Signs Of Apostasy: What Are The Limits Of Dissent In The Church?

[teddyaware]

Are you kidding me? What kind of self dillusional state of mind must one be in to think that one is fulfilling their duty or post to be able to look the "lord in the eye"?

Dear bcuzbcuz,

Aren't you a presumtuous one? So following your kind and thoughtful example, please excuse me if I wax a little presumptuous as well. Perhaps if you read your scriptures a little more regularly, you would realize I drew my thoughts from the well-known and revered 1st General Epistle of John the Beloved, chapter 3, in which we read:

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

In addition, for your further edification on the subject at hand (i.e., being able to look God in the eye with confidence), please do carefully read the following excerpt from the Lectures on Faith:

It is essential for any person to have an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to the will of God to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life. Such was and always will be the situation of the Saints of God. Unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds and faint. Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that ar well pleasing in the sight of God. But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight. For whatever may be their belief or their opinion, it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and uncertainty are, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time. So persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence, and where unshaken confidence is not, there faith is weak. And where faith is weak, the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ Jesus. But they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them.

So what's the bottom line? Confidence toward God = being able to look him in the eye without shrinking.

Edited April 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[theplains]

I think you cross the line of apostasy when you start causing contention. Members of the church can have different opinions on things as long as there is still a spirit of unity. Jesus said that contention is of the Devil.

Doctrine and Covenants says "Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil".

Also, Doctrine and Covenants 112:5 says, "Contend thou, therefore, morning by morning;

and day after day let thy warning voice go forth; and when the night cometh let not the

inhabitants of the earth slumber, because of thy speech".

Jude said, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it

was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for

the faith which was once delivered unto the saints".

There are certain times when contention is mandated. You should not be silent when you

see false teachings being propagated.

Thanks,

Jim

[Ahab]

You should not be silent when you see false teachings being propagated.

Just because you think so I'm going to speak up once to tell you that I think what you are saying is false.

Just this once, though. From now on try to remember that I've already spoken up to say that idea is wrong, with me feeling no need to keep repeating myself.

And I think that's the way it works for the Church, as an institution, too. It's not silent on things it has already taught.

[Stone holm]

The problem as I see it is striking a balance. We want to have a considerable amount of discourse regarding all matters pertaining to our religion, if we do not have that private and public discourse then things start to stagnate and the Church community starts to lose its vigor. On the other hand, if people become too contentious that will drive people away. Americans have kind of an innate tendency, which I think in many respects is healthy, to question authority -- when somebody declares something to be true, they want to know the reasons why it is true. What is attractive about Mormonism, beside the fact that it is true, is that it normally doesn't tell people that this is the way it is to be without giving some kind of explanation. Which is what you would expect of a loving Father, he might tell you to quit doing something, but an earthly father who is good at his job will also say this is why you aren't to do it. For example, when Christ instituted the Sacrament He didn't just say do it, and do it this way, because i said so, He went on to explain why. So since the Church is often Christ's representative on earth, we expect it to emulate Christ. Yet, its leaders are not Christ. So as a community we discuss and work things out, and one gets a feeling and always has the hope that the GAs are paying attention to not only what the Lord is telling them directly, but what they are hearing out in the Church community. Of course that supposes that the Church community is actually saying something -- which at times might be questionable. So that is the issue, isn't it?

[Lightbearer]

The problem as I see it is striking a balance. We want to have a considerable amount of discourse regarding all matters pertaining to our religion, if we do not have that private and public discourse then things start to stagnate and the Church community starts to lose its vigor. On the other hand, if people become too contentious that will drive people away. Americans have kind of an innate tendency, which I think in many respects is healthy, to question authority -- when somebody declares something to be true, they want to know the reasons why it is true. What is attractive about Mormonism, beside the fact that it is true, is that it normally doesn't tell people that this is the way it is to be without giving some kind of explanation. Which is what you would expect of a loving Father, he might tell you to quit doing something, but an earthly father who is good at his job will also say this is why you aren't to do it. For example, when Christ instituted the Sacrament He didn't just say do it, and do it this way, because i said so, He went on to explain why. So since the Church is often Christ's representative on earth, we expect it to emulate Christ. Yet, its leaders are not Christ. So as a community we discuss and work things out, and one gets a feeling and always has the hope that the GAs are paying attention to not only what the Lord is telling them directly, but what they are hearing out in the Church community. Of course that supposes that the Church community is actually saying something -- which at times might be questionable. So that is the issue, isn't it?

This Church is not ruled by debate or consensus or is a democracy. The individual members do not dictate to the Lord's servants what a policy or doctrine or practice ought to be. We do not vote on the issues like a political campaign, we either sustain or oppose but it does not mean we are making the policy, we are only accepting or rejecting it. The Church is ruled by revelation and we all have the opportunity to receive that revelation to confirm what is being taught. As for Elder McConkie, he was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ just as much a Peter or Paul was and although fallible (as WE all are) he spoke what he knew was true and tried to speculate on some matters in search of an answer. The only errors I recall was in his timing that the priesthood would not be offered to the black race in this life (his opinion) but he did not have to be persuaded of the error, as soon as the Prophet spoke he reversed himself and was in full agreement with the revelation of God. I am sick and tired of people who try to discredit Elder McConkie over this and other supposed errors. Just because he was in error (where no revelation was given) does not mean we can or should reject everything else he said or did because of it. He was never removed from his apostolic office, never barred from speaking in General Conference, and although hated by "intellectuals" and "critics" he was loved and respected by the majority of the Saints. In fact I never heard much said against him until after his death by those that never heard him speak but hated his directness and zeal. I did hear him, and I can say he was not one wit behind any of the apostles. Yes he was outspoken and yes he was strict, but he spoke fearlessly defending the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and has added a lot to the knowledge of the Church.

Questioning authority should be the American way... political authority, man invented authority! But not God's authority! Not priesthood authority. The Lord has told us how we should respect that authority:

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 21:4-6)

Why do you think it is necessary to have "all patience and faith"? The talks in conference are not a buffet of counsel that we can accept if we agree with it or reject if it offends our opinions.

Of course you have the agency to do as you wish, but you have no right to publicly denouce a general authority and then smugly think there should be no consequences. Sonya Johnson discovered that too late. But shouting down general authorities in conference or flying a banner from an airplane that says "Mother in Heaven is for ERA" is not the way to "disagree" with opinions of the Church's leaders. If you have a real problem with a doctrinal question or a policy I suggest you inquire of the Lord. If you are correct He will hear your prayers and He will tell His Prophet in His own due time, not by our agenda. Thinking that the GA's are out of touch or that they do not "listen to the voice of the people" is not their job. God did not call them to "please the people" Aaron tried to "please the people" by making a gold calf! The purpose of general authorities is to receive revelation from God and teach it to the Church. So I would think that it would be unthinkable to assume we know the "truth" that the Lord has not revealed to the General Authorities, or rather the Prophet of God. Striking a balance is not necessary for me, because my "default" position is that the Lord is guiding His Church and if a change needs to be made He is not going to do it through me, that is not my calling. If I were called into the Twelve or even the First Presidency then I would tremble at the awesome responsibility and lack of worthiness I would have to be able to be in tune to receive His words. To quote a phrase that has become unpopular in this modern 21st century anarchy: "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over!"

[bcuzbcuz]

Dear bcuzbcuz,

Aren't you a presumtuous one? So following your kind and thoughtful example, please excuse me if I wax a little presumptuous as well. Perhaps if you read your scriptures a little more regularly, you would realize I drew my thoughts from the well-known and revered 1st General Epistle of John the Beloved, chapter 3, in which we read:

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

In addition, for your further edification on the subject at hand (i.e., being able to look God in the eye with confidence), please do carefully read the following excerpt from the Lectures on Faith:

It is essential for any person to have an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to the will of God to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life. Such was and always will be the situation of the Saints of God. Unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds and faint. Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that ar well pleasing in the sight of God. But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight. For whatever may be their belief or their opinion, it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and uncertainty are, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time. So persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence, and where unshaken confidence is not, there faith is weak. And where faith is weak, the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ Jesus. But they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them.

So what's the bottom line? Confidence toward God = being able to look him in the eye without shrinking.

Well, you're right. I lack the brashness of youth that assumes that I have all the bases covered and do everything to perfection. But if you read John again, you will see that he doesn't mention "looking God in the eye". If you check your old testament you'll find that no one can look upon the face of God and survive.

Furthermore, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John, nor to the accuracy of the accounts. John, in chapter 21:24 refers to the writer of John in the third person, a complete switch from the previous chapters. John is also the only one who named Jesus as God himself, while the others, Matthew, Mark and Luke, say he was either the son of man or the son of God.

[canard78]

Yes...I am a thrill-a-minute for the menopausal women my age. They shriek with delight when I take out my false teeth and gum their earlobes. That is enough to send us each to the Bishop's office for prolonged disciplinary action.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I feel a little sick.

[CV75]

"If your criticism will diminish the loyalty of others to that GA," how does everyone feel about that. Is it a matter of loyalty to a particular GA? or loyalty to "truth"? For example, lets take Bruce R. McConkie who was cited in that particular comment. Elder McConkie for years taught and published folklore about Africans that he later confessed to President Kimball was unfounded. Now should he have been given a pass on that for all those years with members holding their peace?

I didn’t go back and look at Elder McConkie’s remark in context. But taking it at face value, so often when a person (in this case a GA) is criticized in one area, many who hear the criticism expand and apply it further than perhaps intended or warranted, and perhaps even to GAs in general.

As a result, many things can run counter to the Lord’s will for His children, not the least of which is discouraging some from benefiting from the keys the GAs exercise regardless of popular opinion and criticism. I think this is because the vast majority of the time, criticism and what people conclude from it are not inspired of the Holy Ghost or framed in a spirit of humility, unity and learning.

The kind of loyalty the Lord asks us to have of anyone (including GAs) has to do with doing to others as you would have others do to you. So, "If your criticism will diminish the loyalty of others to that GA," I think the kind of loyalty referred to is the kind we should have toward anyone to help them fulfill their divine potential.

[thesometimesaint]

I am only obligated to believe the truth.

[Stone holm]

This Church is not ruled by debate or consensus or is a democracy. The individual members do not dictate to the Lord's servants what a policy or doctrine or practice ought to be. We do not vote on the issues like a political campaign, we either sustain or oppose but it does not mean we are making the policy, we are only accepting or rejecting it. The Church is ruled by revelation and we all have the opportunity to receive that revelation to confirm what is being taught. As for Elder McConkie, he was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ just as much a Peter or Paul was and although fallible (as WE all are) he spoke what he knew was true and tried to speculate on some matters in search of an answer. The only errors I recall was in his timing that the priesthood would not be offered to the black race in this life (his opinion) but he did not have to be persuaded of the error, as soon as the Prophet spoke he reversed himself and was in full agreement with the revelation of God. I am sick and tired of people who try to discredit Elder McConkie over this and other supposed errors. Just because he was in error (where no revelation was given) does not mean we can or should reject everything else he said or did because of it. He was never removed from his apostolic office, never barred from speaking in General Conference, and although hated by "intellectuals" and "critics" he was loved and respected by the majority of the Saints. In fact I never heard much said against him until after his death by those that never heard him speak but hated his directness and zeal. I did hear him, and I can say he was not one wit behind any of the apostles. Yes he was outspoken and yes he was strict, but he spoke fearlessly defending the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and has added a lot to the knowledge of the Church.

Questioning authority should be the American way... political authority, man invented authority! But not God's authority! Not priesthood authority. The Lord has told us how we should respect that authority:

Why do you think it is necessary to have "all patience and faith"? The talks in conference are not a buffet of counsel that we can accept if we agree with it or reject if it offends our opinions.

Of course you have the agency to do as you wish, but you have no right to publicly denouce a general authority and then smugly think there should be no consequences. Sonya Johnson discovered that too late. But shouting down general authorities in conference or flying a banner from an airplane that says "Mother in Heaven is for ERA" is not the way to "disagree" with opinions of the Church's leaders. If you have a real problem with a doctrinal question or a policy I suggest you inquire of the Lord. If you are correct He will hear your prayers and He will tell His Prophet in His own due time, not by our agenda. Thinking that the GA's are out of touch or that they do not "listen to the voice of the people" is not their job. God did not call them to "please the people" Aaron tried to "please the people" by making a gold calf! The purpose of general authorities is to receive revelation from God and teach it to the Church. So I would think that it would be unthinkable to assume we know the "truth" that the Lord has not revealed to the General Authorities, or rather the Prophet of God. Striking a balance is not necessary for me, because my "default" position is that the Lord is guiding His Church and if a change needs to be made He is not going to do it through me, that is not my calling. If I were called into the Twelve or even the First Presidency then I would tremble at the awesome responsibility and lack of worthiness I would have to be able to be in tune to receive His words. To quote a phrase that has become unpopular in this modern 21st century anarchy: "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over!"

Yeah, actually he did have to be persuaded by Pres. Kimball who specifically sent him to do research, and "Mormon Doctrine" clearly contained statements that the Africans were cursed because they were supposedly neutrals in the war in heaven -- and that was being published long after David O. McKay denounced that as false doctrine. I don't think anybody is talking about "dictating" anything to the Church authorities, there is a difference between attempting to dictate and discussion and persuasion.

[teddyaware]

Well, you're right. I lack the brashness of youth that assumes that I have all the bases covered and do everything to perfection. But if you read John again, you will see that he doesn't mention "looking God in the eye". If you check your old testament you'll find that no one can look upon the face of God and survive.

Furthermore, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John, nor to the accuracy of the accounts. John, in chapter 21:24 refers to the writer of John in the third person, a complete switch from the previous chapters. John is also the only one who named Jesus as God himself, while the others, Matthew, Mark and Luke, say he was either the son of man or the son of God.

I deliberately used "looking God in the eye" as a powerfully descriptive figure of speech, but in the end it simply expresses the concept of one being confident in the conduct of his life before God. Being confident before God does not mean one has reached perfection, but it does mean that that individual is continuing to grow spiritually, enjoying the regular companionship of the Holy Ghost while retaining an ongoing remission of sins.

By the way, the Nephites looked the "Father of Heaven and Earth," Jesus Christ, in the eye for many hours and were not consumed. Also, note that the quote I used from the New Testament is from the 1st General Epistle of John not from the Gospel of John.

Edited April 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

I deliberately used "looking God in the eye" as a powerfully descriptive figure of speech, but in the end it simply expresses the concept of one being confident in the conduct of his life before God. Being confident before God does not mean one has reached perfection, but it does mean that that individual is continuing to grow spiritually, enjoying the regular companionship of the Holy Ghost while retaining an ongoing remission of sins.

By the way, the Nephites looked the "Father of Heaven and Earth," Jesus Christ, in the eye for many hours and were not consumed. Also, note that the quote I used from the New Testament is from the 1st General Epistle of John not from the Gospel of John.

I think of myself looking our Lord in the eye as I think of my dog looking me in the eye when he knows he has done something wrong. I know he loves me, and wants forgiveness, and doesn't intentionally try to do something wrong when he just naturally acts like a dog, and I also know he's willing to be taught and trained to never do anything "wrong" again. I'll just need a pat on the head, or a hug, or a smile, and then I'm sure I will feel a lot better.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Ahab

[teddyaware]

I think of myself looking our Lord in the eye as I think of my dog looking me in the eye when he knows he has done something wrong. I know he loves me, and wants forgiveness, and doesn't intentionally try to do something wrong when he just naturally acts like a dog, and I also know he's willing to be taught and trained to never do anything "wrong" again. I'll just need a pat on the head, or a hug, or a smile, and then I'm sure I will feel a lot better.

I shared your thoughts with my Yorkie and he says he wants to try harder to be a better pooch, if I would only show him a little more understanding. He even says he wants to go to the Priesthood Session of Conference with me tomorrow night. Isn't that great?!?

[Stone holm]

I think of myself looking our Lord in the eye as I think of my dog looking me in the eye when he knows he has done something wrong. I know he loves me, and wants forgiveness, and doesn't intentionally try to do something wrong when he just naturally acts like a dog, and I also know he's willing to be taught and trained to never do anything "wrong" again. I'll just need a pat on the head, or a hug, or a smile, and then I'm sure I will feel a lot better.

Yeah, that being translated everybody not a GA in the room please shut up. President Kimball said that if we all waited to teach Gospel principles until we were without sin, then the silence would be pervasive. Our Stake President issued a multi-point challenge (and don't take me wrong I think we have a great Stake President right now) which included removing sarcasm from our life, I told him that we considered that as a family and decided we werent' quite ready for a vow of silence just yet.

[Calm]

I shared your thoughts with my Yorkie and he says he wants to try harder to be a better pooch, if I would only show him a little more understanding. He even says he wants to go to the Priesthood Session of Conference with me tomorrow night. Isn't that great?!?

My beagle wants to go to the Priesthood Session as well, but I told her that she would have to stay home with me because women don't go.

[CASteinman]

My beagle wants to go to the Priesthood Session as well, but I told her that she would have to stay home with me because women don't go.

In my experience -- you will have the more enjoyable time.

[teddyaware]

My beagle wants to go to the Priesthood Session as well, but I told her that she would have to stay home with me because women don't go.

I like that -- you consider your dog a woman.

[Stone holm]

I like that -- you consider your dog a woman.

All in favor of women connecting with beagles, they used to be the most popular dog in America before they got displaced by the poodle which of course signaled the coming decline of America.

[Duncan]

I try to be assertive with people, doesn't always work and sometimes gets me into hot water but I have a recommend so no harm no foul!

[Calm]

I like that -- you consider your dog a woman.

She certainly does at times....

[Stone holm]

She certainly does at times....

Anatomical features aside, exactly how do we determine that a beagle considers herself a female at times. And if she was anatomically a female wouldn't that violate the Proclamation on Family?

[Wanderer7]

To answer there question:

"When a man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other, saying, “Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?” you may know that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy. Every man in this Kingdom, or upon the face of the earth, who is seeking with all his heart to save himself, has as much to do as he can conveniently attend to, without calling in question that which does not belong to him. If he succeeds in saving himself, it has well occupied his time and attention."

"One of the first steps to apostasy is to find fault with your Bishop; and when that is done, unless repented of a second step is soon taken, and by and by the person is cut off from the Church, and that is the end of it."

"People do, however, leave this Church, but they leave it because they get into darkness, and the very day they conclude that there should be a democratic vote... they conclude to be apostates"

Brigham Young

“I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy."

Heber C. Kimball

Apostasy often begins with criticism of current leaders. Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom directed against the doctrine at first, but more often against the leaders. They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones. They return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present. They allege love for the gospel and the Church but charge that leaders are a little "off the beam"! Soon they claim that the leaders are making changes and not following the original programs. Next they say that while the gospel and the Church are divine, the leaders are fallen. Up to this time it may be a passive thing, but now it becomes an active resistance, and frequently the blooming apostate begins to air his views and to crusade. He is likely now to join groups who are slipping away. He may become a student of the Journal of Discourses and is flattered by the evil one that he knows more about the scriptures and doctrines than the Church leaders who, he says, are now persecuting him. He generally wants all the blessings of the Church: membership, its priesthood, its temple privileges, and expects them from the leaders of the Church, though at the same time claiming that those same leaders have departed from the path. He now begins to expect persecution and adopts a martyr complex, and when finally excommunication comes he associates himself with other apostates to develop and strengthen cults. At this stage he is likely to claim revelation for himself, revelations from the Lord directing him in his interpretations and his actions. These manifestations are superior to anything from living leaders, he claims. He is now becoming quite independent. History repeats itself. As the critics of the Redeemer still worshiped Abraham and the critics of Joseph Smith could see only the Savior and his apostles, and as the apostates of Brigham's day could see only the martyred Joseph, now there are those who quote only the dead leaders of the pioneer era.

Spencer W. Kimball

My personal view on the matter is that criticism in the church isn't warranted. We have been given so much already, why complain about what we don't have? If a church leader is abusing you, by all means do something about it. Otherwise, I would say rejoice in the plan of salvation and the beauty of the restored gospel.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Wanderer7