Scale Of Apostasy

[Alan]

Aware of the worrying discriptions of the latter day church by both Nephi and Moroni, as well as comments by church leaders in the past; on a scale of 1 - 10, one being entirely apostate and ten being pure in the City of Enoch sense, where do you think the current LDS church is on the scale of apostasy?

I am speaking here of the collective institution, not of individuals.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Alan

[blackstrap]

Are we talking about the administrative church or the present state of the totality of the membership ?

[thesometimesaint]

Aware of the worrying discriptions of the latter day church by both Nephi and Moroni, as well as comments by church leaders in the past; on a scale of 1 - 10, one being entirely apostate and ten being pure in the City of Enoch sense, where do you think the current LDS church is on the scale of apostasy?

I am speaking here of the collective institution, not of individuals.

As we haven't been taken up yet. I think we can safely assume we're not a ten. But I believe we're as a Church closer to a 8/9. Individuals not withstanding.

[ksfisher]

Aware of the worrying discriptions of the latter day church by both Nephi and Moroni, as well as comments by church leaders in the past; on a scale of 1 - 10, one being entirely apostate and ten being pure in the City of Enoch sense, where do you think the current LDS church is on the scale of apostasy?

I am speaking here of the collective institution, not of individuals.

Could you please site where in the Book of Mormon Nephi and Moroni write that the church would be in apostasy. I can't recall any such passages at the moment.

[Darren10]

Aware of the worrying discriptions of the latter day church by both Nephi and Moroni, as well as comments by church leaders in the past; on a scale of 1 - 10, one being entirely apostate and ten being pure in the City of Enoch sense, where do you think the current LDS church is on the scale of apostasy?

I am speaking here of the collective institution, not of individuals.

Collectively I don't think we're apostate very much at all. As for my Gospel Doctrine class, there's *NO* apostasy.

[Darren10]

Could you please site where in the Book of Mormon Nephi and Moroni write that the church would be in apostasy. I can't recall any such passages at the moment.

The best I can think of is that I think it was Spencer W. Kimball who said that the Book of Mormon is an account of what will happen to the Church in the latter-days before the second coming. So if that holds true than many both in and out of the Church will be carried away in pride and envy. If true than we can also watch government to see how corrupt it gets. How laws will be twisted to punish the believer and reward the corrupt.

But who knows for sure?

[theplains]

The best I can think of is that I think it was Spencer W. Kimball who said that the Book of Mormon is an account of what will happen to the Church in the latter-days before the second coming.

Can you be more specific?

Thanks,

Jim

[CASteinman]

I believe this scale does not work right for this.

[blackstrap]

I believe this scale does not work right for this.

I agree. We need a broader scale,logarithic perhaps.

[bdouglas]

It could be said that the entire church has been in some degree of apostasy every since they rejected the law of consecration back in the 1830s. (Note that I said, "It could be said....")

In "Approaching Zion" Hugh Nibley speaks of the "baffling contradictions" evident in the church today, and he ties these back to, or attributes them to the failure of the saints to live the law of consecration (i.e., the United Order).

[bdouglas]

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." (D&C 49:20) I don't see anywhere in this verse (or what precedes or follows it) where the saints are excepted from this judgement.

Edited March 27, 2013 by bdouglas

[CASteinman]

I agree. We need a broader scale,logarithic perhaps.

Not sure that's exactly it.

Suppose we compare this to colors. We say that white is good and black is bad. We observe Red with no white or black. How do we score that?

The axis is insufficient here.

This is a multi-criteria issue where 10 should not equal perfection, but rather the "location" where we are actually supposed to be by the standards of God and 0 should not register position but rather direction and attitude.

Its not like ordinary math lines.

Edited March 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[BCSpace]

Scale Of Apostasy

In my opinion, I wouldn't so much call it apostasy as I would "wheat with the tares". The Church is trying to remain relevant so as to have a broad appeal as possible without sacrificing doctrine and that will look like, to some, an apostasy. I'm tempted myself to call apostasy on the Church from time to time but so far, every time I have closely examined various recent statements, I find that there has been no change.

[BCSpace]

It could be said that the entire church has been in some degree of apostasy every since they rejected the law of consecration back in the 1830s. (Note that I said, "It could be said....")

In "Approaching Zion" Hugh Nibley speaks of the "baffling contradictions" evident in the church today, and he ties these back to, or attributes them to the failure of the saints to live the law of consecration (i.e., the United Order).

I've not read that particular work of his, but knowing somewhat of Nibley's proclivities, perhaps I would have to disagree with him. The United Order failed because it became a closed economic system and the LoC is not a prescription for an economic system at all. For example, it doesn't regulate price, supply, or production. In addition, the property in the failed application of the United Order often became seen as communal, something which is against the doctrine. Judging by the doctrine on the LoC (summarized effectively in Enrichment Section L of the D&C Institute manual), it cannot work unless the economic system that surrounds it is free market capitalism which happens to mirror God's own plan (and economics) of salvation ala 2 Nephi 2 et. al.

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." (D&C 49:20) I don't see anywhere in this verse (or what precedes or follows it) where the saints are excepted from this judgement.

I don't think that judgement is what I think you think it is. It is for sure that it is not a "given that one man should possess...." yet it doesn't say there is anything intrinsically wrong with it. But it IS a given that "the poor always ye have with you" (John 12:8 etc.).

The doctrinal context of 49:20 confirms this:

The unrighteous distribution of possessions causes much difficulty. The Lord has said, “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:20).

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), 421–422

The notion that everyone must be cut down to size, so to speak, flies in the face of the doctrine of equality within the LoC. For example, from the same source:

The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

[CASteinman]

In my opinion, I wouldn't so much call it apostasy as I would "wheat with the tares". The Church is trying to remain relevant so as to have a broad appeal as possible without sacrificing doctrine and that will look like, to some, an apostasy. I'm tempted myself to call apostasy on the Church from time to time but so far, every time I have closely examined various recent statements, I find that there has been no change.

This is a good look at things. And there will be wheat with tares continually because it is the work of the Church to harvest among both for a long time.

I wonder how the General Authorities gauge the wheat/tare ratio.

[CASteinman]

I've not read that particular work of his, but knowing somewhat of Nibley's proclivities, perhaps I would have to disagree with him. The United Order failed because it became a closed economic system and the LoC is not a prescription for an economic system at all. For example, it doesn't regulate price, supply, or production. In addition, the property in the failed application of the United Order often became seen as communal, something which is against the doctrine. Judging by the doctrine on the LoC (summarized effectively in Enrichment Section L of the D&C Institute manual), it cannot work unless the economic system that surrounds it is free market capitalism which happens to mirror God's own plan (and economics) of salvation ala 2 Nephi 2 et. al.

I don't think that judgement is what I think you think it is. It is for sure that it is not a "given that one man should possess...." yet it doesn't say there is anything intrinsically wrong with it. But it IS a given that "the poor always ye have with you" (John 12:8 etc.).

The doctrinal context of 49:20 confirms this:

The unrighteous distribution of possessions causes much difficulty. The Lord has said, “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:20).

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), 421–422

The notion that everyone must be cut down to size, so to speak, flies in the face of the doctrine of equality within the LoC. For example, from the same source:

The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

I believe I would like to be in a class with you -- well a sort of class. I would not want to just have to sit there and listen. I would want to challenge some of this. But I could learn I think.

[blackstrap]

“And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

I am curious as to how this would work in the real world. If we are talking an equal claim on the properties such as utilities or roads etc. then we already have that to a major extent. OTOH if all are to have equal claim to the surplus of Bill Gates,then I am having trouble seeing how that would work. As with all theories , the devil is in the details. Where I live, the Hutterites follow a form of communalism wherein the colony provides for the health and food etc. of all and each family shares in the work and can call on the communal resources as needed.The colony buys the vehicles,cell phones,etc where required.Individuals practice an underground economy in order to get special items as desired.

Please direct me to any place where the real world implications of the practice of the LoC has been outlined.

[Saints Alive]

At first I was thinking of a fish scale... Lol. Anyway I say Church inc. is at a 4

[bdouglas]

The following is an interesting historical tidbit. It is an "apostolic circular", dated 1875, signed by Brigham Young, 1st prez and members of the Twelve (who were around at the time, I guess):

THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

The church (i.e., the attitudes and beliefs of leaders and members alike) has changed a lot since that time (1875), I guess. Whether this is due to apostasy, or learned lessons from the historic upheavals of the 20th century, I could not say--although, like anybody else, I have my opinions.

You can read more about this circular, see documentation, etc., at following link:

http://www.ldscooper...om/proclamation

Edited March 27, 2013 by bdouglas

[MormonMason]

The Church must allow the wheat and the tares together in order to fulfill the prophecies. I have experienced tares and what they can do to the Church. Thankfully, the Church is run mostly by wheat. I'd put the general membership of the Church, with its growing mixture of wheat and tares, at about an 8. The General Leadership of the Church are on the ball but a growing number of the Local Leadership are actually helping the tares along. I am seeing a growing number of faithless Bishops and those who try to run the Church like a business, lacking prayers before and after meetings, and prayerless interviews by Bishops and Stake Presidents, as well as uninspired decisions that end up rifting entire Wards apart and Bishops who give temple recommends to people known to them to cavort with prostitutes. It is sad to see it happening but it is.

I recently experienced a Stake President attempt a little anti-Masonic action upon me--until the General Authorities told him to let me be and that there was no incompatibility between Freemasonry and the teachings of the Church. Even after that, he still had to put in a little dig with the Bishop to tell me to remove Masonic pins from my jacket lapel. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when outside influences are allowed to prevail when even Presidents of the Church once wore Masonic pins on their shirts and lapels.

Edited March 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[Storm Rider]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is where we obtain all truth. The mere fact that those who follow Christ are found at all degrees of discipleship is not a reflection of apostasy, but a reality of the human condition and mortality. Apostasy for me is defined by two main points: 1) the true Priesthood and the associated ordinances that lead to Exaltation, 2) purity of doctrine. The Church fulfills completely the first one; however, I will say that the second one is affected by humans striving to do their best and failing at times. We are all called to repentance, which is more a state of mind, heart, and spirit than an act (though it very much includes the action of repentance), and this is often a refining of our understanding of God's will and his teachings. The Church since Brigham Young has been incredibly slow at correcting itself or, better said, refining and clarifying its teachings. The Leadership is loathe to appear as if it conflicts with what a previous Leadership instituted or taught. I believe it is folly to assume that because the Church is fully functioning with the Keys of the Priesthood that we automatically have all our teachings in perfect harmony with God. That is an expectation too that demands too much of each disciple much less prophets, seers, and revelators.

[BCSpace]

I believe I would like to be in a class with you -- well a sort of class. I would not want to just have to sit there and listen. I would want to challenge some of this. But I could learn I think.

That would be great. It's always me that ends up doing the challenging.

[BCSpace]

“And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

I am curious as to how this would work in the real world. If we are talking an equal claim on the properties such as utilities or roads etc. then we already have that to a major extent. OTOH if all are to have equal claim to the surplus of Bill Gates,then I am having trouble seeing how that would work. As with all theories , the devil is in the details.

Check out the doctrine from Enrichment Section L which explains how it works. I don't think utilities and roads have any bearing at all; the LoC is not an economic system or a government. There are still devils in the details, but basically it all boils down to there is no significant change except the poor are taken care of (and are possibly not poor any more if they are able to mange their stewardships. Consider:

Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4 ), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” ( D&C 82:18 ). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18 ).

Where I live, the Hutterites follow a form of communalism wherein the colony provides for the health and food etc. of all and each family shares in the work and can call on the communal resources as needed.The colony buys the vehicles,cell phones,etc where required.Individuals practice an underground economy in order to get special items as desired.

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

Enrichment Section L

Please direct me to any place where the real world implications of the practice of the LoC has been outlined.

These doctrines will have a great deal of bearing on real world implications. From the same source (which I also link to in my siggy):

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

Enrichment Section L

.....

President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)

Enrichment Section L

I think it's quite clear that the Loc/United Order is nothing remotely at all like Socialism. Socialism is merely a faint copy of common LDS mythology/misinterpretation/ignorance of what the LoC really is.

(L-6) The Lord’s Way Versus the World’s Way

Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith’s day or from communal experiments within the new religion. Such assumptions are false. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine” (History of the Church, 6:33). In more recent times Elder Marion G. Romney outlined the differences between the revealed system of the united order and the socialistic programs:

“(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

“… Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

“(3) … The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

“(4) The United Order is non-political.

“Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

“(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

“The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1966, p. 97.)

President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “The United Order has not been generally understood. … [it] was not a communal system. … The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 11.)

President Marion G. Romney warned about the continuing imitations of the adversary: “In this modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115; or Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 98.)

President Romney noted:

“I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to … government welfare services. …

“The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery. …

“When we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, might, mind, and strength, we will love our brothers as ourselves, and we will voluntarily, in the exercise of our free agency, impart of our substance for their support. …

“President [J. Reuben] Clark, … referring to government gratuities, said:

“‘The dispensing of these great quantities of gratuities has produced in the minds of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of people … a love for idleness, a feeling that the world owes them a living. It has made a breeding ground for some of the most destructive political doctrines that have ever found any hold, … and I think it may lead us into serious political trouble. …

“‘… Society owes to no man a life of idleness, no matter what his age. I have never seen one line in Holy Writ that calls for, or even sanctions this. In the past no free society has been able to support great groups in idleness and live free.’ (CR, Apr. 1938, pp. 106–7.) …

“… Both history and prophecy—and I may add, common sense—bear witness to the fact that no civilization can long endure which follows the course charted by bemused manipulators and now being implemented as government welfare programs all around the world.

“Babylon shall be destroyed, and great shall be the fall thereof. (See D&C 1:16.)

“But do not be discouraged. Zion will not go down with her, because Zion shall be built on the principles of love of God and fellowman, work, and earnest labor, as God has directed.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1976, pp. 164–66, 169; or Ensign, May 1976, pp. 120–21, 123.)

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

[BCSpace]

The church (i.e., the attitudes and beliefs of leaders and members alike) has changed a lot since that time (1875), I guess. Whether this is due to apostasy, or learned lessons from the historic upheavals of the 20th century, I could not say--although, like anybody else, I have my opinions.

Or it could be that BY himself was in "apostasy" considering that the United Order of his time ultimately failed. Your BY quote originated around the time BY was organizing his last ditch effort, the "United Order of Kanab", which failed miserably within ten years. My own opinion/observation is that they tried to make it more than what it actually was and introduced communalism even though that was against earlier doctrine taught by Joseph Smith.

An interesting sidebar to this is that according to BY's own logic in your quote, those practicing plural marriage (17-20% in the UOoKanab) could be considered as having excess wealth in the form of more help and labor and consequently an accelerated rate of production and consumption of resources.

[MormonMason]

I do not see it as apostasy on the part of Brigham Young. He wanted to go back to Zion. He genuinely wanted the Saints to go back there, too. The practice of the law of consecration is one of the major requirements for Zion to prosper in the land. We failed because of our natural man nature taking over. We want our stuff and humans tend to get greedy and hoard rather than to share everything they have with others.

Edited March 27, 2013 by MormonMason