What is an "apostate"?

[why me]

That's fine, but my question was about teaching things as if they were doctrine which are not church doctrine.

Is a General Authority apostate if he teaches things as if they were doctrine but are merely his opinion?

If a higher authority does not correct him---if we're talking about the Handbook of Instructions standard---does this mean that higher authorities are consenting to him teachings his own speculation as if it were doctrine?

I don't know. But if that general authority is not leading people away from the church and if he or she is not using attack language against the lds church, then I would say no, he or she is not in apostacy.

[Darth J]

No, I'm rejecting your implied premise that merely being mistaken or speaking with limited understanding amounts to apostasy.

I did not imply that premise. If you are an apostle or in the First Presidency, and you teach----in whatever forum----something as if it were doctrinal but is in fact your personal speculation, are you apostate?

Or are you implying that prophets and apostles cannot tell the difference between their own personal speculation and inspiration?

[Darth J]

I don't know. But if that general authority is not leading people away from the church and if he or she is not using attack language against the lds church, then I would say no, he or she is not in apostacy.

So does this mean that it doesn't really matter if church leaders are teaching "truth," so long as they are inculcating loyalty to the organization?

[Scott Lloyd]

I did not imply that premise.

That's precisely what you're implying -- and you're doing it in an effort to lay a trap.

If you are an apostle or in the First Presidency, and you teach----in whatever forum----something as if it were doctrinal but is in fact your personal speculation, are you apostate?

If they so identified it, or if they didn't realize they were in error, why would they?

Or are you implying that prophets and apostles cannot tell the difference between their own personal speculation and inspiration?

I haven't said anything here that could reasonably be so understood.

[Darth J]

That's precisely what you're implying -- and you're doing it in an effort to lay a trap.

What trap would I be laying, Scott?

Is this question making you uncomfortable? Why?

"If you are an apostle or in the First Presidency, and you teach----in whatever forum----something as if it were doctrinal but is in fact your personal speculation, are you apostate?"

If they so identified it, why would they?

That isn't the question. The question is "as if it were doctrinal."

"Or are you implying that prophets and apostles cannot tell the difference between their own personal speculation and inspiration?"

I haven't said anything here that could reasonably be so understood.

But just a minute ago, you said this:

No, I'm rejecting your implied premise that merely being mistaken or speaking with limited understanding amounts to apostasy.

How could a prophet or an apostle be mistaken unless he cannot tell the difference between inspiration and his personal speculation?

[Scott Lloyd]

What trap would I be laying, Scott?

Is this question making you uncomfortable? Why?

"If you are an apostle or in the First Presidency, and you teach----in whatever forum----something as if it were doctrinal but is in fact your personal speculation, are you apostate?"

That isn't the question. The question is "as if it were doctrinal."

"Or are you implying that prophets and apostles cannot tell the difference between their own personal speculation and inspiration?"

But just a minute ago, you said this:

How could a prophet or an apostle be mistaken unless he cannot tell the difference between inspiration and his personal speculation?

There's an "asked-and-answered" rule on this forum that I think you are violating. If need be, we can call in a moderator to adjudicate it.

[Black Moclips]

There's an "asked-and-answered" rule on this forum that I think you are violating. If need be, we can call in a moderator to adjudicate it.

If words could do the slow motion, backwards bending bullet dodge from the Matrix, this is what it would look like. LOL.

[Darth J]

There's an "asked-and-answered" rule on this forum that I think you are violating. If need be, we can call in a moderator to adjudicate it.

That's fine. As soon as you answer the questions I asked, you will have a point.

There's also a CFR rule. CFR for your substantive answers to the questions I asked.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's fine. As soon as you answer the questions I asked, you will have a point.

Do you have a point? Why don't you temper the aggressive badgering and express it?

[Darth J]

Do you have a point? Why don't you temper the aggressive badgering and express it?

CFR for my aggressive badgering.

I asked some questions. You have not answered, but instead threatened to summon a moderator and invoke the inapplicable "asked and answered" rule.

Why are these questions bothering you so much? What are you so worried about?

[Darth J]

Do you have a point?

Everything I have asked and you have not answered is directly related to the OP.

[Uncle Dale]

That does not compute.

UD

I think I understand why modern LDS are reluctant to brand anybody

after Judas, as having been an "apostate" from the One True Church.

The LDS apologists delight in searching back through the writings

of the Church Fathers and more obscure early Christian leaders, in

attempts to discover some scrap of a sentence that might support

contemporary LDS doctrines and practices.

To go along with the Christian historians, and agree that Marcion

(and his church) was "apostate" might serve to poison that well

of possible LDS-friendly doctrines in the minds of modern members.

Moving forward into modern times (post-1844) it is to the advantage

of the LDS apologists NOT to brand James J. Strang or George M. Hinkle,

or any of the other leaders in "apostate splinter groups" as being

themselves "apostates." We see this Mormon ignoring in full swing

even today, when the LDS dismiss the FLDS as "having nothing to do"

with the One True Church in Salt Lake City. Thus the FLDS doctrines

and practices can be skipped over and be left unmentioned -- given

no publicity.

The place that this affected doctrinal blindness breaks down, is in

the TR interview -- where observant LDS are at last brought face-to-face

with questions about "apostate splinter groups." If the former Bishop

of the ward started a new, fundamentalist (possibly polygamous) church

last year, and he still has personal influence over some members in the

ward, then his new cult (and the man himself) qualifies as "apostate."

We are now pretty much out of the realm of internet apologists, so the

TR interview can be left to one side, and all the formerly-designated

"apostate groups" can be dismissed as foreign sects, having "nothing

to do" with the One True Church in Salt Lake City.

No matter that some of those very sects overlap official LDS doctrine

by 90% and LDS church structure by some similar percentage. No matter

that they sing the same (old) hymns, read the same Standard Works, and

consult the same (old) General Authorities' discourses -- they are not

"apostate," because they are foreign sects -- not Latter Day Saints.

Pretty slick, I'd say.

Just don't use this rationale when submitting serious papers for

peer review to the Journal of Biblical Studies or to

Church History, because it will be deemed senseless, in the

greater realm of world-wide religious scholarship.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

That's fine. As soon as you answer the questions I asked, you will have a point.

There's also a CFR rule. CFR for your substantive answers to the questions I asked.

The responses are here on the thread and they are substantive.

[the narrator]

The responses are here on the thread and they are substantive.

I missed it as well. Can you point it out for me?

[mfbukowski]

Why is it an important question?

It would only be important if it were taken as a derogatory term I suppose.

Technically I suppose it would apply to one who had a disciplinary council for "apostasy" and was excommunicated. Routinely these are only done for those who have formally joined another church or who have taken on active opposition to the church.

The judgment would be made based on individual circumstances, by the disciplinary council, so no blanket definition can be given other than those I have stated.

See why I asked this question?

Why are we quibbling over definitions? And where is the narrator?

>munching popcorn<

[Scott Lloyd]

I missed it as well. Can you point it out for me?

Point what out, specifically?

[the narrator]

Point what out, specifically?

That which you claim are substantive responses.

[Darth J]

The responses are here on the thread and they are substantive.

My first question: "How about a General Authority teaching things as if those things were doctrine, which later generations of apologists decide are not church doctrine?

Is that General Authority apostate? "

What you said:

Well now, if he had not been "corrected ... by higher authority," (i.e., confronted by the authority and told personally to stop teaching the erroneous doctrine) the definition you quote here would not apply, would it?

My follow-up: "But you said earlier that a disciplinary counsel isn't required for someone to be apostate.

So now that you are back to the legalistic definition, then I am not apostate if I have my family put on their temple clothing and pray to Heavenly Mother for family home evening, so long as I am not told by a priesthood authority to stop doing it.

Or am I apostate regardless of official church discipline, as you said earlier?"

What you said:

Not in a broader sense of the term.

No, I'm rejecting your implied premise that merely being mistaken or speaking with limited understanding amounts to apostasy.

If they so identified it, or if they didn't realize they were in error, why would they?

My follow-up: "That isn't the question. The question is 'as if it were doctrinal.'"

In which of these statements did you substantively answer whether or not a General Authority is apostate if he teaches things that are not doctrine as if they were doctrine?

My second question was: "How about practicing plural marriage prior to the Church officially discontinuing the practice, but practicing plural marriage contrary to the requirements the Lord gave in Doctrine and Covenants 132?

Is that apostasy?"

You said:

In which of your statements did you substantively answer whether or not, during the time the Church was practicing plural marriage, a person would be apostate if he practiced plural marriage contrary to the requirements of the revelation found in D&C 132?

My third question was: "How about knowingly and deliberately engaging in business practices that are contrary to official teachings of the Church?

Is that apostasy?"

You said:

Apostasy entails rejecting, not merely disobeying, such teachings.

My follow-up was: "If I knowingly and deliberately disobey official church teachings in my business practices, am I not rejecting those teachings?'

Your response:

In which of your statements did you substantively answer whether or not someone who rejects the teachings of the Church by knowingly and deliberately engaging in business practices that contradict the official teachings of the Church is in apostasy?

[mfbukowski]

This is essentially why I am maintaining that unless you have been judged "an apostate", you ain't.

The fact is that our doctrine changes. Do we excommunicate BY posthumously? Obviously not- his doctrine was "standard" for his day.

We just need to get over it and admit that we are led by ongoing revelation and that today's "mainstream" may be tomorrow's apostasy.

And of course this fits the definition in the Handbook. Convenient, huh?

[Darth J]

Oh, I forgot.

Regarding Scott alluding to a general authority being mistaken or speaking with limited knowledge, I asked:

"How could a prophet or an apostle be mistaken unless he cannot tell the difference between inspiration and his personal speculation?"

Scott's response:

[Darth J]

This is essentially why I am maintaining that unless you have been judged "an apostate", you ain't.

The fact is that our doctrine changes. Do we excommunicate BY posthumously? Obviously not- his doctrine was "standard" for his day.

We just need to get over it and admit that we are led by ongoing revelation and that today's "mainstream" may be tomorrow's apostasy.

And of course this fits the definition in the Handbook. Convenient, huh?

Admittedly, I am the one who brought in the Handbook of Instructions. However, can you see any problems with limiting "apostasy" to "those who have been discipline by the Church"?

Like, the Great Apostasy never happened, because the people who intermingled the philosophies of men with scripture were never subject to church discipline, and therefore the people who taught the doctrine of the Trinity, and Christologies that differ from Mormonism, and infant baptism, etc. etc. etc., were not apostate.

EDIT: I am not talking about yesterday's apostasy versus today. I am talking about whether someone was apostate according to what the Church is teaching at the time that they are doing whatever may or may not be apostate.

What mfbukowski is saying very strongly implies that the Church does not teach eternal truths, since "truth" is subject to change without prior notice. This also very strongly implies that the gospel is not about "truth," but about loyalty to the organization. Are you sure that's where you want to go with this?

[Skywalker]

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

Gospel Library

Gospel Topics: Apostasy

So say I have not been corrected by priesthood leaders, but I still turn away from the principles of the gospel as taught in official church curriculum in my business practices. Am I apostate if I knowingly and deliberately ignore official church teachings because it would be good for business if I disobey the Church's teachings?

I do not speak for the Church, of course, but my opinion would be this:

If you knowingly and deliberately turn away from (I don't think this is the same as ignore) the principles of the gospel, after having been corrected and/or counseled otherwise from priesthood leaders, then yes, you are an apostate.

[Darth J]

I do not speak for the Church, of course, but my opinion would be this:

If you knowingly and deliberately turn away from (I don't think this is the same as ignore) the principles of the gospel, after having been corrected and/or counseled otherwise from priesthood leaders, then yes, you are an apostate.

But if you have been taught a gospel principle from official church curriculum, haven't you already been counseled?

Does an average, church-going member really need their bishop to tell them that it is an apostate practice to dress up in their temple clothes and pray to Heavenly Mother in his or her living room?

[Skywalker]

But if you have been taught a gospel principle from official church curriculum, haven't you already been counseled?

Nope, you've been taught.

Does an average, church-going member really need their bishop to tell them that it is an apostate practice to dress up in their temple clothes and pray to Heavenly Mother in his or her living room?

From your very own post, quoting the manual:

Church Handbook of Instructions

Book 1

Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics

Pages 94-95

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its

leaders.

Page 95

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after

they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural

marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority.

So which one of these conditions would your scenario fall under?

[Darth J]

How about knowingly and deliberately engaging in business practices that are contrary to official teachings of the Church?

Is that apostasy?

Regarding this question:

For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.

Doctrine and Covenants 3:4