarters at Glastonbury had survived the worst the Roman empire and Roman church could throw at it for 1500 years. But it could not survive Henry VIII.

"This despotic monarch not only stole all its precious possessions but robed it of all its ancient privileges and brutally murdered the last Abbot."

The true church could not be reformed with men like this in charge. The truth must be restored in the same way that it was restored the last time - by prophets of God, with the ministering of angels, under the direction of Jesus Christ himself.


The British church - and the church everywhere - needed to be restored from heaven. And it was, in the year 1830, the only year it could happen, and exactly as prophesied.

I do not know if all the claims of British Israelitism are correct. I know that many Christians think they go too far. But I also know that these same critics do not even read the early texts.

I will just finish by noting that Joseph Smith claimed to be a literal descendant of Ephraim - and this Joseph's ancestors came from Britain.

the bottom line

If these claims are true, then God did not leave the church in the hands of the Beast - Rome. He prepared another place of safety. But by the late sixth century even Britain had been overcome.

User avatar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 14913

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Niemand »

Mainly replying here because I want to read this later. I'm going to be posting on King Arthur soon.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13326
Location: England

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Robin Hood »

Many years ago I was Chris Tolworthy's Sunday School teacher.

User avatar
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 14913

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by Niemand »

Robin Hood wrote: October 25th, 2022, 4:27 pm Many years ago I was Chris Tolworthy's Sunday School teacher.
The Tolworthys seem to get everywhere.

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3293

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by FrankOne »

Oldemandalton wrote: March 21st, 2012, 8:48 pm I read of this event Believer. It was the cause of the fall and birth of civilizations and a great migration of peoples searching for food.
Here is another article on the subject. Can’t wait for the Millennium to read and speak to those who lived history.

Were the Dark Ages Triggered by Volcano-Related Climate Changes in the 6th Century?


The bottom line

The Mormons have the Holy Grail - priesthood authority that can be traced to the Lord Jesus Christ, without going through the medieval catholic church.
It is possible that the Grail is substantive instead of ritualistic. For this reason, those that actually knew what it was (the noble and pure in heart) were so diligently searching for it.

in other words, today, miracles are just as common for non-denominational Christians as they are for LDS members. Members don't want to consider this nor understand it because it offends their fragile sensibilities. The power of faith is what is in effect today. Belief.

The Grail is something quite different and is highly likely the instrument for priesthood holders to effectively use for purposes of the true baptism of Christ which literally cleanses a man from the fall of Adam and restores him to a pre-fall condition. This is not performed today . The current baptism is a ritual which benefits on the level of belief.

The Grail is the introduction into the Golden Age as the world is about to re-enter. Saint means a pure person. A purified person. A holy person. Today? LD Saints are none of the foregoing nor are there likely more than a handful of Saints on earth today.

The priesthood keys are likely literal in creating a baptismal water which changes the blood of a natural man into a saint. Hence the term "San Greal" (Holy Blood).

User avatar
~dog days~
Posts: 2871

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by abijah »

FrankOne wrote: October 25th, 2022, 6:52 pmHence the term "San Greal" (Holy Blood).
i think it goes:
San Greal = "Holy Grail"
Sang Real = "Royal Blood"

It may well be Joseph’s silver 'nahash'-cup that he surreptitiously puts in Benjamin's backpack. Image

User avatar
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3293

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by FrankOne »

abijah wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:05 pm
FrankOne wrote: October 25th, 2022, 6:52 pmHence the term "San Greal" (Holy Blood).
i think it goes:
San Greal = "Holy Grail"
Sang Real = "Royal Blood"

It may well be Joseph’s silver 'nahash'-cup that he surreptitiously puts in Benjamin's backpack. Image
It is my understanding that good men sought it out because they had a deeper awareness of the gravity of the pollution of the fallen state and sought to eradicate it from their bodies. 99.999% of the population just accepts it as who they are.

User avatar
captain of 100
Posts: 149

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by letsjet »

I find your post very interesting. I stumbled across some old British historical books that claim that the people of the British isles are descendants of the tribe of Joseph and that they were very religious.

captain of 100
Posts: 560

Re: The Great Apostasy and King Arthur

Post by moving2zion »

This entire thread was amazing! Thanks to all who had a hand in adding to it. Two of my family lines that have been researched the best come from England and Scotland. On the Scottish side we come through the Dick, Sinclair, and de Bruce lines, England from the Anderson and Williams. My Wife is a MacQuary (or McCreery in the US). This makes me want to poke around a bit more. Our Scottish lines go back to 800. It will be so interesting on the other side to meet our progenitors and find out what great events they had a hand in, or were they simple folk, just carrying forward a torch of hope and faith.

Also makes me want to go home and practice my old Set of Highland Pipes in the closet at home!

Post Reply