What is an "apostate"?

[Bernard Gui]

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.

A while back while serving as a bishop, I was locking up the church late one

evening. I heard a ruckus down the hall and went down to check it out.

An LDS couple who had left the church had just come out of their

disciplinary council with their bishop and were standing in the hall

outside his office loudly commanding Satan to come out of him!

He stood in the door frame with his arms folded, saying, "Thank you, thank you."

Bless his heart.

The man and his wife went on to become the leaders of the local

Ex-Mormons for Jesus. They had an office and all the trappings, and a phone

line you could call any time for a potent factoid about the Mormons. They

and their minions followed the missionaries around and knocked on doors that let the

missionaries in to correct the Satanic doctrine that had just spewed out of

the elders' mouths.

They were apostates.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

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?

Definitions and truth are always based on a context and contexts are always changing. That's because "truth" is linguistic- there is no "Truth" with a capital T which exists out there in the world like a Platonic form- it is statements which are true or false, nothing more nothing less.

On a different thread, I was talking about how a thesis for morality, based on affirming life, which was put out by a secular humanist, virtually mirrored the same values expressed in the Didache as "The Two Ways", one affirming life and the other affirming death.

Values never change, but their expression does and it is our understanding of those truths which changes and that is why continuing revelation is a cornerstone to a living church.

As far as the definiton of "apostate" in the OP- there was no context given. I was assuming that the narrator had access to a dictionary and the question was what defined "apostasy" in the modern church- how far could one go before being declared an "apostate" and that is how I answered the question. Historically, those people were in active opposition to the principles originally taught, as understood by LDS, and so were also apostates.

It seems the rest of the thread has resorted to examining the dictionary in detail and quibbling over what is and is not apostate. I don't think it is a very interesting question, to be honest.

[Uncle Dale]

...

How far do you want to take the "LDS prophets speak for God" thing?

...

I don't discount the possibility. Even with my criticisms of

Joseph Smith, Jr., I've never denied that parts of his life

constituted a prophetic ministry.

Why should I automatically discount that factor for LDS Presidents?

As you may recall, I was invited by Spencer W. Kimball to travel

to Salt Lake City in 1978 for a private interview. I discovered

nothing in that encounter to convince me that he was unable, in

certain instances, both experience and communicate Divine encounter.

But it is not yours truly who started this thread, nor who accuses

anybody of being an apostate to the religion of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Were I to start doing that, I'd have to seriously consider how the

term (in that particular situation) might even be applied to JSIII.

No -- it was not myself who has repeated the charge of a "great apostasy"

and "apostates" from the restored gospel endlessly, for decades. Dig

out any month's run of the Deseret News between, say, 1851 and

1896, and show me four weeks in a row in which the charge of "apostasy"

is not published in those august pages, at least once.

So -- if the words "apostasy" and "apostate" are commonly used by

the LDS, let THEM demonstrate some examples, or else quit using the words.

But if you doubt Paul's testimony on the subject, look around you,

examine for yourselves. "By their fruits ye shall know them." My

heart is pained while I write. Alas, has it come to this; has the

spirit of truth removed the veil of obscurity from the last days,

only to present us with the vision of a fallen people; an apostate Church,

full of all manner of abominations, and even despising those who are

good; while they themselves have nothing left but the form of godliness,

denying the power of God, that is, setting aside the direct inspiration,

and supernatural gifts of the Spirit, which ever constitute the Church of Christ.

(Parley P. Pratt)

UD

[DonBradley]

Was Lucy Mack Smith an apostate for following J. J. Strang,

or for later supporting the Presidency of her son William?

Wow! 'Anyone dare to take up the affirmative on that one?

[DonBradley]

Good Lord, man!

She was there at Amboy on April 6, 1860

literally anointing her son President of the Church.

If that is not apostasy, have your wife try the same

action with your own son, and see what happens to her.

UD

LOL!

Did she actually anoint him? Marks did the ordination, right?

I think LDS tend to think of Emma as semi-apostate but give her something of a break for what she went through.

Also, so far as I know Joseph Smith III, baptized by his father in Nauvoo, was never excommunicated by the LDS church, or by anyone else. Is this the case?

Don

[Bernard Gui]

No -- it was not myself who has repeated the charge of a "great apostasy"

and "apostates" from the restored gospel endlessly, for decades. Dig

out any month's run of the Deseret News between, say, 1851 and

1896, and show me four weeks in a row in which the charge of "apostasy"

is not published in those august pages, at least once.

So -- if the words "apostasy" and "apostate" are commonly used by

the LDS, let THEM demonstrate some examples, or else quit using the words.

Well, some of those

the Deseret News had [eaten] plenty of fruit from

the apostate farm back in the Midwest. I don't fault them for being upset if they saw

the same plants growing up around them in their haven in the West.

IMO, apostasy has everything to do with the keys of the Priesthood and where

they reside at any particular time.

Bernard

[saemo]

It is derived from apostasy , which means "an abandoning of what one has believed in, as a faith, cause or principles." Ergo, one who has once embraced Mormonism but now rejects it is, by definition, an apostate from Mormonism. To use another form of the word, he/she has apostatized (not "apostacized") from Mormonism.

Of course, the term would not apply to an unbeliever who has never accepted Mormonism in the first place.

What of a person who was raised LDS, baptized a eight yrs old, but who never really "ebraced Mormonism"?

[Uncle Dale]

...Also, so far as I know Joseph Smith III, baptized by his father in

Nauvoo, was never excommunicated by the LDS church, or by anyone else.

Is this the case?

...

The mass excommunication was accomplished, by something like

slight of hand, during "The Reformation" in "The Valley."

First of all the word went out, in 1852-53, that all the

lingering migrants in Iowa, Nebraska, etc., should "gather"

to Utah, and then the original Ezra T. Benson and other

apostolic worthies personally went to Kanesville to make

sure that Orson Hyde closed up shop, and sent all the stragglers

westward. Once that much was accomplished, everybody was

re-baptized (save for European converts and a few missionaries

far from The Valley).

In the aftermath of that process, the Strangites and other

dissenters were de facto excommunicants, if not de jure --

My own family, in Iowa, discovered this fact when some went

west in the mid-1850s and some stayed back. When a few more

were enticed to Utah/Idaho a little later, they too had to

be re-baptized as proper Brighamites.

What did that leave, as the status of old members, such as

John W. Rigdon (Sidney's son). Although baptized at Nauvoo,

he had to be re-baptized in Utah, when he finally settled

there years later.

This policy, during The Reformation, effectively excommunicated

all the old Saints who did not obey the command to go west.

My own g-g-great grandfather, Samuel Thomas Winegar, was labeled

a "Wisconsin Apostate" by Bullock in 1864, when he drew up the

list of living veterans of "Zion's Camp." Elder Winegar never

formally acknowledged the prophetship of Strang, Cutler, or

JSIII, but since he remained in Wisconsin, and refused to obey

Brigham's command, he became a "Wisconsin Apostate" by default.

As one who spent a childhood and teenage years in southern Idaho,

surrounded by Mormons, I know personally what it is like to have

your neighbors refer to your family as "those 'postate Broadhursts."

We were thus condemned, not because I, nor my father, nor his

father were ever LDS members -- but because we came from such

origins as "Wisconsin Apostate" Samuel Thomas Winegar.

You might say I'm a bit thin-skinned, on that particular slur.

UD

[Storm Rider]

The standard dictionary definition is obviously the correct definition. However, I would also say that the term apostate has gained a more negative connotation, which if more equivalent to being an anti-Mormon. Was Emma an apostate of the Church? Yes. Was Joseph Smith III? Yes. Both knew enough about the restored gospel to know the truth. What is suprising about the Smith family is how willing they were to entertain prophethood from anyone but BY.

To be an apostate from a religion, in a neutral sense, is to fall away from a church or religious organization. To do so requires that you must first know and understand its teachings. If that knowledge is not possessed it is very difficult to use the label.

In my life I tend not to use apostate unless there is more like anti-Mormon. Some friends have converted to other churches and I tend to call them, for example, a Catholic convert rather than an apostate. Just my two cents.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Was Emma an apostate of the Church? Yes.

Was Joseph Smith III? Yes....Just my two cents.

Easily said -- but how do you demonstrate that Heavenly Father

has truly determined that those two Saints are apostates from

the true Gospel of Jesus?

Perhaps you can do that. Undoubtedly you can prove that they

deviated greatly from the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. --

the RLDS's early rejection of the Book of Abraham is prima facie

proof of such a deviation (to say nothing of Emma and her sons

blaming the doctrine of plural marriage upon Brigham).

But, upon what basis do we know for certain that God has

rejected these people and the doctrines they promulgated?

By what standard should many hundreds of thousands of

Reorganized LDS (living and dead) be convinced that these

people were not following God's commandments, as best

they (or any sinner on the face of the planet) were able?

Perhaps it can be done -- perhaps irrefutable proof can

be published here: but I've yet to see any such thing.

Uncle Dale

[Storm Rider]

Easily said -- but how do you demonstrate that Heavenly Father

has truly determined that those two Saints are apostates from

the true Gospel of Jesus?

Perhaps you can do that. Undoubtedly you can prove that they

deviated greatly from the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. --

the RLDS's early rejection of the Book of Abraham is prima facie

proof of such a deviation (to say nothing of Emma and her sons

blaming the doctrine of plural marriage upon Brigham).

But, upon what basis do we know for certain that God has

rejected these people and the doctrines they promulgated?

By what standard should many hundreds of thousands of

Reorganized LDS (living and dead) be convinced that these

people were not following God's commandments, as best

they (or any sinner on the face of the planet) were able?

Perhaps it can be done -- perhaps irrefutable proof can

be published here: but I've yet to see any such thing.

Uncle Dale

To begin to introduce what God thinks of apostates is outside of the definition; certainly it is the all that matters, but the term applies to any church. All converts from other churches are apostates from those churches. Emma and JSIII are apostates for no other reason than they did not follow BY and the Twelve. Luther is an apostate of the Catholic Church. The term does not involve the element of truth within it; it deals with leaving the doctrinal beliefs once observed. At least, that is the way I understand the term.

[Uncle Dale]

To begin to introduce what God thinks of apostates is outside of the definition; certainly it is the all that matters, but the term applies to any church. All converts from other churches are apostates from those churches. Emma and JSIII are apostates for no other reason than they did not follow BY and the Twelve. Luther is an apostate of the Catholic Church. The term does not involve the element of truth within it; it deals with leaving the doctrinal beliefs once observed. At least, that is the way I understand the term.

Good for you!

Since I do not acknowledge the CofJCofLDS as

God's one true church on earth, I can retire my

solicitation for LDS evidence of God's will.

I cannot commend your obvious clarity of thought too much!

Uncle Dale

[kamenraider]

...

Thus, although we often -- myself included -- fairly loosely describe those who openly disbelieve as "apostates," in the strictest sense of the word (at least etymologically speaking) it refers to those who vocally, actively, rebel against, or fight against, the Church.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, pg. 57, says that the Greek word apostasia can mean either "the intransitive 'to stand away from,' or the active 'to cause to stand away from.'"

How in the world do you propose the "former-day" Church went into apostasy, if they had to "fight against" "the Church" in order to do so?

On page 56 the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says that "Latter-Day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority."

In December 1891 the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve signed a petition for amnesty that said "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come."

Nevermind whether we still practice it now or not, the question is do we still believe in it as being essential in any way? If not, does that constitute apostasy, at least individually if not collectively?

[Daniel Peterson]

How in the world do you propose the "former-day" Church went into apostasy, if they had to "fight against" "the Church" in order to do so?

I see no problem in viewing the ancient apostasy not so much as a mere drifting away but a rebellion. That's how the Old Testament prophets tended to view things.

[Storm Rider]

Good for you!

Since I do not acknowledge the CofJCofLDS as

God's one true church on earth, I can retire my

solicitation for LDS evidence of God's will.

I cannot commend your obvious clarity of thought too much!

Uncle Dale

Not a problem. The context of the thread was the definition of an apostate. You seem to be appealing to what the definition of an apostate is to God. Cheers and I appreciate your thoughtful response.

[Uncle Dale]

Well, some of those (quoted in) the Deseret News had [eaten] plenty of fruit from

the apostate farm back in the Midwest....

Actually, not so much.

The unstated policy of the Church publications, conference talks,

etc., was to generally ignore the Reorganized Church and the various

splinter groups that it was co-opting and incorporating (such as

David Whitmer's followers).

For a short period, when J. J. Strang was still a real threat, in

his conversion of Mormons who had not yet made it to Utah, readers

of the Liverpool Millennial Star might read of "apostate Strang,"

(he is so mentioned in the Nov. 15, 1847 issue, and elsewhere).

Now and then an apostolic authority such as George A. Smith, would

go off on a tirade against early member-opponents like Ezra Booth

and D. P. Hurlbut -- but not often. It probably did not make much

sense to call such leavers "apostates," when they had rejected

Mormonism totally. A better use of the word could be applied to

religionists who functioned as competitors -- the Morrisites, or

the Godbeites -- right there in Utah.

But, if you'll take the trouble to comply with my request, you'll

see that the terms "apostasy" and "apostate" are most often applied

to Christians in general, in the 19th and 20th century LDS

pronouncements.

There was little reason for Mormon leaders to make mention of

people like Joseph Smith's sons -- unless they were in downtown

Salt Lake City, receiving laudations from the local Godbeites.

Talking about such people just gave them undue publicity.

No -- the "apostasy" was rarely applied to what the LDS leaders

called splinter groups. Most often it was applied to Christendom,

and especially to the anomalous, unnamed "apostates" who first

purportedly perverted apostolic Christianity. This was a tenet

deep-rooted in Mormoonism; though not a specific word printed in

the Book of Mormon or the first edition of the Book of Commandments.

We see it crop up in slightly later Mormon rhetoric -- such as the

PPP quote which I supplied earlier in this thread.

The LDS polemicists were more interested in pushing the generalized

notion of a theological and ecclesiastical "apostasy" at an early

date in Christian history, than they were in identifying any specific

"apostates." Was Marcion an apostate from apostolic Christianity?

Probably somewhere, in some obscure LDS publication, there may be a

mention or two of such a determination ---- but it was not typical

LDS apologetics, nor faith-promotion, to speak much of individual

apostates, nor to publicize their teachings. Joseph F. Smith was

about the only top level leader who engaged in such polemics, and

not much came from him either.

If Sandra Tanner were drawing away significant numbers of Saints,

to participate in some latter day imitation religion, then we might

see the current leaders going to the trouble of calling such a

person an "apostate." But when people like the Tanners totally

reject Mormonism, it is more convenient to call them by other names.

I maintain that "apostate" has become an LDS apologists' strawman --

more suitable for use in the anonymous internet echo chamber than

for any serious discussion of deviation away from Jesus' Gospel.

Unless Mormons are willing to cite specific examples, I'll continue

to dismiss that sort of stuff as meaningless froth.

UD

[Bernard Gui]

Actually, not so much.

I don't understand. Are you saying that apostates didn't persecute the church and its leaders, or

that the persecution went both ways, so it was justified?

I maintain that "apostate" has become an LDS apologists' strawman --

more suitable for use in the anonymous internet echo chamber than

for any serious discussion of deviation away from Jesus' Gospel.

Unless Mormons are willing to cite specific examples, I'll continue

to dismiss that sort of stuff as meaningless froth.

I cited two specific examples of people I consider to be apostates.

I also stand by my belief that apostasy has everything to do with

priesthood keys and where they reside. For a member of the Church

who understands the principal of priesthood keys to fight against

the one who holds them is crucial in a definition of apostate.

If any of those you listed fit this description, then they were apostate.

You appear to reject the early LDS

use of apostate as an opprobrium. I can see where you are coming

from; however, people who left the LDS church and

then took it upon themselves to destroy it and its leaders did great harm to

a lot of people merit the name apostate. I cut some slack for the early recipients of that harm.

Bernard

[Uncle Dale]

I don't understand. Are you saying that apostates didn't persecute the church

and its leaders, orthat the persecution went both ways, so it was justified?

I was speaking more of the lack of linkage between the Saints who

remained in the East/mid-West and the term "apostate" in 19th

century LDS publications. No doubt David Whitmer and others were

occasionally termed "apostate" in the LDS press -- but the word

was much more often used in connection with the so-called "Great

Apostasy."

When splinter groups like the Morrisites "persecuted the church"

we can look back into our history books to see how they were

dealt with.

I cited two specific examples of what I what I consider apostates.

Judas and D. P. Hurlbut?

No -- those were my examples.

I forget now whom you listed.

I also stand by my belief that apostasy has everything to do with

priesthood keys and where they reside. For a member of the Church

who understands the principal of priesthood keys to fight against

the one who holds them is crucial in a definition of apostate.

And I stand by my decades-old offer to inspect any such "keys"

that can be exhibited. The Pope emblazons his keys on the

gates to Vatican City. Looks like he obtained two from Peter.

You appear to reject the early LDS use of apostate as an opprobrium.

Well, I quoted Parley P. Pratt on that matter -- so it is not

as though I've never looked into the doctrinal aspects. Is there

some special citation you'd like me to comment upon?

I can see where you are coming from;

Yes -- perhaps so. Too much bandying about of that slur would

not have been conducive to gathering together Saints who had

previously followed Alpheus Cutler, or Lyman Wight or David

Whitmer, under the leadership of Joseph III. Once that task

was well under way, the Saints' Herald a few times

summoned up the indignation to call Brigham an "apostate,"

but --- with official policy still focused on gathering in

the Brighamites themselves, it was not all that useful to go

about slandering their faith. Not many mentions of Mormons

being "apostates" in the RLDS press, I'd venture.

however, apostates (people who left the LDS church and then took

it upon themselves to destroy it and its leaders) did great harm to

a lot of people. I cut some slack for the early recipients of that harm.

...

Orson Hyde was one of those -- but he eventually was reconciled

with his old buddies in Nauvoo. Same can be said for William Smith,

W. W. Phelps, Luke Johnson, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris. I'm

sure those "returnees" appreciated the slack cut for them.

David Whitmer and Lyman Wight? ... maybe not so much.

UD

.

[mfbukowski]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, pg. 57, says that the Greek word apostasia can mean either "the intransitive 'to stand away from,' or the active 'to cause to stand away from.'"

How in the world do you propose the "former-day" Church went into apostasy, if they had to "fight against" "the Church" in order to do so?

On page 56 the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says that "Latter-Day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority."

It's a WORD for Pete's sake and can mean anything we decide it means. Like x or y in an equation.

If you want to say that they didn't go into "apostasy" who cares? We can call it the "Great Breaking-Away"- like that better?? They lost the Priesthood power and changed the doctrine so that it was no longer the same church. If you want to NOT call that "apostasy" call it anything you want- who cares?

The only practical difference the definition makes in anybody's life is when they get excommunicated or disciplined for "apostasy" and we have already defined what one must do to achieve that noble state.

It's just silly to define a word in a specific way so that you can come back and say "Aha! Now all of today's members are 'apostates'! See how brilliant I am to prove that?"

It's like changing "zero" on a thermometer- you still get sweaty when it's hot even if the thermometer says it's "zero".

It's like arguing if Pluto is a planet- all that's changed is the definition, the frame of reference.

[Darth J]

"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.

Yep. White collar professionals are paying top dollar to get into an exclusive hunting preserve with a waiting list so they can salt and cure that meat for the winter, when there's just slim pickin's to live on.

But I'm aware that you see this as struggling to manufacture an issue. That's because you see the actual teachings of the Church as sort of interesting trivia, not prophetic counsel that we're supposed to follow. Otherwise, you might try to find some teachings by church leaders to support your position. If you had any particular interest in applying what the Church teaches to the real world, the issue would be quite clear.

Spencer W. Kimball,

[Darth J]

"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.

I gave a random example of what I was talking about previously. After you address it, I'll produce more examples if you would like.

"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.

Oh. Will you please show me that exegesis of D&C 49 and 89? I must have overlooked it.

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.

False dilemma. A butcher's shop or grocery store facilitating the excessive consumption of meat may also be inconsistent with church teachings. Remember how grocery stores also sell cigarettes and alcohol?

"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.

Random example #2: in

at about 1:14, you address the anachronism of coinage in the Book of Mormon by saying that we shouldn't assume that Alma 11 is talking about coinage because the Book of Mormon never mentions the pieces of metal described in that chapter being stamped or minted. However, you, the Maxwell Institute, FAIR, and other apologists do want us to assume that the Lehites interbred with a much larger native population in the Americas, even though the Book of Mormon doesn't say that.

In other words,

Assumptions about the Book of Mormon that tend to challenge its historicity = not valid

Assumptions about the Book of Mormon that fit apologetic theories about its historicity = valid

To be fair (no pun intended) though, this video is not directly connected to the Maxwell Institute.

[Darth J]

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.

This isn't the issue. The issue is about need. White collar professionals who can afford $1,500 or more to go hunt for recreation are unlikely to be running low on food. You are saying that ti doesn't matter whether there is already plenty of food to go around. I have I already provided examples of church teachings about this principle. If you dispute what I have shown about what the Church teaches, the burden to prove otherwise is on you.

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?

There's that false dilemma again. If it is facilitating and making money from something that is contrary to church teachings, then they are both wrong.

"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 don't know that I'd say fault. A more apt word would be catalyst.

But let's go with your side. Apologists are not to be blamed for someone losing his/her faith in the LDS Church. Are you willing to admit the corollary: that apologists are not to be credited for someone deciding to stay in/considering joining the LDS Church?

Does your position do anything other than to suggest that Mormon apologetics is little more than a pep rally for the faithful?

"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.

And the accuracy of your characterization of what goes on over there is unassailable.

But you are most welcome to come over there and point out whatever I am saying that you think is incorrect.

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

How about arguing with me about what the Church teaches when I am providing examples of those teachings to support my position and you are not. Would that be sophistry?

Because people who are wealthy have a right to eat meat just as much as people who are poor do.

People who are wealthy also have the right to a nice cognac after dinner. Should the Church engage in a business that profits from providing it to them?

And, trust me, the Church gives meat to poor people, too. (I've been a bishop. I know.)

You mean people in a time of need?

Where is the requirement that customers in grocery stores have to eat what they buy?

Where is the revelation and prophetic counsel applicable to businesses that are not owned by the Church?

Grocery stores sell cigarettes. Why shouldn't the Church?

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.

As opposed to my explicit notion that the Church teaches that there is no reason to kill more animals for more meat when there is already plenty of food.

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.

Wait a minute. You previously said, "Don't forget that I've seen how very piously you're striving to regain your faith over at your main message board." But you don't actively monitor my posts?

So, what---do you passively monitor my posts?

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.

I certainly hope that this isn't indicative of how you intend to rebut the perception that Mormon apologetics tends to compartmentalize the Church's teachings from apologetic arguments. That would be too depressing to contemplate.

[Darth J]

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

"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.

Hmmm. I wonder how the moderators would react if I were calling other board members insipid and puerile on this thread.

In any case, "I do not doubt" mean that you believe something to be a fact. I am asking what the evidentiary basis is for that belief.

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.

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!

The fact that the hunting preserves and other agricultural businesses of the Church are operated by the same unit is irrelevant, because the situations are not analogous. Food from church-owned farms/ranches is harvested by church employees for consumption by third parties.

Hunters on church-owned hunting reserves are not church employees; they are paying customers, who are there to "harvest" animals for whatever they intend to do with them.

Re: City Creek

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

No, that's not an example of what the Church does with its revenues. That's an example of the source of revenues. What those revenues are actually used for is subject to speculation by all but a small number of church insiders, since the Church does not publicly disclose its finances.

[Darth J]

"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.

Do you deny ascribing to the following beliefs:

That we just need to do as we're told, and whether what we're told actually comes from God is effectively irrelevant?

That "the Church is true" is all that really matters, and anyone questioning this a priori assumption is focused on irrelevancies?

However, given your insipid behavior on this thread (at least it appears that way to me),

Such as?

I suppose I shouldn't expect coherency or anything of value from you.

Well, if anything challenges your cherished beliefs, then it's a foregone conclusion that it's incoherent and/or lacks value, per the threads of yours to which I linked.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But when it comes to actually dealing with anything more than "the Church is true," you don't ever seem to want to play that game.

In the immortal words of the Man in Black, "You're just stalling now."

You're welcome, -Darth J-

[wenglund]

I am now feeling more in the mood for games.

[quote name=Darth J' date='01 July 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1278024260' post='1208873035'Do you deny ascribing to the following beliefs:

That we just need to do as we're told, and whether what we're told actually comes from God is effectively irrelevant?

That "the Church is true" is all that really matters, and anyone questioning this a priori assumption is focused on irrelevancies?