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

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

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

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

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

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