What is an "apostate"?

[so-so saint]

If you're going by the HOI standard, then it would mean I would have had to have been counseled by a priesthood leader to stop, That has not happened.

But where in this thread did I act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church? How is my asking why the Church does not apply its own standards to itself "apostasy"?

And the hunting reserve thing isn't the only question I asked. I presented one example about my business practices question. All I'm asking is if someone can explain why the Church disregarding scriptural teachings is not apostate.

The requirement to have been counseled by a priesthood leader to stop was only mentioned it connection with definition 2 of apostasy. Definition 1 of apostasy, the definition I quoted, contains no such requirement that a priesthood leader counsel the person to stop.

I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of apostasy. I was just curious what people thought about the question.

[Darth J]

I don't understand the problem. The Church no-doubt uses the meat that doesn't get used by the hunters for the welfare system.

CFR.

In addition, what do you think they do with their profits? The City Creek Center is looking simply amazing so far.

I have no way of knowing, and unless you work in handling the finances of the Church, neither do you. But I have said nothing about City Creek here.

[Darth J]

The requirement to have been counseled by a priesthood leader to stop was only mentioned it connection with definition 2 of apostasy. Definition 1 of apostasy, the definition I quoted, contains no such requirement that a priesthood leader counsel the person to stop.

I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of apostasy. I was just curious what people thought about the question.

If I'm saying that the Church should follow what the scriptures say, am I apostate?

[so-so saint]

If I'm saying that the Church should follow what the scriptures say, am I apostate?

I don't think so. But again, I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of being apostate.

I was thinking of the countless situations on various message boards where current members of the church express that they now believe the church is false and now believe that Thomas S. Monson is not a prophet, and so forth. Is this apostasy by the church's definition of the term?

[Darth J]

I don't think so. But again, I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of being apostate.

I was thinking of the countless situations on various message boards where current members of the church express that they now believe the church is false and now believe that Thomas S. Monson is not a prophet, and so forth. Is this apostasy by the church's definition of the term?

Would President Monson (or anyone else) cease to be a prophet if he did things that were contrary to the scriptures?

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson

[Uncle Dale]

...

I think it reasonable to ask for a list of 50 such names, from,

say, the year 100 C.E. down to 1847.

...

Here's a "starter set" for your close examination:

Was Elder Alpheus Cutler an apostate in God's eyes?

Were Clarissa Cutler Kimball & Emily Cutler Kimball apostates?

Was Apostle Lyman Wight an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Bishop George Miller an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt an apostate in God's eyes?

Was William S. Godbe an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Edward Wheelock Tullidge an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Lorin Calvin Woolley an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Joseph Leslie Broadbent an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Maurice L. Glendenning an apostate in God's eyes?

UD

.

[Bernard Gui]

Here's a "starter set" for your close examination:

Was Elder Alpheus Cutler an apostate in God's eyes?

et al.

I don't know. What does God have to say about them?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Would President Monson (or anyone else) cease to be a prophet if he did things that were contrary to the scriptures?

Let's cut to the punch line:

God condemns hunting.

President Monson owns a hunting preserve.

Therefore, God condemns President Monson and the Church is false.

Last person out, turn off the lights.

Bernard

[wenglund]

Some of the quibbling over this fairly uncontroversial word is beyond silly. It puts the nonsense over the words "Christian" and "Ani-Mormon" to shame, and sinks to the subterrainin level of word-nazism. From what I have observed, for the most zealous participant(s) on this thread it isn't about advancing human understanging, but a lame "gotcha". What a waste of time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

I don't know. What does God have to say about them?

...

Unfortunately I do not have the "Collected Pronouncements of the

Living Prophets" index on my computer. Looks like the last one

prominently mentioned the "Journal History of the Church" was Godbe.

Perhaps the leaders of the LDS Church have made determinations in

each of these members' cases, but I do not have access to the records.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

I see. If someone is wondering about the Church applying its own standards to itself, it's a "trap." As soon as you're able to reconcile this with D&C 49 and 89, let me know.

When you've identified a specific contradiction, let me know.

Are you suggesting that white collar professionals who pay fees that are cost-prohibitive to most people (as the Deseret News acknowledges) are doing it because they need the meat?

Nope. Whether they need it or not is irrelevant to the logical issue. (If they didn't eat this meat, though, they would probably be eating other meat.)

Here's your set-up, from earlier on this thread:

According to official church curriculum, we are not to kill animals for mere sport or pleasure and waste the meat.

If I know this, and yet I decide to open an expensive, exclusive hunting preserve for people to hunt for recreation, am I rejecting a principle of the gospel (this comes from Doctrine and Covenants)?

And am I on the road to apostasy by knowingly rejecting the teachings of the Church in the interests of what D&C 3:4 calls "carnal desires" (i.e., making money)?

The answer to both your questions is plainly No.

But let's do a bit of elementary logic, shall we?

Let's stipulate that official Church doctrine is that we are not to kill animals for mere sport or pleasure (we'll call this proposition p) and waste the meat (which we'll call q). That is, p = kill animals for mere sport and pleasure, and q = waste the meat

To violate official Church doctrine, then, we must both p and q. If we do only one of those, though, we haven't violated both, and, accordingly, haven't done p and q.

See the truth table under "conjunction" at http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51856.html

To hunt for sport and use the meat is not to hunt for mere sport and waste the meat. Can you see the difference?

But if, in order to violate the doctrine of the Church, we must do p+q, yet we do only p or only q, we haven't done p+q, and, accordingly, we haven't violated Church doctrine.

For what it's worth, I actually think that q by itself would be a sin, but that p by itself, without q, is not a sin. Here, however, we seem to have p without q. Ergo, no sin, not even in my book, let alone in yours.

Even when the missionary who works there specifically refers to it as recreation, and compares it to camping?

Yup. Even then.

You're guessing. Do you know? Do you have a reference you could share where the Church requires people hunting on its reserves to eat what they kill?

Do you have any reason to suppose that they simply drop pheasants and elk and leave them lying there? Aren't you just guessing?

I've never known any hunters who did that.

Are white collar professionals paying large amounts of money to hunt for recreation doing it because they really need the meat?

So far as I've seen, white collar professionals eat food pretty much in the manner that other humans do.

The article is talking about the Church running commercial operations, not sending people out in the wild to cull the herd. Do you have some information that the Church is doing this to control wildlife population? Is there anything in the article that would justify that inference?

Sure. It's a general principle of hunting and wildlife conservation, and the missionary in question is a wildlife biologist. I doubt that that's coincidental. I'm sure he understands the principle, and I doubt very much that the preserve in question is separated off (by high walls, say, and a vast dome) from the broader ecosystem of birds, elk, deer, and etc.

Did your family wait for years to spend $1,500 or more on an exclusive permit to hunt in an area specifically developed for commercial interests?

Nope. But that's of precisely no relevance to the issue.

Were the white collar professionals discussed in the article unable to afford some steaks down at the grocery store, thus compelling them to seek another food source?

Probably not. But that's of precisely no relevance to the issue.

You know, you're really, really straining with this one. Come on. You say you're an unbeliever. Surely you've got better ammunition than this bit of contrived sophistry.

[Daniel Peterson]

Here's a "starter set" for your close examination:

Was Elder Alpheus Cutler an apostate in God's eyes?

Were Clarissa Cutler Kimball & Emily Cutler Kimball apostates?

Was Apostle Lyman Wight an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Bishop George Miller an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt an apostate in God's eyes?

Was William S. Godbe an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Edward Wheelock Tullidge an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Lorin Calvin Woolley an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Joseph Leslie Broadbent an apostate in God's eyes?

Was Maurice L. Glendenning an apostate in God's eyes?

Why don't you ask God?

What in the world are you doing here on this message board asking us these questions?

[Uncle Dale]

Why don't you ask God?

What in the world are you doing here on this message board asking us these questions?

Easily said to me -- a never-member.

But if my LDS neighbor down the street asks his Bishop if

there's any harm and reading and following the published

apostolic counsel of Elder Lorin C. Woolley, I would expect

that the official LDS Church administrator and priesthood

holder would be able to offer a more succinct answer than

your suggestive question.

Let's assume that none of the names on my list qualify as

advocates of apostate doctrines in God's eyes -- can our

brother Scott provide some examples that do qualify?

If asked to list some Marxists, or Scientologists, or

even orthodox Latter-day Saint General Authorities, I

suppose my memory could at least summon up a few names.

???

UD

.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry, Dale. This strikes me as a silly and pointless game.

When you come to me seriously, as a member of the Church, wondering whether you should follow the counsel of Thomas S. Monson or Lorin C. Woolley, I'll happily tell you.

[Uncle Dale]

Sorry, Dale. This strikes me as a silly and pointless game.

When you come to me seriously, as a member of the Church,

wondering whether you should follow the counsel of

Thomas S. Monson or Lorin C. Woolley, I'll happily tell you.

If you know Prof. Wayne Wahlquist, formerly of Weber State College

(now university) he should be able to back up my saying that almost

precisely this same question came up in the context of a mutual

acquaintance of ours, c. 1974.

The fellow had been reading Kraut's books on seer-stones, etc.,

and had stumbled onto Woolley's revelations and was considering

them quite seriously. The good professor took me aside and

asked if I were not a member of a fundamentalist apostate group.

I clarified to him that RLDS were something rather different

from the Church of the Firstborn in the Fulness of Times. But

from that encounter, I witnessed firsthand how a normal LDS

member can be drawn into studying and seriously considering

fundamentalist doctrine.

It was not a matter for any humor at the time -- it was actually

rather serious. I never learned how things turned out.

If people here are serious about using the terms "apostate"

and "apostasy" I suppose they should also have at least a

few examples in mind.

So far nobody has disagreed with my bringing up the name of

Judas here -- so perhaps that will have to serve as the sole

example. If so, I've learned nothing new in this thread.

UD

[Darth J]

Let's cut to the punch line:

God condemns hunting.

President Monson owns a hunting preserve.

Therefore, God condemns President Monson and the Church is false.

Last person out, turn off the lights.

Bernard

Who says I was limiting that question to a hunting preserve?

EDIT: And where did I say that God condemns hunting per se?

[Darth J]

Some of the quibbling over this fairly uncontroversial word is beyond silly. It puts the nonsense over the words "Christian" and "Ani-Mormon" to shame, and sinks to the subterrainin level of word-nazism. From what I have observed, for the most zealous participant(s) on this thread it isn't about advancing human understanging, but a lame "gotcha". What a waste of time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's right. The way to advance human understanding is to put everything on the shelf if it isn't faith-promoting.

You're welcome, -Darth J

[Darth J]

When you've identified a specific contradiction, let me know.

I already did. The Lord said it is pleasing to Him for meat to only be eaten in times of winter or famine. The Lord also said woe unto him that wastes flesh and has no need.

There's plenty of meat at the grocery store. Those animals already died to feed us. What is the need to hunt more animals for more meat?

Nope. Whether they need it or not is irrelevant to the logical issue. (If they didn't eat this meat, though, they would probably be eating other meat.)

Well, it's not like the Maxwell Institute habitually contradicts the teachings of the Church. It's consistent with that practice for you to say that "whether they need it or not" is irrelevant to the plain language of D&C 49 and 89.

Here's your set-up, from earlier on this thread:

This whole hunting preserve thing is one example. Who said it was the only example?

The answer to both your questions is plainly No.

But let's do a bit of elementary logic, shall we?

Let's stipulate that official Church doctrine is that we are not to kill animals for mere sport or pleasure (we'll call this proposition p) and waste the meat (which we'll call q). That is, p = kill animals for mere sport and pleasure, and q = waste the meat

To violate official Church doctrine, then, we must both p and q. If we do only one of those, though, we haven't violated both, and, accordingly, haven't done p and q.

See the truth table under "conjunction" at http://mathforum.org...view/51856.html

To hunt for sport and use the meat is not to hunt for mere sport and waste the meat. Can you see the difference?

But if, in order to violate the doctrine of the Church, we must do p+q, yet we do only p or only q, we haven't done p+q, and, accordingly, we haven't violated Church doctrine.

For what it's worth, I actually think that q by itself would be a sin, but that p by itself, without q, is not a sin. Here, however, we seem to have p without q. Ergo, no sin, not even in my book, let alone in yours.

Per Maxwell Institute practice, you are ignoring the scriptures in order to defend the institution (the Church). You have left out the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Lord wants us to use meat sparingly and when we have need.

Yup. Even then.

Do you have any reason to suppose that they simply drop pheasants and elk and leave them lying there? Aren't you just guessing?

I've never known any hunters who did that.

Also per Maxwell Institute practice, in the absence of evidence, the faith-promoting assumption must be taken as true. You're turning this around on the hunters, when the issue is the Church's actions. Does the Church have a policy that you have to eat what you kill on its hunting preserves?

And yes, I have known hunters that have just left the animals there.

So far as I've seen, white collar professionals eat food pretty much in the manner that other humans do.

I'm not talking about human physiology. I'm talking about need and sparingly, as stated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Sure. It's a general principle of hunting and wildlife conservation, and the missionary in question is a wildlife biologist. I doubt that that's coincidental. I'm sure he understands the principle, and I doubt very much that the preserve in question is separated off (by high walls, say, and a vast dome) from the broader ecosystem of birds, elk, deer, and etc.

This pertains to human needs and eating meat sparingly and only if you have need in what way, exactly?

"Did your family wait for years to spend $1,500 or more on an exclusive permit to hunt in an area specifically developed for commercial interests?"

Nope. But that's of precisely no relevance to the issue.

So long as you ignore what the Doctrine and Covenants says.

"Were the white collar professionals discussed in the article unable to afford some steaks down at the grocery store, thus compelling them to seek another food source?"

Probably not. But that's of precisely no relevance to the issue.

So long as you ignore the Doctrine and Covenants.

You know, you're really, really straining with this one. Come on. You say you're an unbeliever. Surely you've got better ammunition than this bit of contrived sophistry.

When I first joined this board, Dr. Peterson, I was a believer. You and your fellow apologists cured me of that. I would like to find answers to my questions and see if there is a chance of regaining my faith. You call this sophistry.

What really caused a crisis of faith for me is how the Church as an institution does not hold itself to its own standards, and how apologists, in order to defend the Church, frequently point out how the Church and/or its leaders are wrong about what they teach.

Why doesn't the Church restrict hunting to those who have need? Where is the requirement that as a condition of getting a permit to hunt, guests have to eat what they take?

And you're so focused on this particular question, you're acting as if that's the only question I asked here, or the only possible example of wondering whether there is apostasy in the teachings/actions of the Church and/or its leaders.

[wenglund]

That's right. The way to advance human understanding is to put everything on the shelf if it isn't faith-promoting.

That isn't anywhere close to what I said. However, given your insipid behavior on this thread (at least it appears that way to me), I suppose I shouldn't expect coherency or anything of value from you.

In the immortal words of Homey D. Clown: "Homey don't play that game."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

I haven't read through the thread, and perhaps somebody's already brought this up, but, in case nobody has, I will. I think it's potentially relevant to a definition:

Etymologically, the word apostate/apostasy comes from the Greek ????????? [apostas

[wenglund]

I guess that I am currently an apostate by this measure. But isn't the term relative? I am an apostate relative to the LDS religion.

Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Skywalker]

CFR.

Hey DJ, are you really going to CFR me on an opinion? That's a puerile act, at best.

Here's what I said:

The Church no-doubt uses the meat that doesn't get used by the hunters for the welfare system.

"No doubt" means "I don't doubt it." You are free to doubt it, but I do not and am perfectly within my rights to state that.

But just for fun here is my reasoning:

The hunting preserve in question falls under the LDS church owned Farm Management Corporation [REFERENCE] . This arm of the church operates all of the farms that grow the products that are available in the welfare square bishop's storehouses, etc.

When the modern welfare program was put in motion, it was designed to take care of the needs of our own people. In the years that have followed, thousands upon thousands have been served. Bishops and Relief Society presidents have had available to them food and clothing and other supplies for those in need. Numberless members of the Church have worked in volunteer capacities in producing that which was required. We now operate 113 storehouses, 63 farms, 105 canneries and home storage centers, 18 food processing and distribution plants, as well as many other facilities.

It makes perfect sense for me to put 2 and 2 together and say that the products that is not used by the hunters is used for welfare.

Thought you got me with that CFR, didn't ya!

But I have said nothing about City Creek here.

I know that, but it's just one example of what the church does with it's revenues in commercial investments.

[Daniel Peterson]

I guess that I am currently an apostate by this measure. But isn't the term relative? I am an apostate relative to the LDS religion.

If you're expecting me to disagree, I don't.

The Lord said it is pleasing to Him for meat to only be eaten in times of winter or famine. The Lord also said woe unto him that wastes flesh and has no need.

That's fine. And there's nothing on that hunting preserve that dictates when the hunters eat the meat they harvest.

You're really, really struggling to manufacture an issue here, Darth J, and the beads of sweat are beginning to run down your face and back.

There's plenty of meat at the grocery store. Those animals already died to feed us. What is the need to hunt more animals for more meat?

Are you trying to suggest that, because those hunters got meat from the hunting preserve, the meat at the grocery store goes to waste?

I'd like to see the evidence for that.

It seems pretty plain to me that whatever meat the hunters don't eat from the grocery store, somebody else will, and that, if the hunters didn't harvest the meat on the hunting preserve, they would probably buy meat at the grocery store. Either way, I don't see any meat being wasted.

Well, it's not like the Maxwell Institute habitually contradicts the teachings of the Church.

I can't imagine why you think the Maxwell Institute is involved in this conversation with you. Do you imagine that we've had to call a special crisis meeting to deal with this silly issue that you're huffing and puffing to inflate into something important?

And no, despite the dogma of your particular segment of the world, we don't contradict the teachings of the Church. If we ever did, the Church could and would shut us down. They have that legal right. What we do, apparently, is contradict your version of the teachings of the Church. But that's rather a different thing.

It's consistent with that practice for you to say that "whether they need it or not" is irrelevant to the plain language of D&C 49 and 89.

It's none of my business whether they're overeating meat or not. That's their business, and between them and God. And a hunting preserve no more forces overconsumption of meat than a grocery store's butcher block does.

I would imagine that, if the situation were different, you would be happy to be complaining about how the Church exercises thought control over us robotic sheeple. And yet, because it serves your current agenda, here you are complaining, effectively, that the Church doesn't intrusively monitor the meat-consumption of its members.

This whole hunting preserve thing is one example. Who said it was the only example?

It's a pathetically poor example.

Per Maxwell Institute practice, you are ignoring the scriptures in order to defend the institution (the Church).

LOL. If you think that reciting articles of the Pseudo-Intellectual Critic's Creed is going to save you here, you're mistaken.

You have left out the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Lord wants us to use meat sparingly and when we have need.

I haven't left them out at all.

When you can explain to me how operating a hunting preserve violates the Doctrine and Covenents any more than operating a butcher's shop or a grocery store does, you might have some fairly flimsy grounds for a discussion.

Also per Maxwell Institute practice, in the absence of evidence, the faith-promoting assumption must be taken as true.

Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about?

I don't.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're turning this around on the hunters, when the issue is the Church's actions.

Running a hunting preserve? If you can show me how that violates the Doctrine and Covenants, perhaps you'll start making some sense.

Does the Church have a policy that you have to eat what you kill on its hunting preserves?

Do you expect that the Church would have to?

I don't.

And yes, I have known hunters that have just left the animals there.

I haven't known any who typically did so.

Do you have any reason whatever to assume that it's typical for hunters in the Church's wildlife preserve to shoot elk and deer and simply leave them there? I doubt very much that it is, and the burden to prove otherwise is on you.

I'm not talking about human physiology. I'm talking about need and sparingly, as stated in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Will you please explain to me, again, how running a game preserve forces people to overconsume meat, while running a grocery store or a butcher's shop evidently doesn't?

So long as you ignore what the Doctrine and Covenants says. . . . So long as you ignore the Doctrine and Covenants.

I don't ignore what the Doctrine and Covenants says.

If you think otherwise, try making an attempt to demonstrate it.

When I first joined this board, Dr. Peterson, I was a believer. You and your fellow apologists cured me of that.

Right. It's our fault.

I would like to find answers to my questions and see if there is a chance of regaining my faith.

Don't forget that I've seen how very piously you're striving to regain your faith over at your main message board.

You call this sophistry.

No, I don't call an effort to regain faith "sophistry." I label bad reasoning as sophistry.

What really caused a crisis of faith for me is how the Church as an institution does not hold itself to its own standards, and how apologists, in order to defend the Church, frequently point out how the Church and/or its leaders are wrong about what they teach.

I deny your claims. You're simply wrong.

Why doesn't the Church restrict hunting to those who have need?

Because people who are wealthy have a right to eat meat just as much as people who are poor do. And, trust me, the Church gives meat to poor people, too. (I've been a bishop. I know.)

Where is the requirement that as a condition of getting a permit to hunt, guests have to eat what they take?

Where is the requirement that customers in grocery stores have to eat what they buy? Your apparent notion that wealthy hunters are killing tons of wildlife and then driving away to let the meat rot is contrary to my considerable experience with hunters and with simply normal human beings.

And you're so focused on this particular question, you're acting as if that's the only question I asked here, or the only possible example of wondering whether there is apostasy in the teachings/actions of the Church and/or its leaders.

I'm focused on this issue because I happened to notice it -- I don't actively monitor your posts, am not a student of your thought -- and because your complaint here seems to me so transparently silly and overreaching.

I certainly hope that this isn't indicative of the way you've reasoned your way into apostasy. That would be too depressing to contemplate.

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps the leaders of the LDS Church have made determinations in

each of these members' cases, but I do not have access to the records.

They would be private, no? How far do you want to take the "LDS prophets speak for God" thing?

Bernard