This is utter nonsense for several reasons:
"Church" isn't defined,
JWs and Mormons are certainly unreliable sources for any kind of history,
An body as widespread and established as the Christian Church couldn't possibly "go apostate" in a year.
The writer continues to be deliberately vague and pretends to have resolved the apostasy question. He also fails to distinguish between a formal and a pre-existing informal Canon. He conveniently fails to mention the reason for the Canon in the first place: pseudepigrapha began to circulate.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
The conclusion is not inescapable because the assumptions about the Church and the Cannon have not been established.
Hmm, what about John Calvin? Seems he was wrong about some historical writings (The so called spurious writings of darn, I forget the name,Origen?). He used them for proof against the Catholic Church. But, turns out that he was wrong. The "spurious" writings were found in a library and dated back to his time, and as far as all now know, are authentic. So, just how reliable is Calvin????
>>The writer continues to be deliberately vague and pretends to have resolved the apostasy question. He also fails to distinguish between a formal and a pre-existing informal Canon.
True, I don't mention that there were pre-existing canons. HOWEVER, you have a good point and I'll have to add some discussion of this.
>>He conveniently fails to mention the reason for the Canon in the first place: pseudepigrapha began to circulate.
I do mention it. "But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired (such as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Joseph, etc.). The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired." And I do not go into the OT controversy, as I do mention.
>>The conclusion is not inescapable because the assumptions about the Church and the Cannon have not been established.
Hmm, I think it is. I may need to add more about earlier canons and such, but the evidicence only makes my argument stronger.
I don't see where it says it all happened in a year, I think the years cited are reffered to as the point where the apostacy became complete.
As I read the NT, it seems very much to me that the apostles were constantly running around fighting off apostate ideas and practices all over the place, and I can easily belive that without them the individual congregations would stray farther and farther.
In WW2, there were several congregations of my church in Europe that were unable to communicate with church leaders outside their area for only a couple of years, but in that time they all kinds of false doctrine started being taught and accepted.