Apostasy

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

All Christian churches and individuals attempting to understand and adhere to the teachings of Jesus.

Here is what Christ taught Joseph Smith about other churches

 

“they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them

(Jospeh Smith History 1:19-20)

 

It doesn't sounds like He considers them to be part of the body.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Here is what Christ taught Joseph Smith about other churches

 

“they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them

(Jospeh Smith History 1:19-20)

 

It doesn't sounds like He considers them to be part of the body.

I consider that to be quite an arrogant approach to other Christian faiths and I don't believe that the modern church views it that way.

Quote

1 Corinthians 12

14For the body is not one member, but many. 15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

So you are claiming that The LDS church is the only body of Christ and that every other Christians/denominations is NOT part of the body of Christ. Am I understanding you correctly?

Are you ever offended when Evangelicals claim that Mormons aren't Christian? By claiming that they aren't part of the body of Christ, you're doing the exact same thing. IMO it's offensive in both cases.

[ksfisher]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I consider that to be quite an arrogant approach to other Christian faiths and I don't believe that the modern church views it that way.

Joseph Smith is quoting the Savior in this passage.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to His meaning.

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

So you are claiming that The LDS church is the only body of Christ and that every other Christians/denominations is NOT part of the body of Christ. Am I understanding you correctly?

This would be my interpretation.  How can you be part of the body of Christ if you have not made covenants in His name?  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on earth that has the authority from Him to do so.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you ever offended when Evangelicals claim that Mormons aren't Christian?

Doesn't really worry me.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Joseph Smith is quoting the Savior in this passage.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to His meaning.

This would be my interpretation.  How can you be part of the body of Christ if you have not made covenants in His name?  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization on earth that has the authority from Him to do so.

Doesn't really worry me.

 

Your view of Christianity makes me feel sorry for you.

[Spammer]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OR if he does exist, the non-response is the answer to the prayer  

"Help me know that this church is true"...

Crickets. That may just be the answer, even if it's not the expected answer.

“Help me know that this church is true"...

crickets

“Is it true?” 

crickets

”Is it not true?

crickets

Is there a true church?

crickets

”Do you exist?”

crickets

And so forth, crickets all the way down.

To the extent that people in the church are encouraged to ask God if the church is true or if the Book of Mormon is true (or is not true, if we go with the actual wording), and the result, no matter how prayers are worded, is always crickets, it’s reasonable to conclude God doesn’t exist.

I know people, yours truly included, who became atheists this way.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Spammer

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Spammer said:

“Help me know that this church is true"...

crickets

“Is it true?” 

crickets

”Is it not true?

crickets

Is there a true church?

crickets

”Do you exist?”

crickets

And so forth, crickets all the way down.

To the extent that people in the church are encouraged to ask God if the church is true or if the Book of Mormon is true (or is not true, if we go with the actual wording), and the result, no matter how prayers are worded, is always crickets, it’s reasonable to conclude God doesn’t exist.

I know people, yours truly included, who became atheists this way.

While this was your experience, others received answers. I know atheists who became theists because God answered them. So, there is that. 

I do agree that if I *never* got an answer, it would make me question God's existence. If I continued to get no answers, I would probably become a non-believer.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your view of Christianity makes me feel sorry for you.

Are you feeling sorry for me because I believe that Christ gave authority to restore His church through Joseph Smith and I believe what Joseph Smith wrote concerning the restoration?  Or because I believe that only this church has the necessary authority to act in the name of Christ?  Or is it because I'm not worried about whether another group labels us as Christians or not? 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Spammer said:

“Help me know that this church is true"...

crickets

“Is it true?” 

crickets

”Is it not true?

crickets

Is there a true church?

crickets

”Do you exist?”

crickets

And so forth, crickets all the way down.

To the extent that people in the church are encouraged to ask God if the church is true or if the Book of Mormon is true (or is not true, if we go with the actual wording), and the result, no matter how prayers are worded, is always crickets, it’s reasonable to conclude God doesn’t exist.

I know people, yours truly included, who became atheists this way.

Of course Atheism isn't the only possible outcome. It could also be that the conception of an involved God who responds to prayer isn't accurate. IOW- God could exist. Lack of answer doesn't prove he doesn't. Just like if I call my dad, over and over, and he never answers, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It probably just means he still hasn't figured out how to work his phone

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Are you feeling sorry for me because I believe that Christ gave authority to restore His church through Joseph Smith and I believe what Joseph Smith wrote concerning the restoration?  Or because I believe that only this church has the necessary authority to act in the name of Christ?  Or is it because I'm not worried about whether another group labels us as Christians or not? 

No, I feel sorry that you seem incapable of recognizing the value of other Christian churches as playing a role in bringing people to Christ.

Millions, if not billions of people have turned toward Christ because of other Christian denominations. If we were to compare the number of Mormons to the over all body of Christ, we would be quite a small group. I think it's a shame that you don't accept the good gifts that other Christians bring to Christianity. In my view the body of Christ encompasses every church and individual who strives to bring people to Christ but you seem quit willing to discount those efforts. I think that is sad, misguided, and extremely arrogant.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

My response got deleted. Doh!! Here's an abbreviated version.

Sorry to hear that. I've heard that a number of times recently. Using a desktop computer I seem to have no problem with this. In fact just recently, I hit an errant key, and my post disappeared. I've noticed with the last software update done by MDDB there is a safety feature. I go back and click on the editor box where i had been typing, and the exact material I had been typing "magically" reappears. Hallellujah! There will also be an editorial X you can hit which informs you that you can "clear" the memory of the editor, so don't hit that! However, I don't know if this works with all browsers. For instance if one is using their smart phone or some dictation software, it may not work. Just a heads up.

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, I feel sorry that you seem incapable of recognizing the value of other Christian churches as playing a role in bringing people to Christ.

 

We weren't speaking about whether of not I find value in them, I do.  We were speaking about what if means to be part of the body of Christ.

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Spammer said:

To the extent that people in the church are encouraged to ask God if the church is true or if the Book of Mormon is true (or is not true, if we go with the actual wording), and the result, no matter how prayers are worded, is always crickets, it’s reasonable to conclude God doesn’t exist.

I know people, yours truly included, who became atheists this way.

I am glad that you are apparently no longer atheist, and if I were to join an orthodox(I know) Church, it would probably be the Eastern Orthodox or some heretical Nestorian branch. I think the Arian Church has made a revival. 

Would it matter if I gave you my experience? My guess is no - because it is not your experience:

Quote

“Help me know that this church is true"...

crickets Part of the same prayer below.

“Is it true?” 

crickets - I got an audible yes. How many times  is that going to occur? I posit for most the answer is going to come by the Holy Spirit, who Christ said can lead us to all truth. It is not going to come as an audible answer. My own son had not received answers to his prayers for years, and was of missionary age. While giving a presentation, I believe at seminary class, he began to give a presentation on the First Vision of Joseph Smith when he says the Spirit "hit me like a freight train." That experience then led him to save his own money for his mission, and was much more powerful for him than if mommy and daddy had simply paid for his mission which we expected him to go on.

”Is it not true?

crickets That was a definite concern for me. I did not want to get duped into following a false prophet or especially not the false prophet of Revelation.

Is there a true church?

crickets See above. I have visited many.

”Do you exist?”

crickets I have been honored to have the Lord speak to me several times in my life, and at least one occasion in my dreams. I know He exists, and loves me even if I am a rebellious servant.

And so forth, crickets all the way down.

I would be interested in hearing a little about your return to Christ. If you feel you never got an answer to prayer, why did you return to Christ?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Hi Bluebell,

It's not so much the label (I am, by definition, an apostate), but it's the character traits, moral failings, and satanic influence that the church attaches to the label.  In the lessons about avoiding personal apostasy that were being taught around the time I left, descriptions of those who leave the church were all negative.  There were no neutral or positive things mentioned.  There was no indication that good, decent people could simply believe differently and choose a path that better reflects their personal beliefs. These types of lessons have the real ability to influence how family members, friends, ward members, etc. view those who leave.  Lasting damage to relationships can be the result of this.  It doesn't seem weird to me at all that someone might care about that particular label. 

-cacheman

I can understand that, and I can imagine that it doesn't feel good to be described that like.  I certainly wouldn't like it.

Again though I think it all comes down to perspective.  If the church is what it claims to be, than leaving is a negative, regardless of the reason.  But, I wouldn't expect you or others see it that way from your perspective, and hopefully church family and friends can be kind and reasonable enough to recognize that the different perspectives exist and to treat others how they would want to be treated if they held the other perspective. 

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We weren't speaking about whether of not I find value in them, I do.  We were speaking about what if means to be part of the body of Christ.

By denying them as part of the body of Christ you are stating that they are not needed. Are you claiming you value them whilst stating they aren't needed. Refer back to 1 Corinthians 12 that I quoted earlier.

If you are stating they are not part of the body of Christ you are stating that they are not needed and therefore have no value.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can understand that, and I can imagine that it doesn't feel good to be described that like.  I certainly wouldn't like it.

Again though I think it all comes down to perspective.  If the church is what it claims to be, than leaving is a negative, regardless of the reason.  But, I wouldn't expect you or others see it that way from your perspective, and hopefully church family and friends can be kind and reasonable enough to recognize that the different perspectives exist and to treat others how they would want to be treated if they held the other perspective. 

I think it goes farther than what you suggest. I agree with Cacheman that there is a level of demonization that occurs when the church defines and teaches about "apostates/apostasy". Sure, I can understand that they find it negative to disaffiliate with the church but there's really no need to assign the worst motives to everyone who leaves, nor is there a need to ignore any positive intentions or purposes for a person who leaves. Just because someone comes from the perspective that the church is good doesn't mean they have to teach and believe that everyone who leaves the church is bad.

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

By denying them as part of the body of Christ you are stating that they are not needed. Are you claiming you value them whilst stating they aren't needed. Refer back to 1 Corinthians 12 that I quoted earlier.

If you are stating they are not part of the body of Christ you are stating that they are not needed and therefore have no value.

I didn't say they don't have value or that they cannot be of benefit.  You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. 

I believe that all who have made covenants with Christ are part of the body of Christ.

I disagree with you in saying that other churches are part of that body.

"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

(Mar 3:24-25)

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism"

(Eph 4:4-5)

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it goes farther than what you suggest. I agree with Cacheman that there is a level of demonization that occurs when the church defines and teaches about "apostates/apostasy". Sure, I can understand that they find it negative to disaffiliate with the church but there's really no need to assign the worst motives to everyone who leaves, nor is there a need to ignore any positive intentions or purposes for a person who leaves. Just because someone comes from the perspective that the church is good doesn't mean they have to teach and believe that everyone who leaves the church is bad.

But it's more than coming from the perspective that the church is good, right?  It's coming from the perspective that the church is literally Christ's church on the earth, the only church authorized to use His power to save God's children, the only church that offers a way to get onto the path that leads to eternal life, and the only one who offers a way to live with God again (all through Christ's power and Atonement).   That's the perspective we're talking about.   

I completely agree that there is no reason to demonize people who leave (even in those rare cases where they might deserve it, it's still not very useful or relevant), but there is no way to expect the church to teach that leaving and breaking the covenants made while a member isn't a bad thing caused by something negative taking place in a person's life.  It just wouldn't be logical. 

The position of what the church is and what blessings come from joining the church is a strong position, with very little room for negotiation, and that means that its teachings about the consequences of leaving the church also have to be equally strong with little room for negotiation.  It wouldn't make any sense otherwise.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But it's more than coming from the perspective that the church is good, right?  It's coming from the perspective that the church is literally Christ's church on the earth, the only church authorized to use His power to save God's children, the only church that offers a way to get onto the path that leads to eternal life, and the only one who offers a way to live with God again (all through Christ's power and Atonement).   That's the perspective we're talking about.   

I completely agree that there is no reason to demonize people who leave (even in those rare cases where they might deserve it, it's still not very useful or relevant), but there is no way to expect the church to teach that leaving and breaking the covenants made while a member isn't a bad thing caused by something negative taking place in a person's life.  It just wouldn't be logical. 

The position of what the church is and what blessings come from joining the church is a strong position, with very little room for negotiation, and that means that its teachings about the consequences of leaving the church also have to be equally strong with little room for negotiation.  It wouldn't make any sense otherwise.  

 

So if your position is "I'm right and I belong to the one and only true church" therefore "you are wrong and reject Christ" then, yes. There's not much room for common ground, understanding, or respect. When one believes in such black and white terms there isn't much opportunity to respect different POV's because everyone else is always wrong. And if that's the case, why not demonize others who reject the truth, because it's true that they are uninspired, unworthy covenant breakers.

IMO there has to be some humility in both sides for there to be some respect and acceptance of the other. Otherwise the POV is simply a "I'm right, you're wrong and that makes perfect sense because I'm right and you're wrong."

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I didn't say they don't have value or that they cannot be of benefit.  You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. 

I believe that all who have made covenants with Christ are part of the body of Christ.

I disagree with you in saying that other churches are part of that body.

"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

(Mar 3:24-25)

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism"

(Eph 4:4-5)

So you're saying that making covenants and receiving ordinances by proper priesthood authority are required to be a part of the body of Christ. I'm saying that anyone and any church striving to follow Jesus and lead others to follow Jesus are part of the body of Christ. I guess we can disagree. I find your definition very narrow and dismissive of every other Christian church that has ever existed because I feel that other churches have done great work in leading people to Christ. Even if it wasn't a complete understanding, or through the true priesthood keys as you might define it, they have still contributed to building up Christianity and leading people to Jesus. I just can't find value in having such a narrow view as you are proposing.

I certainly consider the LDS church as part of the body of Christ. Perhaps it's the arm and its role is priesthood ordinances, temple work etc. Perhaps it has a specific role to play in larger Christianity that is different than the role that Catholics play, or Methodists and Baptists. But why wouldn't we view the Catholic's contribution as the feet, and the Methodists as the eyes, and the Baptists as the knee...etc. Why not also accept their contributions in larger Christianity just because their role is different than ours? By denying them as part of the body of Christ I see you doing exactly what 1 Cor 12 is teaching us not to do.

Out of curiosity, what value do you find in other Christian denominations? If they are not part of the body of Christ and therefore outside of Christ, and Christ is salvation, what good are they?

[Spammer]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

While this was your experience, others received answers. I know atheists who became theists because God answered them. So, there is that. 

I do agree that if I *never* got an answer, it would make me question God's existence. If I continued to get no answers, I would probably become a non-believer.

That was my experience. I share it only to illustrate what can happen to the extent that churches rely on the “ask God if it’s true” model of truth.

[Nacho2dope]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're saying that making covenants and receiving ordinances by proper priesthood authority are required to be a part of the body of Christ. I'm saying that anyone and any church striving to follow Jesus and lead others to follow Jesus are part of the body of Christ. I guess we can disagree. I find your definition very narrow and dismissive of every other Christian church that has ever existed because I feel that other churches have done great work in leading people to Christ. Even if it wasn't a complete understanding, or through the true priesthood keys as you might define it, they have still contributed to building up Christianity and leading people to Jesus. I just can't find value in having such a narrow view as you are proposing.

I certainly consider the LDS church as part of the body of Christ. Perhaps it's the arm and its role is priesthood ordinances, temple work etc. Perhaps it has a specific role to play in larger Christianity that is different than the role that Catholics play, or Methodists and Baptists. But why wouldn't we view the Catholic's contribution as the feet, and the Methodists as the eyes, and the Baptists as the knee...etc. Why not also accept their contributions in larger Christianity just because their role is different than ours? By denying them as part of the body of Christ I see you doing exactly what 1 Cor 12 is teaching us not to do.

Out of curiosity, what value do you find in other Christian denominations? If they are not part of the body of Christ and therefore outside of Christ, and Christ is salvation, what good are they?

I am just trying to understand this, my question is 1 Corinthians refers to Christian Churches being part of the body of Christ. So is everyone is part of the body of Christ then why are we doing missionary work and work for the dead? I feel everyone has value and I may be wrong but, once we die we are given a choice to accept the truth and take advantage of the covenants that the Latter Day Saints are currently doing. So they must be missing something from the body of Christ. Just trying to understand better, I may be way off and if I am I apologize.

 

Thanks 

[Spammer]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course Atheism isn't the only possible outcome. It could also be that the conception of an involved God who responds to prayer isn't accurate. IOW- God could exist. Lack of answer doesn't prove he doesn't. Just like if I call my dad, over and over, and he never answers, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It probably just means he still hasn't figured out how to work his phone

 

Agreed. My point was only that being told again and again that the only way to really know if religious claims are really true is to ask God, - the Moroni model - can lead to atheism if all you get is crickets. 

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I am just trying to understand this, my question is 1 Corinthians refers to Christian Churches being part of the body of Christ

This is Happy Jack's interpretation.

[Walden]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Agreed. My point was only that being told again and again that the only way to really know if religious claims are really true is to ask God, - the Moroni model - can lead to atheism if all you get is crickets. 

That's my story, in a nutshell

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's strange to me that someone could be totally inactive from the church and attend every Sunday at another church but the moment they "formally join another church" they become apostate. Again, I think it's important to distinguish between apostasy from a denomination and apostasy from the core gospel of Jesus.

I don't find it strange.  Attending another church for whatever reason does not mean one has adopted that Church or group.  Once one joins, they have officially made themselves a part of it.  I guess I will propose this idea.  Suppose it is 42 A.D and one is a part of the church back then.  James, Peter, ect are leading the Church.  Somebody decides to depart from the group that is being lead by the early apostles and follow another small group that believes in Jesus.  It is ok for them to reject the organization James and Peter are running and follow another group?    What is the difference between the LDS Church and all the other churches that profess to be Christian?  The difference is if one wants to go the Celestial Kingdom, there is only one way to get there.  Baptism and temple ordinances are required.  These are not optional.   Believing does not have the power to get you there.  The priesthood power and ordinances are required.   If one wants Terrestrial glory, the other churches can get you there.  It all depends where you want to go.   There is perfect unity in the Celestial Kingdom.  Nobody is believing different things and following God in different ways. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by carbon dioxide