Scale Of Apostasy

[BCSpace]

I am curious as to how this would work in the real world.

As am I. But I think it would all be speculative especially since we are no longer an agrarian society, My own take is that almost nothing would change on the surface except tithing settlement becomes something more comprehensive and needs would arise at other times in the year. We've already made certain covenants and so no "re-deeding" would need to be done in most cases, one could simply have a ceremony that acknowledges your understanding that it all belongs to the Lord and what you have now is your stewardship which is assumed to be your own private property.

Consider: A family of four with a 4800 square foot house and a family of six with a 2400 square foot house. Do you demolish or sell both houses and construct a 2880 square foot house for the family of four and a 4320 square foot house for the family of six? That would be extremely inefficient and a huge waste of resources because two perfectly good houses already exist. I think moving families out of houses into a more appropriate house would also be untenable. It is extremely unlikely that either family is suffering or enjoying too much their specific size of house. So I think one need do nothing in this case. Recall that there is no cutting down to size in the LoC.

That is similar in some ways to the old United Order problem in that everyone had property but some property was more valuable than others. The difference is that in the modern case, the house does not produce like the old time property did (grazing, crops, other resources).

Nothing changes as far as schooling and careers. You decide what you want to be. If one has a business, one would not be violating the LoC to make capital investments and expansions (which would potentially increase the available wealth in any United Order; available is the key, it is not automatically taken). There is nothing in the LoC that sets the price one charges or how much to produce or what to produce.

Similarly, it is not against the LoC to save for a rainy day, or retirement, or a vacation, or simply to invest and increase one's stewardship (parable of the sower). Also, one would still render unto Caesar which is outside/unassociated with the Order (recall that the Order is not political according to the doctrine).

In short, I don't see much change at all except that the more wealthy in the system would give a little more and the poor would be helped (unless they squandered their stewardship). Trying to do more to make things exactly equal (which is contrary to doctrine) would probably fall into the realm of cutting down to size and add more devils to the details as everyone begins to complain about their lot (as happened in the early LDS practice). Otherwise everyone has a decent opportunity and if they take 5 and make 10, or take 2 and make 4, or take one and hide it in the earth, that is what they end up with.

And absolutely NONE of this would work in a system other than a free market capitalist system. You have to have private property and the agency to do with your stewardship as you will. You have to be able to freely enter and exit the Order. You have to be able to create wealth rather than destroy it or people can't be helped and the attitude of charity required to live the LoC does not exist. All that hinges on an FMC system implied by the doctrine (and which is intrinsically neutral just like the bitter vs. the sweet system of salvation is) as God Himself is the ultimate Free Market Capitalist.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou newest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Matthew 25

Edited March 27, 2013 by BCSpace

[mathonihah]

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.

What worrying descriptions? I was not aware of any. Both the BoM and the D&C affirm that as the rest of the world keeps getting worse and worse, the Church will keep getting better and better. The complete answer to your question, however, is given in the following verses:

“And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness,

the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually

—

“For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

“Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

“And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always dstrive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

“And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;

“For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.

“

And also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their dmidst,

and shall come down in judgement upon Idumea, or the world.

“Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

“For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen.” (D&C 1:30–39)

These words are as true today as they were in the day when they were written. And the Book of Mormon also affirms the same thing:

“And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld

the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory

.

“And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

“And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

“And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.” (1 Nephi 14:13–17)

Edited March 27, 2013 by mathonihah

[Alan]

To answer my own question, I feel we are currently a number 4 on the scale.

[mathonihah]

To answer my own question, I feel we are currently a number 4 on the scale.

The short answer to your question is, that it is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—"

[MormonMason]

To answer my own question, I feel we are currently a number 4 on the scale.

And, why would you feel this way? What is your basis for the claim?

[rongo]

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

I think "faithless" is too harsh, even for "business-model," hyperefficiency-oriented bishops. There are differences in style, temperament, and approach, for sure.

lacking prayers before and after meetings, and prayerless interviews by Bishops and Stake Presidents

I would encourage charity with respect to judging bishops and presidents for not having a prayer in every interview. I'll bet some people weren't happy with my meeting style ---- we always began and ended with a prayer, but I never had a song or spiritual thought in my meetings.

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.

It does happen, but it isn't "common." I hope not.

Early in my time as a bishop, I had a transcript from Salt Lake of a complicated disciplinary council from an excommunication that happened at BYU. The stake presidency and high council were like a who's who: Richard L. Anderson, Eugene England, etc. I really liked the detailed nature of the transcript: like a Supreme Court transcript that reads almost like a script. *Very* helpful in knowing in detail what transpired and how and why the council reached its decision. This is not the norm: most council records received are very brief and terse (this will only become more the case with the switch to online paperwork, I think). My counselors and I always worked with the clerk to produce detailed transcripts like this of our councils, and I quoted two quotes from President Taylor during the deliberations from one where we were inclined to not excommunicate, but weren't entirely comfortable with that, either. They were thought-provoking, and influenced our decision:

(they serve as the core of this "destroyed in the flesh" section of a paper I wrote:)

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head05

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.

I had two brothers in my ward ask me if there was anything wrong with Freemasonry (they were interested in exploring joining, but had the quasi-cultural Mormon stigma in the back of their minds). They both were aware of the relationship between Freemasonry and the Church in Nauvoo. My counsel to them was that it's a wonderful organization and there's absolutely no problem with an active member being a Mason ---- just be aware that there's a time commitment, and with other church and family obligations, it needs to be considered.

[MormonMason]

I think "faithless" is too harsh, even for "business-model," hyperefficiency-oriented bishops. There are differences in style, temperament, and approach, for sure.

For a couple of Bishops I have known over the decades of my life, faithless is adequate a description. One was called as a Bishop but he did not believe that miracles were real and thought most descriptions of them were fairy stories. Another did not believe that he could receive revelation relative to peoples' lives and the gift of discernment was a sham. Both went total inactive after their time was up.

I would encourage charity with respect to judging bishops and presidents for not having a prayer in every interview. I'll bet some people weren't happy with my meeting style ---- we always began and ended with a prayer, but I never had a song or spiritual thought in my meetings.

While I do practice charity when it come to most Bishops I have known, there are some who deserve pity and some even who deserve punishment for what they did, such as breaking confidences and telling of happenings of private interviews to people who spread it around the Ward as gossip. Such bishops deserve the special place in hell they will inhabit, except they repent in full.

It does happen, but it isn't "common." I hope not.

It is becoming more common, unfortunately, than we would hope. This was considerably less common when Bishops were called directly by General Authorities instead of through intervention of the various Stake Presidents. If you have a spiritual Stake President, this situation works. When you don't, that is when trouble erupts because he is most likely to choose his friends than others. I have seen that one too many times and it always ended badly for the Ward. There are some things I wish I had never seen or experienced. Let's just leave it at that.

...

I had two brothers in my ward ask me if there was anything wrong with Freemasonry (they were interested in exploring joining, but had the quasi-cultural Mormon stigma in the back of their minds). They both were aware of the relationship between Freemasonry and the Church in Nauvoo. My counsel to them was that it's a wonderful organization and there's absolutely no problem with an active member being a Mason ---- just be aware that there's a time commitment, and with other church and family obligations, it needs to be considered.

There is a time commitment, but pretty much only if you are an officer, and if you are a member of other Appendant bodies of Masonry. There is some time that is needed to commit portions of the rituals to memory, too. But, the leaders of Freemasonry also understand that family comes first. Some Lodges and other bodies of Masonry do meet on days when we hold Family Home Evening but in such cases the day can be moved if one wishes to attend Lodge, etc., meetings.

[Questing Beast]

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.

If we judge by the first generation church, the current org is about a five (5), and slipping further down. If we judge by Hinckley's/Monson's paradigm of ecumenical thought, the current church is about an eight (8 ), and getting better steadily....

Edited March 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[cinepro]

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.

Without providing the specific criteria upon which the Church is to be judged, I suspect most answers to this question will reveal more about the answerer than any objective knowledge about the "collective institution".

Personally, I suspect the Church was closest to "10" on April 6, 1830, and it's been downhill ever since.

[Brenda]

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.

I'd say the Church is fine. We as a people, are all over the scale. So maybe, if you took a average, a five.

[CV75]

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.

Would you provide the references you are using for your observations about Nephi and Moroni?

I’m not sure that apostasy of the restored Church and the City of Enoch are proper juxtapositions for describing the Restored Church.

Be that as it may, certainly things may not have been restored yet, and all things have not yet been fulfilled, and we are close to the Second Coming. But focusing on the Restored Church alone, what are you suggesting might be signs of apostasy?

[RobertAC]

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.

I am sort of surprised. I may be stepping on some toes here, but from a historical perspective, my understanding is that much of the ceremonies conducted in the temple share a common history with Masonic ceremonies. It's also my understanding that many in the Smith family, including Joseph, were Freemasons.

Edited March 28, 2013 by RobertAC

[RobertAC]

I have some questions about what exactly is considered apostacy within the Mormon faith. From the outside looking in, it seems that there is a variety of opinions as to the meaning of certain practices, scriptures, and theological pronouncements mean. What would tip the scale into apostacy? I can imagine if someone lost faith in the church itself, but what if they believe the core tenets?

[Brenda]

I have some questions about what exactly is considered apostacy within the Mormon faith. From the outside looking in, it seems that there is a variety of opinions as to the meaning of certain practices, scriptures, and theological pronouncements mean. What would tip the scale into apostacy? I can imagine if someone lost faith in the church itself, but what if they believe the core tenets?

As I understand it, apostasy is when you turn against the Church, renounce its truth, and leave. Then continue to speak against it, trying to drive others out. I may not be exactly correct here, and if so, I'm sure others will jump in.

[Brenda]

I am sort of surprised. I may be stepping on some toes here, but from a historical perspective, my understanding is that much of the ceremonies conducted in the temple share a common history with Masonic ceremonies. It's also my understanding that many in the Smith family, including Joseph, were Freemasons.

The problem here is that you only have one side of the story ... about wearing the lapel pins. I've never heard of there being any problem with being LDS and involved with the Masons. So one might have to wonder what else went on between him and his stake president. You might find this interesting: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695265549/A-Mormon-Mason-New-grand-master-is-the-first-in-a-century-who-is-LDS.html?pg=all

[Vanguard]

I have some questions about what exactly is considered apostacy within the Mormon faith. From the outside looking in, it seems that there is a variety of opinions as to the meaning of certain practices, scriptures, and theological pronouncements mean. What would tip the scale into apostacy? I can imagine if someone lost faith in the church itself, but what if they believe the core tenets?

Using the term "apostacy" gets muddled only because I think of the "Great Apostacy" (i.e., the Dark Ages). When spoken of in a collective sense it simply has to mean the Priesthood is no longer present on the earth or in the church and as a result the "collective" loses its way with important doctrine. We believe this will never again be the case on the earth. On an idividual level I imagine it to mean straying from the finest principles of the gospel (i.e., love/charity, service, compassion, long-suffering, and so on). Simple inactivity cannot be sufficient to deem some an apostate.

[mathonihah]

I am sort of surprised. I may be stepping on some toes here, but from a historical perspective, my understanding is that much of the ceremonies conducted in the temple share a common history with Masonic ceremonies. It's also my understanding that many in the Smith family, including Joseph, were Freemasons.

While it is true that in the early days prominent LDS have been Masons; my understanding of the case is that today Mormons becoming Masons is not encouraged in the Church.

[mathonihah]

I have some questions about what exactly is considered apostacy within the Mormon faith. From the outside looking in, it seems that there is a variety of opinions as to the meaning of certain practices, scriptures, and theological pronouncements mean. What would tip the scale into apostacy? I can imagine if someone lost faith in the church itself, but what if they believe the core tenets?

You are formally an apostate when you are excommunicated from the Church for apostasy; or leave it of your own accord, and declare yourself as such. However, it is also possible to manifest a spirit of apostasy, while still remaining a member of the Church. For example, there is a quote from Joseph Smith to the effect that when someone starts finding fault with Church leaders, challenging their authority or questioning worthiness, he is manifesting a spirit of apostasy.

[CV75]

Aware of the worrying discriptions of the latter day church by both Nephi and Moroni

CFR--I asked for a reference once already!

[mathonihah]

CFR--I asked for a reference once already!

There are none; there is only evidence to the contrary. He has never replied to any of my posts, so don’t hold your breath that he will reply to yours.

[MormonMason]

I am sort of surprised. I may be stepping on some toes here, but from a historical perspective, my understanding is that much of the ceremonies conducted in the temple share a common history with Masonic ceremonies. It's also my understanding that many in the Smith family, including Joseph, were Freemasons.

You would be quite mistaken about "much of the ceremonies conducted in the temple" sharing common history with Masonic ceremonies. It is true, however, that Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Joseph Smith, Jr., were Masons, as were the first five Presidents of the Church, and the majority of the Apostles during the Nauvoo Period.

[MormonMason]

While it is true that in the early days prominent LDS have been Masons; my understanding of the case is that today Mormons becoming Masons is not encouraged in the Church.

While there are some members of the Church who would discourage it, the official stance of the Church is that there is no problem with members becoming Masons or being Masons when they join. Prior to 1984, there was heavy discouragement by leaders of the Church for members of the Church living in the State of Utah. The reason for this is because in order to be a Mason in Utah, you would have had to do one of two things to be a Mason. You either would have had to renounce membership in the Church or lie about your membership in the Church to be a Mason in Utah. A Mason in Utah under those circumstances would have been unworthy to hold a temple recommend or to serve in positions of leadership. It was that way until 1984 because of the un-Masonic practice of the Grand Lodge of Utah in excluding Mormons from membership in Lodges during the years before 1984.

[MormonMason]

The problem here is that you only have one side of the story ... about wearing the lapel pins. I've never heard of there being any problem with being LDS and involved with the Masons. So one might have to wonder what else went on between him and his stake president. You might find this interesting: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695265549/A-Mormon-Mason-New-grand-master-is-the-first-in-a-century-who-is-LDS.html?pg=all

Nothing else went on. That Stake President just had anti-Masonic leanings, and a mistaken view of the position of the Church regarding Freemasonry, until he was set straight by the General Authorities of the Church whom he had contacted. But, it is true that you only are reading one side of the story. To give you the other side of the story I would have to give you the name of the Stake President and reveal my identity. I am unwilling to do either at this time, for safety reasons and for the fact that I have no wish to embarrass the (now former) Stake President by naming names.

[RobertAC]

Thanks guys! I appreciate the comments!

[mathonihah]

While there are some members of the Church who would discourage it, the official stance of the Church is that there is no problem with members becoming Masons or being Masons when they join. Prior to 1984, there was heavy discouragement by leaders of the Church for members of the Church living in the State of Utah. The reason for this is because in order to be a Mason in Utah, you would have had to do one of two things to be a Mason. You either would have had to renounce membership in the Church or lie about your membership in the Church to be a Mason in Utah. A Mason in Utah under those circumstances would have been unworthy to hold a temple recommend or to serve in positions of leadership. It was that way until 1984 because of the un-Masonic practice of the Grand Lodge of Utah in excluding Mormons from membership in Lodges during the years before 1984.

There is no rule against becoming a Mason in the Church. You won't lose your temple recommend, or denied a calling because you have become a Mason. But there is a conflict of interest between the two. Masonry is not just the esoteric stuff, which fascinates a lot of people. It is also a fraternity, and there is a social aspect to it too. In their social functions they consume alcohol, and there may be a peer pressure (for some) to conform to their standards. And since their rites are similar to ours, there is a potential danger that those who are weak in faith may be drawn away from the Church to those kinds of ideals. It also varies from country to country. It is not the same as it was in the days of Joseph Smith. There is nothing in the Church Handbook of Instructions about it as far as I can tell; but stake presidents may have been advised privately not to encourage it. Next time I see my stake president I will ask him what his advice is about that.

Masonry is not entirely neutral vis-à-vis the Church. In some ways is fulfils the role of a religion. I know it doesn't claim to be, but to some degree it may fulfil that role for some people. And having two religions at the same time is not a good idea.