kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That word has had very negative connotations since the early days of the church. I’m surprised anyone thinks it’s merely a formal definition of turning away from faith or principle. I call myself an apostate precisely because its connotations are so excessive. I like the irony. Do you have any sources or references that show apostasy or apostate having a very negative connotation? I mean I get that it would likely be seen as a negative in the faith community because by definition it is an individual renouncing that faith. If a former member of some Republican committee was labeled a Democrat when they resign from that committee and join a Democratic group, the Republican members would likely see that as a negative. I guess I just don't see it as that much of a surprise that people use the word to mean what it means. Apostasy is a pretty benign term in the Church in my experience.
cacheman Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 32 minutes ago, Rain said: When I read Tacenda's statement I started thinking about this and then I read what you wrote here. What I was thinking was, "I wonder if some people think that the word has more power than the church does." So I looked up the word: Now if you go strictly by definition then it isn't a charged word. In fact I was surprised y how benign it sounded. But then you look at the synonyms and it becomes very charged. I have mixed feelings on that. I really like looking up words in a thesaurus. I've always liked creative writing in some form or another. What I have found is that often "synonyms" are not very synonymous. In fact they can be quite far apart. For that reason I often don't really think of using synonyms in place of my original word. With "apostate" all of the synonyms for "apostate" are negative enough that none of really fit the stated definition. So if I go just by definition then labeling someone entering into a gay marriage as apostate just seems to go along with the definition - one legally chooses marriage to someone of the same sex over church teachings. While one may not make vows in a wedding most of the world recognizes that marriage is a step beyond living together. If it wasn't then people who see no moral reason not to live together would not see a need to marry (unless of course they are thinking of insurance, inheritance etc issues). And when I think of President Oaks and his legal mind then it makes sense to me that by labeling someone apostate it wouldn't be done in a charged way. However, there are many who would pay more attention to the synonyms included with the definition than the definition itself. And then there is no surprise at all that some feel the word is charged. With your relationships with your family that you have talked about then it is no wonder that you view it this way. Around the time when I was moving on from the LDS faith ~15 years ago, the church was using the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young manuals. Both of them had lessons on personal apostasy (presumably approved by church leaders). They spelled out the negative character traits, sins, and demonic influences that would lead to someone becoming like me (an apostate). No other positive or even neutral possibilities were offered to describe those in a state of 'personal apostasy'. It was very clear from those lessons that apostates were bad people or doing bad things, and that they were now under the influence of Satan. Hopefully, things have improved since then, but there's no question in my mind that a label of apostate within an LDS context is a very charged label. People on the receiving end of that are very aware of the influence these teachings have. ...particularly if they have family in the church or live in an area with a large LDS population. I see more flexible and understanding views on this board that I hope is evidence that institutional views regarding those who leave have changed for the better. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, kllindley said: Do you have any sources or references that show apostasy or apostate having a very negative connotation? I mean I get that it would likely be seen as a negative in the faith community because by definition it is an individual renouncing that faith. If a former member of some Republican committee was labeled a Democrat when they resign from that committee and join a Democratic group, the Republican members would likely see that as a negative. I guess I just don't see it as that much of a surprise that people use the word to mean what it means. Apostasy is a pretty benign term in the Church in my experience. I could cite a lot of examples, but this should suffice from Joseph Smith: “Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented, have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes. From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him. “There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors. “What nearer friend on earth, or in heaven, had Judas than the Savior? And his first object was to destroy Him. Who, among all the Saints in these last days, can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was? Are they to be found? He never transgressed or broke a commandment or law of heaven—no deceit was in His mouth, neither was guile found in His heart. And yet one that ate with Him, who had often drunk of the same cup, was the first to lift up his heel against Him. Where is one like Christ? He cannot be found on earth. Then why should His followers complain, if from those whom they once called brethren, and considered as standing in the nearest relation in the everlasting covenant, they should receive persecution? “From what source emanated the principle which has ever been manifested by apostates from the true Church to persecute with double diligence, and seek with double perseverance, to destroy those whom they once professed to love, with whom they once communed, and with whom they once covenanted to strive with every power in righteousness to obtain the rest of God? Perhaps our brethren will say the same that caused Satan to seek to overthrow the kingdom of God, because he himself was evil, and God’s kingdom is holy.”10 “There have always been, in every age of the church, those who have been opposed to the principles of virtue, who have loved the gain of this present world, followed the principles of unrighteousness, and have been the enemies of truth. … Those who have associated with us and made the greatest professions of friendship, have frequently been our greatest enemies and our most determined foes; if they became unpopular, if their interest or dignity was touched, or if they were detected in their iniquity, they were always the first to raise the hand of persecution, to calumniate [make false charges about] and vilify their brethren, and to seek the downfall and destruction of their friends.”11 “Renegade ‘Mormon’ dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us; therefore they [the world] make a tool of these fellows [the dissenters]; and by them try to do all the injury they can, and after that they hate them worse than they do us, because they find them to be base traitors and sycophants [flatterers].”12 1
california boy Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, kllindley said: I think the marriage aspect changes their soul. I believe any sexual intimacy has an actual effect which alters the spirit. Not flaunted. Flouted. I understand that many people do see it as negative. I'm suggesting that they need not. This surprises me. Can you help me by pointing out what specifically I say that suggests I'm not willing to understand? I would have thought that when I repeatedly say that I understand and respect and support LGBT individuals who feel that the best choice for them is outside the Church--I would think that would communicate a willingness to understand. Or the fact that I believe Heavenly Father actually does inspire some LGBT individuals to leave the Church. I'm honestly confused how that is one-sided. I think a fair representation of LDS doctrine would start with the understanding that according to that doctrine, homosexuality is strictly a mortal experience. I don't see the post mortal change to be a new state, but a return to our previous nature. So I don't believe that in the celestial kingdom anyone is gay. That is the position of the Church. I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe that. But it is what the Church teaches. I don't assume that other gay men can be happy in a mixed-orientation marriage in this life. Several leaders have made it clear that many aren't able to. I really would like to know what I've said that even remotely leads you to believe that I think you "made no effort." Seriously, please help me understand which comments make you think that. It is the part I have put in bold that I don't think you are looking at how someone who is only attracted to the same sex can possibly be happy in the next life. You seem to think that a gay person should be totally motivated to work towards the Celestial Kingdom which by it's very nature means spending eternity married to a woman because somehow they will leave their gayness as just a mortal experience. And you seem to think that a gay person would be excited to find out that his attraction to the same sex is only temporary and he will get the opportunity to be straight in the next life. It is as if you are saying that the only way to be happy in the next life is to loose the same sex attraction that was only a mortal experience and in the next life, you will love being straight. This is not about my personal belief. This is if I trust and embrace what church leaders are telling us. You seem fine with being straight in the eternities. Me, not so much. It is that perspective that I don't think you are willing to entertain. You seem to be saying that everyone will be delighted to be straight in the next life.
california boy Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Rain said: When I read Tacenda's statement I started thinking about this and then I read what you wrote here. What I was thinking was, "I wonder if some people think that the word has more power than the church does." So I looked up the word: Now if you go strictly by definition then it isn't a charged word. In fact I was surprised y how benign it sounded. But then you look at the synonyms and it becomes very charged. I have mixed feelings on that. I really like looking up words in a thesaurus. I've always liked creative writing in some form or another. What I have found is that often "synonyms" are not very synonymous. In fact they can be quite far apart. For that reason I often don't really think of using synonyms in place of my original word. With "apostate" all of the synonyms for "apostate" are negative enough that none of really fit the stated definition. So if I go just by definition then labeling someone entering into a gay marriage as apostate just seems to go along with the definition - one legally chooses marriage to someone of the same sex over church teachings. While one may not make vows in a wedding most of the world recognizes that marriage is a step beyond living together. If it wasn't then people who see no moral reason not to live together would not see a need to marry (unless of course they are thinking of insurance, inheritance etc issues). And when I think of President Oaks and his legal mind then it makes sense to me that by labeling someone apostate it wouldn't be done in a charged way. However, there are many who would pay more attention to the synonyms included with the definition than the definition itself. And then there is no surprise at all that some feel the word is charged. With your relationships with your family that you have talked about then it is no wonder that you view it this way. What word would you or the church use for someone who completely turning away from the gospel to the point of actively working against the church to try to destroy it? Someone who publishes books filled with lies about the church and does everything they can to tear down the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: It is the part I have put in bold that I don't think you are looking at how someone who is only attracted to the same sex can possibly be happy in the next life. You seem to think that a gay person should be totally motivated to work towards the Celestial Kingdom which by it's very nature means spending eternity married to a woman because somehow they will leave their gayness as just a mortal experience. And you seem to think that a gay person would be excited to find out that his attraction to the same sex is only temporary and he will get the opportunity to be straight in the next life. It is as if you are saying that the only way to be happy in the next life is to loose the same sex attraction that was only a mortal experience and in the next life, you will love being straight. This is not about my personal belief. This is if I trust and embrace what church leaders are telling us. You seem fine with being straight in the eternities. Me, not so much. It is that perspective that I don't think you are willing to entertain. You seem to be saying that everyone will be delighted to be straight in the next life. What exactly do you think it would look like for me to entertain your perspective? I do understand that many people aren't looking forward to being straight in the next life. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that I understand why many LGBT people don't find that message hopeful or satisfying. How can I more clearly communicate that I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe that view of sexuality and eternal identity? 1
california boy Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I could cite a lot of examples, but this should suffice from Joseph Smith: “Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented, have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes. From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him. “There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors. “What nearer friend on earth, or in heaven, had Judas than the Savior? And his first object was to destroy Him. Who, among all the Saints in these last days, can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was? Are they to be found? He never transgressed or broke a commandment or law of heaven—no deceit was in His mouth, neither was guile found in His heart. And yet one that ate with Him, who had often drunk of the same cup, was the first to lift up his heel against Him. Where is one like Christ? He cannot be found on earth. Then why should His followers complain, if from those whom they once called brethren, and considered as standing in the nearest relation in the everlasting covenant, they should receive persecution? “From what source emanated the principle which has ever been manifested by apostates from the true Church to persecute with double diligence, and seek with double perseverance, to destroy those whom they once professed to love, with whom they once communed, and with whom they once covenanted to strive with every power in righteousness to obtain the rest of God? Perhaps our brethren will say the same that caused Satan to seek to overthrow the kingdom of God, because he himself was evil, and God’s kingdom is holy.”10 “There have always been, in every age of the church, those who have been opposed to the principles of virtue, who have loved the gain of this present world, followed the principles of unrighteousness, and have been the enemies of truth. … Those who have associated with us and made the greatest professions of friendship, have frequently been our greatest enemies and our most determined foes; if they became unpopular, if their interest or dignity was touched, or if they were detected in their iniquity, they were always the first to raise the hand of persecution, to calumniate [make false charges about] and vilify their brethren, and to seek the downfall and destruction of their friends.”11 “Renegade ‘Mormon’ dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us; therefore they [the world] make a tool of these fellows [the dissenters]; and by them try to do all the injury they can, and after that they hate them worse than they do us, because they find them to be base traitors and sycophants [flatterers].”12 Exactly. Hardly the description of someone who simply wants to enter into a same sex marriage. They often have no desire to do anything to harm the church. They simply are unwilling to live this one principle.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: What word would you or the church use for someone who completely turning away from the gospel to the point of actively working against the church to try to destroy it? Someone who publishes books filled with lies about the church and does everything they can to tear down the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anti Mormon 1
california boy Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, kllindley said: What exactly do you think it would look like for me to entertain your perspective? I do understand that many people aren't looking forward to being straight in the next life. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that I understand why many LGBT people don't find that message hopeful or satisfying. How can I more clearly communicate that I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe that view of sexuality and eternal identity? Do you think there is a place for me in the Celestial Kingdom? If so, how.
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: Exactly. Hardly the description of someone who simply wants to enter into a same sex marriage. They often have no desire to do anything to harm the church. They simply are unwilling to live this one principle. Like I said, it’s much more appropriate a label for me. 😂
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: Anti Mormon Traditionally that word means someone who was never Mormon. An anti-Mormon who used to be a church member is usually called an apostate. Like me.
california boy Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 Just now, kllindley said: Anti Mormon But that is not the word that is used in the teachings of the church to describe the kind of people Joseph Smith and others have used. He used the word apostate. For someone who grew up in the church, reading about who church leaders labeled apostates in the past, the term Anti-Mormon was not used. Those evil men were always labeled apostates. Do you see how a person who is gay feels completely ostracized by the church when the label apostate is used to describe them?
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: But that is not the word that is used in the teachings of the church to describe the kind of people Joseph Smith and others have used. He used the word apostate. For someone who grew up in the church, reading about who church leaders labeled apostates in the past, the term Anti-Mormon was not used. Those evil men were always labeled apostates. Do you see how a person who is gay feels completely ostracized by the church when the label apostate is used to describe them? It is rather strange to hear that “apostate” is used benignly in the church, with no negative connotations.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: Do you think there is a place for me in the Celestial Kingdom? If so, how. Do you think that in order for me to consider your perspective, I have to fully agree with it? I do believe there is a place for you. And yes, I believe that for you to receive Exaltation there, you will be married to a woman. And your nature at would be such that this marriage would be the source of your greatest joy. That's my belief. Christianity in general believes that in heaven I will be a sexless being who's identity is completely subsumed by God's. Are my Christian friends unwilling to entertain or respect my perspective because the believe differently from me? My Christian friends don't believe that I'll be in heaven if I'm still a Mormon. They believe that in order for me to be saved, I will have to deny Mormonism and really accept Jesus. Are they telling me there is no place for me in Heaven?
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, kllindley said: Do you think that in order for me to consider your perspective, I have to fully agree with it? I do believe there is a place for you. And yes, I believe that for you to receive Exaltation there, you will be married to a woman. And your nature at would be such that this marriage would be the source of your greatest joy. That's my belief. Christianity in general believes that in heaven I will be a sexless being who's identity is completely subsumed by God's. Are my Christian friends unwilling to entertain or respect my perspective because the believe differently from me? My Christian friends don't believe that I'll be in heaven if I'm still a Mormon. They believe that in order for me to be saved, I will have to deny Mormonism and really accept Jesus. Are they telling me there is no place for me in Heaven? Yes, they are. Kind of makes me not interested in that brand of Christianity, either.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, california boy said: But that is not the word that is used in the teachings of the church to describe the kind of people Joseph Smith and others have used. He used the word apostate. For someone who grew up in the church, reading about who church leaders labeled apostates in the past, the term Anti-Mormon was not used. Those evil men were always labeled apostates. Do you see how a person who is gay feels completely ostracized by the church when the label apostate is used to describe them? I do see that. Interestingly, the handbook doesn't refer to anyone as an apostate. It defines certain behaviors as "Apostasy." Given the circumstances of the Early Saints, I can't blame them for having a dim view of apostates. But that doesn't mean they believed all apostates were evil. It seems like most of their worst enemies were in fact apostates. That doesn't mean that every apostate was their enemy.
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 Just now, kllindley said: I do see that. Interestingly, the handbook doesn't refer to anyone as an apostate. It defines certain behaviors as "Apostasy." Given the circumstances of the Early Saints, I can't blame them for having a dim view of apostates. But that doesn't mean they believed all apostates were evil. It seems like most of their worst enemies were in fact apostates. That doesn't mean that every apostate was their enemy. No, but it means the word has very negative connotations.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Yes, they are. Kind of makes me not interested in that brand of Christianity, either. That is so foreign to me. I'm a firm believer in pluralism. I feel complete acceptance and love from them. They fully expect me to be in Heaven with them, because they know my character and are confident I will ultimately see the light. And although I think they're wrong, I'm honored. I don't expect them to change their religious beliefs in order to accept me. I just can't imagine only feeling accepted by people who believe the same as I do.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: No, but it means the word has very negative connotations. As does the word Republican.
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: As does the word Republican. I’m glad you now acknowledge what is pretty clear. I couldn’t figure out why you were saying it was a benign word.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: I’m glad you now acknowledge what is pretty clear. I couldn’t figure out why you were saying it was a benign word. I said a while ago that the faith community would indeed see it as a negative.
california boy Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, kllindley said: Do you think that in order for me to consider your perspective, I have to fully agree with it? I do believe there is a place for you. And yes, I believe that for you to receive Exaltation there, you will be married to a woman. And your nature at would be such that this marriage would be the source of your greatest joy. That's my belief. Christianity in general believes that in heaven I will be a sexless being who's identity is completely subsumed by God's. Are my Christian friends unwilling to entertain or respect my perspective because the believe differently from me? My Christian friends don't believe that I'll be in heaven if I'm still a Mormon. They believe that in order for me to be saved, I will have to deny Mormonism and really accept Jesus. Are they telling me there is no place for me in Heaven? I didn't say you had to fully agree with my perspective. But can you at least understand why I feel there is no place for me in the Plan of Salvation BECAUSE of exactly what I have put in bold that you wrote. You accused me of distorting what the church teaches when I stated that there is no place for someone who is gay in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight In fact it is exactly what you wrote. You think that everyone will find that being married to a woman will be their greatest source of joy. What you can't seem to accept is that I certainly don't see it that way at all and by your own definition, there is no place for a gay person in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight. And in fact, I did not distort the teachings of the church. Edited July 4, 2018 by california boy
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, california boy said: I didn't say you had to fully agree with my perspective. But can you at least understand why I feel there is no place for me in the Plan of Salvation BECAUSE of exactly what I have put in bold that you wrote. You accused me of distorting what the church teaches when I stated that there is no place for someone who is gay in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight In fact it is exactly what you wrote. You think that everyone will find that being married to a woman will be their greatest source of joy. What you can't seem to accept is that I certainly don't see it that way at all and by your own definition, there is no place for a gay person in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight. And in fact, I did not distort the teachings of the church. So what would it mean for me to accept that you don't see it that way at all? I'd also clarify that I don't believe that anyone in the telestial kindgom or terrestrial kindgom will be gay either. I still disagree with the wording: "there is no place for someone who is gay in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight." That is only accurate if the 21st century view of sexual orientation and identity is correct.
kllindley Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, california boy said: I didn't say you had to fully agree with my perspective. But can you at least understand why I feel there is no place for me in the Plan of Salvation BECAUSE of exactly what I have put in bold that you wrote. You accused me of distorting what the church teaches when I stated that there is no place for someone who is gay in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight In fact it is exactly what you wrote. You think that everyone will find that being married to a woman will be their greatest source of joy. What you can't seem to accept is that I certainly don't see it that way at all and by your own definition, there is no place for a gay person in the Celestial Kingdom unless they become straight. And in fact, I did not distort the teachings of the church. Yes! I do. And I acknowledge that my belief is just that: a belief. I could be totally wrong about the afterlife. There might not even be one at all! 58 minutes ago, kllindley said: What exactly do you think it would look like for me to entertain your perspective? I do understand that many people aren't looking forward to being straight in the next life. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that I understand why many LGBT people don't find that message hopeful or satisfying. How can I more clearly communicate that I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe that view of sexuality and eternal identity?
jkwilliams Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 24 minutes ago, kllindley said: I said a while ago that the faith community would indeed see it as a negative. It’s kind of like when I was told I had made a conscious decision to follow Satan. I wasn’t offended, but I was certainly aware that “following Satan” has very negative connotations. Calling someone an apostate is not somewhere between benign and negative. It’s a loaded term.
Recommended Posts