What is an "apostate"?

[Ahab]

In the appropose word of the Captain of Road Prison 36, of Cool Hand Luke infamy: "What we got here is...failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

Possibly, but I'm thinking it's more along the lines of what Sheriff Buford T. Justice said about some guy who wanted some Coors.

What we have here is total disrespect for the law!

[Skywalker]

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

Mr. J,

I do not know you, therefore I have no personal opinion about you. I did not call you insipid or puerile. I called your need to CFR me on my opinion puerile. No where did I say the word insipid.

In any case, if what you claim actually happened, the moderators probably would not react well. This board promotes respect among those with differing viewpoints, unlike your main forum, where almost every viewpoint expressed becomes a clambake of bigotry.

(in case you did not notice, I did not call out a specific person, nor did I call anyone a name)

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.

And I provided bases for my belief.

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.

Wrong. It is very relevant. Food from the Church's hunting preserves are harvested by hunters, and it follows, that which is not harvested by hunters becomes part of the welfare system. And just what, pray tell, do you think hunters "intend to do with them?"

Re: City Creek

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.

Are you really suggesting that revenues from the Church are not used to fund construction projects like City Creek? That's laughable.

[Darth J]

I am now feeling more in the mood for games.

Good. I look forward to your substantive discussion about issues that call the LDS Church's truth claims into question.

Do you deny that those aren't links to posts on this thread, and thus lack relevance to what I said in this thread?

Yes, I deny that. Those posts are representative of your mindset underlying your drive-by comments on any thread where someone says something you don't like.

Do you deny that those are your words and not mine?

No, I don't deny that those are my words. They are my words summarizing your words.

Do you deny not having a clue as to your inanity?

I'm sure Skylla will be here any moment to tell you to stop badgering me.

Do you deny that those are your words and not mine?

No, I don't deny that those are my words. They are my words summarizing your words.

Do you deny that is your perception of me and not how I percieve myself?

I have no way of knowing how you perceive yourself. I have to infer that from what you say.

Do you also deny your inability to grasp that your perception is demonstrably false given that I am speaking with you now about something other than whether "the Church is true"?

Which is what? "You're inane?"

In the appropose word of the Captain of Road Prison 36, of Cool Hand Luke infamy: "What we got here is...failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, Wade, when you have to just put anything that contradicts the Church's faith-promoting narrative on the shelf, eventually everything's on the shelf and there's nothing left.

You're welcome, -Darth J-

[Darth J]

Mr. J,

I do not know you, therefore I have no personal opinion about you. I did not call you insipid or puerile. I called your need to CFR me on my opinion puerile. No where did I say the word insipid.

In any case, if what you claim actually happened, the moderators probably would not react well. This board promotes respect among those with differing viewpoints, unlike your main forum, where almost every viewpoint expressed becomes a clambake of bigotry.

(in case you did not notice, I did not call out a specific person, nor did I call anyone a name)

Since I am a lifelong member of the Church, am currently a member of the Church, and am raising children in the Church, in what way am I expressing bigotry----prejudice, as opposed to conclusion?

Wrong. It is very relevant. Food from the Church's hunting preserves are harvested by hunters, and it follows, that which is not harvested by hunters becomes part of the welfare system.

Maybe you could diagram this syllogism for me, so you can show me how this assumption is justified by the premise.

And just what, pray tell, do you think hunters "intend to do with them?"

What difference does it make what they intend to do with the remains of the animals they killed? I cited several church teachings about killing animals without needing the meat for food. Do you have some teachings of the Church you could refer me to where we learn that killing animals for recreation when there is already plenty of food around is acceptable and/or pleasing to God?

Are you really suggesting that revenues from the Church are not used to fund construction projects like City Creek? That's laughable.

So are you speculating that the Church makes money from businesses, so it has capital to start more businesses, so it makes money from those businesses, so it has capital to start even more businesses..............?

What does the Church actually do with the money it earns from all these businesses? Not speculation. Not guesses. Not assumptions. Where can we find out where the money goes?

[wenglund]

Yes, I deny that. Those posts are representative of your mindset underlying your drive-by comments on any thread where someone says something you don't like.

As a test of your denial, I defy you or anyone else to click on the links and see if they lead directly to any post on this thread. If they don't, then your denial defies reality, thereby confirming the inanity of your denial. I am also asking for a CFR where your distored summary of the linked thread is relevant to anything I have said in this thread. And, as you look in vain, realize that it, too, confirms the inanity of your denial.

Gee, this is fun.

No, I don't deny that those are my words. They are my words summarizing your words.

Do you deny that your alleged summarizing doesn't ring true to me, but strikes me as an inane distortion?

I'm sure Skylla will be here any moment to tell you to stop badgering me.

Yes, it would be uncharitable for Skylla not to protect you from taking what you have inanely dished out on this thread.

No, I don't deny that those are my words. They are my words summarizing your words.

Do you deny that your alleged summarizing doesn't ring true to me, but strikes me as an inane distortion?

Which is what? "You're inane?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Darth J]

As a test of your denial, I defy you or anyone else to click on the links and see if they lead directly to any post on this thread. If they don't, then your denial defies reality, thereby confirming the inanity of your denial. I am also asking for a CFR where your distored summary of the linked thread is relevant to anything I have said in this thread. And, as you look in vain, realize that it, too, confirms the inanity of your denial.

Wade, your OP on each of those threads pretty much sums up everything you have to say, including on this thread.

Do you deny that your alleged summarizing doesn't ring true to me, but strikes me as an inane distortion?

I don't know what rings true in the alternate dimension you live in. Other than "the Church is true" and "do as we're told."

Yes, it would be uncharitable for Skylla not to protect you from taking what you have inanely dished out on this thread.

I am sure you are enjoying your word of the day calendar.

Do you deny that your alleged summarizing doesn't ring true to me, but strikes me as an inane distortion?

You're really good at addressing the issues, Wade. I should never have questioned your prowess as a defender of the faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here, Wade. Let me refer you to a movie you might relate to better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077355/

You're welcome, -Darth J-

[Skywalker]

Since I am a lifelong member of the Church, am currently a member of the Church, and am raising children in the Church, in what way am I expressing bigotry----prejudice, as opposed to conclusion?

You, Darth J, are just one poster in a sea of posters on your main forum. I don't necessarily think you are expressing bigotry in this particular thread, but you are certainly trying to spring a trap.

Maybe you could diagram this syllogism for me, so you can show me how this assumption is justified by the premise.

Sure! Here you go.

Premise 1: The Church farms are managed by the Farm Management arm of the Church for the purpose of growing grains and raising animals in order to feed the hungry and the poor.

Premise 2: The wildlife preserves, which are also owed by the Church and managed by Farm Management (a Church subsidy).

Conclusion: Both the Church farms and wildlife preserves serve the fourth mission of the church, which is giving aid to those in need.

What difference does it make what they intend to do with the remains of the animals they killed?

You brought it up, not me. I assume that they hunt the animals, and take home the meat. The meat they don't want is donated to the Bishop's Storehouse.

I cited several church teachings about killing animals without needing the meat for food. Do you have some teachings of the Church you could refer me to where we learn that killing animals for recreation when there is already plenty of food around is acceptable and/or pleasing to God?

Who are you to determine whether someone is in need of the meat or not? Simply because they are wealthy, white collar hunters?

Can you prove that they are not giving the meat to someone who does need it? Can you prove that they don't come from a place where meat is more scarce?

So are you speculating that the Church makes money from businesses, so it has capital to start more businesses, so it makes money from those businesses, so it has capital to start even more businesses..............?

Entities which are owned by the church are involved in various types of investing, yes. That is my speculation. So what?

What does the Church actually do with the money it earns from all these businesses? Not speculation. Not guesses. Not assumptions. Where can we find out where the money goes?

I am sure you could find out, if you contacted the Church. As it stands now, I don't really care to find out. It doesn't interest me in the slightest.

[wenglund]

Wade, your OP on each of those threads pretty much sums up everything you have to say, including on this thread.

I wasn't asking for your opinion, I made a CFR (surely, even you can understand the difference, or am I asking too much?).

And, I take your conspicuous silence as a tacit admission that you failed the test and thus proved your denial to be inane on at least two accounts. Nice going.

I don't know what rings true in the alternate dimension you live in. Other than "the Church is true" and "do as we're told."

That's interesting...yet you have repeatedly attempted to, in your own twisted way, tell me what I have said. I will take this as a tacit admission (your last mistaken sentence being a case in point) that you don't know what you are talking about in regards to what I have said...and I couldn't agree more.

I am sure you are enjoying your word of the day calendar.

In hopes of saving you some unwitting embarrassment, the next time you make the claim that "I don't know what rings true in the alternate dimension you live in", it would help if in the next paragraph you didn't diametrically contradict yourself by claiming you are sure of what is going on in my mind or heart. But, then, what's a little embarrasment when your posts are awash with it.

You're really good at addressing the issues, Wade. I should never have questioned your prowess as a defender of the faith.

I'm not surprized that you would confuse "my playing your game" with "You're really good at addressing the issues". Seems you are bent (whether consciously intending or not) on setting the record for the most inane statements in a single thread. Truth be told, you already took that prize several pages back, and have now put it beyond anyone elses reach.

Here, Wade. Let me refer you to a movie you might relate to better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077355/

It is at least consistent that you would make this false insinuation given your auto-biography HERE.

However, I am starting to lose interest since you are such an easy target for your own game.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

given your auto-biography HERE.

...

You should know by now the impropriety of making such personal insults.

I strongly suggest you remove that remark (and preserve your integrity).

UD

[wenglund]

You should know by now the impropriety of making such personal insults. I strongly suggest you remove that remark (and preserve your integrity).

That would make sense were I not intentionally playing Darth's game. This isn't a matter of integrity, but rather of point of parody. You might have known this had you paid attention and kept abreast of the thread. So, you can spare me your misguided indignation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

This isn't a matter of integrity

...

Yes it is.

Why put yours at risk, to "parody" insult a

fellow Latter-day Saint, who is raising his

kids in the Church?

Are there a couple of even lower levels to this

new internet game?

UD

[wenglund]

Yes it is.

One would have to strain mightely to think so, but in so doing, would, by his own idiosyncratic standard, ironically put his own integrity at risk. Mote and beams...

Why... "parody" insult a fellow Latter-day Saint, who is raising his kids in the Church?

I have found parody to be, at times, a potentially effective instructional methodology where other more preferred methodologies seem to have failed. I think Darth worth the effort, regardless of the irrelevancies of his affiliation with the Church or his raising kids or his having perhaps walked old ladies across the street as a scout, etc. etc.

Are there a couple of even lower levels to this new internet game?

I think you may have manifest at least one lower level in the form of selective self-righteous indignation and lame guilt trips. Perhaps you may have manifest another by taking non-serious things too seriously and failing to have a sense of humor.

Darth is a big boy (though his behavior may suggest otherwise), and is quite capable of taking as good as he gives (which, again you might have know were you to have paid less biased attention)--and this even though I am a fellow LDS who is childless and caretaking for my aged parents.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

I think you may have manifest at least one lower level

...

I'll check back in when the personal insults die down.

That, or go back to reading some of your other postings

(which were truly informative and worthwhile).

UD

[rockslider]

UD, thank you for you thoughtful posts in this thread.

They give a bit more insight to the man (UD), as well as informative on some historical aspects I had never considered. I took your thoughts (as my limited understanding of them) to heart on the God's judgment of such. Seems a Church with Christ at the helm would tend to drop the stones and accusations, but then again, as outlined by UD, it's such a powerful, controlling accusation, that really separates the relative, good from the evil. The historical flds/rlds use is enlightening, but it appears the current day use is a bit in question, i.e. nom/cafeteria/inactive's/name removers etc.

apostates, sheep in wolfs clothing, UD's and all.

[Uncle Dale]

...

some historical aspects I had never considered.

...

It's an inconvenient fact that things do change over time --

including meanings, motives, even our perceptions of what

we think was important to those who have gone before us.

Although gathering into religious communities seems to be one

of the great urges of human beings, splitting apart from the

established communities is just as strong an urge.

I see this in the story of Joseph Smith and the early Latter Day

Saints -- they truly felt that they were "coming out of Babylon,"

and into the light of restored truth and leadership.

But their neighbors saw it differently. Whenever a Baptist,

or a Presbyterian or a Methodist left their previous congregations

to join the Saints, the members of those "old" churches inevitably

viewed their leavers as "apostates" to true Christian teachings.

The word thus becomes a relative term -- depending upon who is using

it, and whom they are attempting to attach that description upon.

But, aside from all of that, my thoughts are: that there is a

larger perspective to be had -- for those who will seek it out.

And that alternative function of "apostasy" and "apostate" can

be summed up in the idea of "counterfeit." There have been some

stabs at that meaning, by folks in this thread, speaking of

spiritual "keys" or "authority."

The basic idea in this second descriptor, is that an "apostate"

is not just a leaver, nor a dissenter, nor a heretic. In this

larger use of the term, an "apostate" is a wrongful imitation

of what is right, or righteous -- possibly even an anti-Christ.

I'm one of those who still hold to the notion of a "Great Apostasy"

from the original gospel. I just date the phenomenon a few decades

earlier than the traditional Latter Day Saint understanding --

and thus include some of Christianity's early heroes among the

"apostates." It is a harsh judgment. I almost wish I were wrong.

Your Uncle Dale

[Bernard Gui]

Judas and D. P. Hurlbut?

No -- those were my examples.

I forget now whom you listed.

See post #101.

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.

Certainly you know more about LDS theology than that.

Bernard

[Uncle Dale]

See post #101.

...

"The man and his wife"

???

I was thinking maybe their names were Annanias and Sapphira.

But your description sounded compelling enough.

(Matthew 5:44)

UD

[Bernard Gui]

"The man and his wife"

???

I was thinking maybe their names were Annanias and Sapphira.

But your description sounded compelling enough.

(Matthew 5:44)

UD

I won't reveal their names, of course.

Do you agree they are apostate?

Or that their actions were indicative

of apostasy?

How can there be a discussion of

the LDS concept of apostasy

without even mentioning priesthood

keys? I know you were making a

funny, but it goes to the heart of

the issue.

Bernard

[Uncle Dale]

I won't reveal their names, of course.

Do you agree they are apostate?

Or that their actions were indicative

of apostasy?

I would say that the term would be used most appropriately if

the couple retained at least a recognizable portion of our

restoration doctrine -- which they obviously did, believing

that they were empowered with spiritual gifts. The described

scene is slightly similar to that told about Smith casting a

demon out of Newell Knight at/near Colesville.

Having evolved (at least somewhat) out of Mormonism, the couple

appears to have been claiming powers under a somewhat altered

interpretation of latter days gifts of the spirit. Whether they

were vehemently hostile probably does not matter so much as

their beliefs originating in Church doctrine (sans authority).

How can there be a discussion of

the LDS concept of apostasy

without even mentioning priesthood

keys? I know you were making a

funny, but it goes to the heart of

the issue.

Bernard

There probably cannot. But, having never gone through the

LDS temple, I have no idea what are claimed as signs, words,

tokens, grips, endowments, or whatever else may pass as

"keys" in LDS terminology. The precept of invisible keys is

a biblical one, so there is some information/tradition that

I might consult. In the RLDS Church we had to deal with

former Rigdonites, who claimed to possess the "key of David,"

for example. But the doctrine of invisible keys quickly passed

out of RLDS language -- being replaced mostly by the precept

of "power from on high" or "power of the priesthood," which did

not acknowledge such pre-1860 doctrines as "the keys to the

gathering of Israel," etc. We had the terms in our scriptures

and history books, but not in our post-1860 ecclesiology.

To what extent apostolic Christianity was built upon that

version of authority, I'm not much interested -- in that I

consider apostolic Christianity itself to be a counterfeit

of Jesus' Gospel. You'd do better to dialog with a CoC

member, to find some common ground regarding the Church

of Pentecost, etc.

UD

[wenglund]

I'll check back in when the personal insults die down.

No problem. You innocently walked in on some playful banter and for whatever reason you took in earnest what was intended in jest, and with the best of intents yourself, honorably sought to tilt the windmills of compromized integrity. If I offended you, then I am sorry. For me, my recent exchange with Darth was, as I said, only a game. It was just a joke, and not to be taken seriously. I should have sensed sooner that you weren't seeing it that way, and not brought you into the comedy sketch since it evidently only made matters worse. I look forward to interacting with you when and where the discussion is more to your liking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Would it help for some of you to understand that words such as "apostate" have multiple connotations and relatively reasonable levels of fluidity in usage, and as with most any word employed in everyday conversation and even semi-formally in things like the Handbook of Instructions, ought not be expected to be as precise and exact in language as you may have assumed? After all, we aren't talking here about doctoral dissertations.

Might it also help to understand that for many of us LDS, and the Church leaders in particular, our concern isn't with the exacting usage of the word "apostate", but rather about the state of the souls to which the word may reasonably apply?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[kamenraider]

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.

I see no problem in viewing it that way either, if preferring the precepts of men to the revelations of God counts as a sort of rebellion.

Yes, within the Church today there are tares among the wheat and wolves within the flock. As President Clark stated, "The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood. . . . We should be careful of them. . . ." (Era, May 1949, p. 268. See also, Conference Report, April 1949, p. 163.)

The wolves amongst our flock are more numerous and devious today than when President Clark made this statement.

President McKay has said that "the Church is little, if at all, injured by persecution and calumnies from ignorant, misinformed or malicious enemies. A greater hindrance to its progress comes from faultfinders, shirkers, commandment-breakers, and apostate cliques within its own ecclesiastical and quorum groups." (Era, December 1967, p. 35. See also, Conference Report, October 1967, p. 9.)

Not only are there apostates within our midst, but there are also apostate doctrines that are sometimes taught in our classes and from our pulpits and that appear in our publications. And these apostate precepts of men cause our people to stumble. As the Book of Mormon, speaking of our day, states: ". . . they have all gone astray save it a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men." (2 Ne. 28:14.)

Let us consider some of the precepts of men that may and do cause some of the humble followers of Christ to err.

Christ taught that we should be in the world but not of it. Yet there are some in our midst who are not so much concerned about taking the gospel into the world as the are about bringing worldliness into the gospel. They want us to be in the world and of it. They want us to be popular with the worldly even though a prophet has said that this is impossible, for all hell would then want to join us.

Through their own reasoning and a few misapplied scriptures, they try to sell us the precepts and philosophies of men. They do not feel the Church is progressive enough -- they say that it should embrace the social and socialist gospel of apostate Christendom.

--Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1969, pg. 11.

This sort of reminds me of a prophecy in section 45 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 45:28-30

28 And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;

29 But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.

30 And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

[Uncle Dale]

Would it help for some of you to understand that words such as "apostate" have multiple connotations and relatively reasonable levels of fluidity in usage, and as with most any word employed in everyday conversation and even semi-formally in things like the Handbook of Instructions, ought not be expected to be as precise and exact in language as you may have assumed? After all, we aren't talking here about doctoral dissertations.

Might it also help to understand that for many of us LDS, and the Church leaders in particular, our concern isn't with the exacting usage of the word "apostate", but rather about the state of the souls to which the word may reasonably apply?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that at last, after much searching about, we've

finally hit upon something important -- and you have summarized

the results of multiple pages of postings very succinctly.

The term is used in different ways, for different purposes -- and we

run the risk of mis-overlaying our own interpretations upon others'

use of terms like "apostasy," if we do not bother to try and understand

their purposes and intended meanings.

If we stumble about, half-blind, misunderstanding others' intentions,

we might even interpret messages such as "I care about you," or "I'm

concerned for your eternal welfare" as some sort of hostile threat.

The exact same word, stated in the exact same sentence, by a godly

leader and a cunning deceiver, might have very different implications

and very different results.

We human beings struggle along, in what little light and truth we

can comprehend. Hopefully that illumination and understanding will

continue to increase, and words such as "apostasy" can take on new

and less divisive uses among would-be brethren.

Your Uncle Dale

[wenglund]

We human beings struggle along, in what little light and truth we

can comprehend. Hopefully that illumination and understanding will continue to increase, and words such as "apostasy" can take on new and less divisive uses among would-be brethren. Your Uncle Dale

I would hope that the increase in illumination and understanding will be focused less on words or symbols, and more on that which the words symbolize. I believe we are better served by disengaging from semantic debates and wars over words, and employing our energies instead in improving ourselves and the human condition--in both a physical and spiritual sense, healing the sick and afflicted, clothing the naked and feeding hungry and caring for the poor. That is really what the restored gospel is all about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

The term is used in different ways, for different purposes -- and we

run the risk of mis-overlaying our own interpretations upon others'

use of terms like "apostasy," if we do not bother to try and understand

their purposes and intended meanings.

That's what I have been saying since what- post 2 or 3 or so?