If a Latter-day Saint Converts, is that Considered a Sin?

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

Yes, conversion to another faith, even a different Christian denomination would be considered apostasy, and therefore sin. It's ironic and sad, really. A person could lose all faith in Jesus, leave the church, and make no further effort to regain/maintain a relationship with God, and that would not be apostasy. Yet, joining another church in an attempt to grow spiritually would be apostasy. Regardless, in the Mormon view, a person who doesn't keep covenants (whether temple or just baptismal) would be viewed as sinning, regardless of whether or not they formally joined another church.

Back in the late 19th century there were many church leaders in hiding or on the run from the law for their polygamous activities. It doesn't strike me as strange at all that the view of the church back then would be rather lenient towards someone who had escaped from jail and was on the run. When this fellow rejoined the church in Mexico, he may not have been totally honest with them either. Maybe all they knew was that he was on the run but never knew it was for incest. But being rebaptized and having blessings restored means he was reinstated to his previous baptism/priesthood/temple blessings. Things would be very different today

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If the disciplinary council thought it was OK after listening to all the facts, it would be OK.

It does sound odd however that he would be allowed to have his blessings restored without - as you say- restitution etc- but under extraordinary circumstances I can image that there could be things that would allow that to happen.

Perhaps he could not make restitution though he had tried his best, for example.  His being wanted though would be a serious problem since we believe in following the laws of the land.  

Not back then we didn’t. Joseph Smith was perfectly okay with going into hiding and slipping off to the Rockies rather then surrendering to the law. John Taylor spent a lot of his Presidency at least partially in hiding to avoid anti-bigamy charges.

Admittedly we do not see bigamy as being as abhorrent as incest and rightly so.

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin?

Yes.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A person could lose all faith in Jesus, leave the church, and make no further effort to regain/maintain a relationship with God, and that would not be apostasy.

Huh?  Sure it would.

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Huh?  Sure it would.

There would be no church discipline for such a thing.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There would be no church discipline for such a thing.

True, but in both a secular and eternal sense there is no real difference between the two other then ministers showing up every so often if you are still on the records and those who are excommunicated cannot claim church membership if they feel it gives credence to something they say or do.

In the eternal sense you could even argue the excommunicated person is better off. They have been released from their covenants. The people who are inactive and do nothing about their covenants are still under those obligations at the eternal bar of judgement. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Not back then we didn’t. Joseph Smith was perfectly okay with going into hiding and slipping off to the Rockies rather then surrendering to the law. John Taylor spent a lot of his Presidency at least partially in hiding to avoid anti-bigamy charges.

Admittedly we do not see bigamy as being as abhorrent as incest and rightly so.

Yep, I was just thinking about all those who remaind polygamists after it was declared illegal. Did they lose their recommends? Of course not!

My wife's grandmother, whom I knew, was born into such a family. That is how close we are to the past.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The definition of sinning is turning away from God.  So... is this person turning away from God in the process of what they're doing?  If they're converting to a faith to deny the divinity of Christ and go about gladly living a life of sin, that's definitely turning away from God.  But many other cases aren't so cut-and-dry.

Starting big picture here, then working down to this question.  Sorry if some of this info is a review.

LDS aren't once-saved-always-saved people.  Rather, you relationship with Christ is always a choice.  If you want, you can choose to leave Him and cast off His name-- it's not like He's going to hold you prisoner.  If somebody want to formally cast off His name and have nothing to do with His Church (writing this from the LDS perspective) they can formally resign and revoke the promise they made to take on His name at baptism (as well as rest of the promises they've made with God).  That's completely their choice.

Excommunication has the same end result: the person is throwing off the name of Christ and severing their relationship/promises with Him.  While the end result is the same, the procedure to get there is different.  Formally resigning is initiated completely by the person just choosing to not be a part of things.  Excommunication is an act of Church discipline: this person has committed a serious sin and this the consequence, with the hope that they will later decide to repent and return to Christ.  

So, to directly answer your question: no a person cannot be both excommunicated and resign, that'd be very redundant. If a person is choosing to resign rather than be excommunicated, that because they know they're doing something that Christ/Church does not approve of and are choosing essentially to self-excommincate themselves rather first.  It's essentially a "you can't fire me, I quit!" move.  

(Note: Church excommunication does NOT involve getting kicked out of the church building, being shunned, or even other people knowing.  Rather it's a private affair, with the hope the person will repent.  The person is still entitled-- and in fact encouraged -- to meet with their Bishop and other people to help them on this process.  )

Incest definitely ranks as an excommunication worthy offense.

"Blessings restored": as I said earlier, excommunication is a disciplinary action meant to encourage repentance, a major "kick in the pants" so to say.  The hope is that a person will repent and return to Christ.  If/when a person does this, they are re-baptized and re-take on His name.  They have returned to their old relationships/promises with God and have all the joy/blessings of that relationship restored to them.

LDS believe in being abiding the laws of righteous governments.  Nowadays, the USA government is pretty good (not remotely perfect).  A person in this man's shoes nowadays would be required to serve his criminal sentence as part of the repentance process.  

I cannot speak as to the shape the Mexican government/legal process was in the 1890's, so can't commit further on that historical case.

Thanks Jane. Your reply is very helpful.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, conversion to another faith, even a different Christian denomination would be considered apostasy, and therefore sin. It's ironic and sad, really. A person could lose all faith in Jesus, leave the church, and make no further effort to regain/maintain a relationship with God, and that would not be apostasy. Yet, joining another church in an attempt to grow spiritually would be apostasy. Regardless, in the Mormon view, a person who doesn't keep covenants (whether temple or just baptismal) would be viewed as sinning, regardless of whether or not they formally joined another church.

Back in the late 19th century there were many church leaders in hiding or on the run from the law for their polygamous activities. It doesn't strike me as strange at all that the view of the church back then would be rather lenient towards someone who had escaped from jail and was on the run. When this fellow rejoined the church in Mexico, he may not have been totally honest with them either. Maybe all they knew was that he was on the run but never knew it was for incest. But being rebaptized and having blessings restored means he was reinstated to his previous baptism/priesthood/temple blessings. Things would be very different today

You bring up a very interesting and yes, ironic concept. I didn't realize that if one doesn't join another denomination that one isn't considered an apostate. Perhaps that is why all the data seems to point to the fact that those who leave the Latter-day Saint Church tend not to re-fellowship with another group, but remain in religious isolation or even lean towards atheism. Thanks for your reply.

 

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Like I've said, I think LDS Christians have a subliminal hurt they are not real cognizant of. Sometimes fairly innocent questions are viewed with suspicion about ulterior motives.  People come to this site who are "doing homework on the LDS faith" or worse, they are just trolls. Then there are the honest seekers. This is where I place you, although I do feel to some extent you are investigating the LDS faith - whether that be for a book or other reason. Nevertheless, I like you, and am upfront with you. I am a seeker too, so I identify with you. I do hope you share - even if that is privately. I can't say no one  will mock you. but I know I will not. I see you as someone trying to bridge that gap I told you about - that subliminal hurt many LDS experience. So I hope you don't mind that we do not always agree with you. Nevertheless, I believe your insights are valuable as a sincere non-LDS Christian.

Thanks. No, I don't mind that you folks do not always agree with me. I hope however, not to give you much to disagree with. I have no interest in doctrinal debate. I think the subliminal hurt you mention demonstrates its way in a number of shapes and attributes. I will write a bit more in a general post in reply to this thread. Perhaps what you call "subliminal  hurt" is what I call "the blind spot" of the Saints. Your term is perhaps less offensive. Take care.

[ksfisher]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Like I've said, I think LDS Christians have a subliminal hurt they are not real cognizant of. Sometimes fairly innocent questions are viewed with suspicion about ulterior motives.  People come to this site who are "doing homework on the LDS faith" or worse, they are just trolls. Then there are the honest seekers. This is where I place you, although I do feel to some extent you are investigating the LDS faith - whether that be for a book or other reason. Nevertheless, I like you, and am upfront with you. I am a seeker too, so I identify with you. I do hope you share - even if that is privately. I can't say no one  will mock you. but I know I will not. I see you as someone trying to bridge that gap I told you about - that subliminal hurt many LDS experience. So I hope you don't mind that we do not always agree with you. Nevertheless, I believe your insights are valuable as a sincere non-LDS Christian.

Being defensive is human nature.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, rereading this after the drug-induced haze has passed it does not come across as the hilarious joke it was originally in my brain and it actually seems kind of mean. Navidad also does not appear as a humorless straight man making an amusing pratfall taking my obvious joke too seriously while I hilariously poke him for the amusement of myself and others. In fact it reads like I am mindless jerk who should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Navidad, I apologize for any and all offense. The insult was not intentional. I also apologize to everyone else for not being funny. I was going for obvious overwrought hyperbole and failed miserably. I will try to stay away from my tablet while I am on narcotics in the future.

I should probably also check to see if I posted anything inane in other threads. Walk of shame time.....

Wow, I almost missed this post. Glad I didn't. Thanks for your apology. I will write a post on this thread as a general response to your concerns. While your words may have been prescription-induced, your concerns are worth responding to by me. Best.

[Navidad]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Being defensive is human nature.

Perhaps, but I do believe there is a trait in religious disagreements that tends to exaggerate whatever is inbred in our natures.

[Jane_Doe]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You bring up a very interesting and yes, ironic concept. I didn't realize that if one doesn't join another denomination that one isn't considered an apostate. Perhaps that is why all the data seems to point to the fact that those who leave the Latter-day Saint Church tend not to re-fellowship with another group, but remain in religious isolation or even lean towards atheism. Thanks for your reply.

 

"Apostate" is a strong word, and I would NEVER remotely automatically apply it to somebody who converted to Methodism (just for an example).  Frankly, I'd rather have a person be a A+ practicing Methodist (going to church, studying scripture, prayer, nurturing faith, living as Christ would have us) rather than be a claiming to be LDS but in reality loving sin and not God.  

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep, I was just thinking about all those who remaind polygamists after it was declared illegal. Did they lose their recommends? Of course not!

My wife's grandmother, whom I knew, was born into such a family. That is how close we are to the past.

The last polygamous wife in the colonies died in the 1960's. Just an irrelevant data point (I think it is interesting), but that is just me!

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps, but I do believe there is a trait in religious disagreements that tends to exaggerate whatever is inbred in our natures.

People have been killed because they root for the wrong sports team, so I don't know if it's just limited to religion. 

Same with voting for the wrong candidate, people have been killed over that.

But you are right, religion can bring out the worst in some people.  But it does have the potential to bring out the best as well.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You bring up a very interesting and yes, ironic concept. I didn't realize that if one doesn't join another denomination that one isn't considered an apostate. Perhaps that is why all the data seems to point to the fact that those who leave the Latter-day Saint Church tend not to re-fellowship with another group, but remain in religious isolation or even lean towards atheism. Thanks for your reply.

 

Yep- I think that's an unfortunate consequence of the church policy. It practically pushes people away from finding religion and spirituality anywhere else, even when a person can't stay in the Mormon church. Personally, I think God would prefer that people stay connected to him in some way, but whatever. The church can make its bed however it chooses.

[Navidad]

Hi to those on this thread. I would like to try and clarify a few things, perhaps in response to Nehor's reply to me, but more generically to try and explain me to you. I am indeed a type of an investigator, just not in the traditional use of that word. I have been investigating Latter-day Saint history for close to thirty years. In the past four or five years I have included the study of Latter-day Saint doctrine, because it is clear they are inseparable. I don't think all of you might agree with me on that; that is ok. A number of sociologists, both faithful LDS and non-LDS have commented on that. You are indeed a well-studied group, especially about concepts of being the "other." There is a reason for that and I find that fascinating, except when it jumps out at me! Ha!

Next thing I would like to explain . . . these days there is a real gap in research by faithful Saints or by non-Saints on the Mexican Mormon Colonies. Most of the gurus in this area have passed away in the last few years. There is a tremendous dearth of work on Mexican Mormon history which is at odds with Mexico being the country with the second largest LDS population in the world. One or two General Authorities have asked (directed) that work be done to fill this gap. The Church History Department is facilitating that work. Much of what needs to be done here, needs to be done here. Does that make sense? One cannot find the old Cave Valley LDS cemetery where the Thompson family and other early settlers were buried without tromping around the mountains to find it. That is what I do; sometimes in the company of our bishop who loves to tromp and sometimes with my wife who tolerates tromping, and sometimes with someone from the Church History department. When someone comes here from Atlanta looking for A.F. MacDonald's name on the Temple Hill marker in Pacheco because he is their great great grandfather, I take them. Not many folks here even know how to find it, let alone take folks there and explain it all to them. Junius Romney prayed all night seeking a prompting or revelation about whether the men should leave in the 1912 Exodus. His grandson Joseph Barnard Romney just passed away. He had a PhD in history and his loss was a terrible loss for us here in the colonies. So now, I tromp (get the idea) around looking for the site where he prayed all night so the Church History Department can perhaps designate it a sacred site. I fill out the form.

I also then take LDS folks from our ward to show them their own sacred sites so they don't have to drive three days to get to one in Illinois. I encourage the Church History department to open up the Juarez Stake Academy records to research so we can find out more about what they want us to find out about. It takes a year of requests and help from higher-ups I know, but finally about three weeks ago I get an email telling me the records from 1897 to 1927 (less 1913-1915 when the academy was closed) have been digitized and are on the stacks ready for researchers. We have so many unanswered questions about the academy and also about the Diaz Academy that was actually started earlier. Recently I have been asked to research the apostles in the colonies and totally unrelated the "rascals" in the colonies. Isaac Haight lived here under an assumed name. William Stewart, of MMM infamy lived here for the rest of his life and is buried here. Philip Klingensmith hid in a Sonora colony. Enrique Portillo, the first jefe politico of Casas Grandes and well-known Mexican politician and soldier may have been killed in a fight with a retired Texas and Arizona Ranger in the LDS colony of Chuichupa, maybe in the bishop's home! This one has interest for Mexican history, LDS history, Western history (the Ranger connection) and on and on. So, in a small and imperfect way I am trying to fill in the gap that currently exists. And yes, because of that sometimes the MHA, the Church History Department, and scholars of other areas of LDS history. or those who have heard me speak refer folks to me. Most of them already know I am not LDS, but the first thing I do after they contact me is tell them I am not a member of the Church. I want them to know that in case they are uncomfortable with me helping them, whether it is driving them to the mountains (of course if the bishop goes along, that helps a lot), or tromping around a cemetery looking for an incestuous great grandfather's grave. Then of course, someone from his other wife's family finds out and is mad because she divorced him and they deeply resent the colonies' protection of him! Sometimes I get in the middle! No one who I remember, has ever refused my help because I am not LDS; perhaps the bishop's recommendation helps with that. I also help folks who are interested in our local Apache, Paquime, and pottery cultures. I have never charged anyone for anything to help them, although I do admit to taking some snicker-doodles. I have my social security and pensions and my book income to sustain us. Hopefully in another few years we will also have some funds from our pecans.

Lastly, I know there have been times here I haven't done well or said things well, or have been ornery. I have apologized and am trying to do better. Oh, and yes I am always working on an article or two and a book or two in which Mormons play a role. I just released two new books on Amazon and within a week on Ingram and Baker & Taylor in which Mormons play a role. One cannot discuss the religious history of Mexico without including the Mennonites, Mormons, and yes the Masons. Oh and by the way, Monday night at the ward "empty-nesters" gathering at our home, we all discussed the recent directive for name utilization in the face of the Mexican culture's complete adaptation and acceptance of the word Mormon. The folks here (some of Mitt's cousins) expressed concern about how to follow the direction given the culture here. They really don't make my wife and I sit at a separate table, even when an event is not at our house! Monday they all spent a long time browsing through my copy of Apostle Whitney's History of Utah. None of them had ever seen all the volumes intact with all prints. They enjoyed themselves. and also thought my wife's cornbread worthy of an LDS wife's cooking! 

I know I am nobody, but I just want you all to know I am not somebody who is against the Church or who has some subversive agenda. I try and help all I can. Here on this forum, I am also trying to learn. As far as I know, no one here needs my help! There are so many disparate points of view here. I enjoy and sometimes get confused by those. I am not asking you to trust me; I am however, asking you not to distrust me. I will do my best to over time, earn your trust.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

You bring up a very interesting and yes, ironic concept. I didn't realize that if one doesn't join another denomination that one isn't considered an apostate. Perhaps that is why all the data seems to point to the fact that those who leave the Latter-day Saint Church tend not to re-fellowship with another group, but remain in religious isolation or even lean towards atheism. Thanks for your reply.

 

They also tend toward atheism because of our understanding of personal revelation as the core of the gospel.

Without personal experience of God there IS no God, as far as they know.

Creedal Christians often rely on tradition, but that doesn't work for us.

No one could accept the crazy golden plate story without revelation, at least not me.

I was an atheist before God zapped me.

We are all to be little "Joseph's" and seek wisdom from God, who gives liberally and upbraideth not.

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They also tend toward atheism because of our understanding of personal revelation as the core of the gospel.

Without personal experience of God there IS no God, as far as they know.

Creedal Christians often rely on tradition, but that doesn't work for us.

No one could accept the crazy golden plate story without revelation, at least not me.

I was an atheist before God zapped me.

We are all to be little "Joseph's" and seek wisdom from God, who gives liberally and upbraideth not.

 

Seeking wisdom is always a good thing! The whole LDS concept of revelation is of great interest to me. I still don't understand how it is different from all other Christians' concept of special and general revelation, both of which we believe in. I think we have had that conversation before so I won't ask you to do so again! I think I understand the concept of revelation; I just don't see the difference in our views of the same. LDS-Christians seem to infer a difference, I just don't understand what that is, especially when talking about Pentecostal Christians. I also need to look up that word "upbraideth." I have often wondered its exact meaning; now you have motivated me to pull out my old Greek stuff. Thanks!

[mrmarklin]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

If a Latter-day Saint converts to another faith, is that considered a sin? If a person then resigns his or her membership can he or she subsequently be excommunicated? I think the answer must be no, but I am not sure. I think I have heard of folks resigning their membership to keep from being excommunicated. Is there some benefit to doing that?

One other different thing; I ask this because of a real historical situation I am researching. I would like your thoughts. In 1889 a Saint was arrested and convicted for incest (not for plural marriage). He was sentenced to 10 years in Yuma Federal Penitentiary.  He escaped and ran to a small Mexican colony  where he lived, we know for at least 23 years. He had been excommunicated for his crime. He then was re-baptized and had "his blessings restored." - not sure what that means, in his new home ward. All this time he was wanted for his escape from prison. It is said he was then murdered in his home, but there are no civil records of his death and no records of his being buried in the LDS cemetery in the colony. Would it be considered rare or strange for a wanted man to be re-baptized (I have seen the records) and apparently being ordained into the priesthood without paying restitution for his escape, and having been convicted of incest? I know this was 100 years ago, but I have been asked to look into it by some of his descendants. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts?

We simply don't have enough facts to judge the instant case.  Joseph Smith was a fugitive from Missouri justice at the time of his death.

Leaving the Church IMHO is not a sin per se, but of course one is abandoning all saving ordinances that one took on oneself during life.  This can, of course, be repented of.

Edited October 25, 2018 by mrmarklin

[pogi]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A person could lose all faith in Jesus, leave the church, and make no further effort to regain/maintain a relationship with God, and that would not be apostasy.

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There would be no church discipline for such a thing.

No church discipline is required to be in a state of apostasy.  

Quote

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. 

https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

The great apostasy did not come about because of church discipline... 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

"Apostate" is a strong word, and I would NEVER remotely automatically apply it to somebody who converted to Methodism (just for an example).  Frankly, I'd rather have a person be a A+ practicing Methodist (going to church, studying scripture, prayer, nurturing faith, living as Christ would have us) rather than be a claiming to be LDS but in reality loving sin and not God.  

Yet Smac quoted the  Handbook of Instructions and it clearly said that joining another faith and advocating its teachings was apostasy. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yep- I think that's an unfortunate consequence of the church policy. It practically pushes people away from finding religion and spirituality anywhere else, even when a person can't stay in the Mormon church. Personally, I think God would prefer that people stay connected to him in some way, but whatever. The church can make its bed however it chooses.

I am trying to figure out why these people who leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would be worried about losing their membership if they want to attend another church and are not attending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints anymore and have little or no interest in it. Is that really a consideration?

it seem to me to be like holding on to an old gym membership card that you never go to and being afraid they are going to cancel it if you go somewhere else. Why would you care?

In my spiritual hubris I imagine that most do not go to other faiths because they already tried the best so everything else seems drab by comparison.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yet Smac quoted the  Handbook of Instructions and it clearly said that joining another faith and advocating its teachings was apostasy. 

It is apostasy. Going completely inactive in the Church is also apostasy but we do not always excommunicate for it.