Apostasy is worse than murder

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you mean that you know what God has been doing from the beginning because of what others have said God has been doing?

Overwhelmingly because of how He interacts with me.

Quote

Why do you think that? In what ways do you think our experiences have differed?

You questioned how one can be certain. I'm assuming that reflects your experiences seeking revelation. I don't question that. That's definitely a reflection of my experiences with revelation.

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And so there are people who know Joseph Smith was a prophet. And there are people who know he was not. Both know in exactly the same way they know Jesus is the promised Messiah.

No, those who know that Joseph Smith was a prophet know it in the exact same way that people knew that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Those who know that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet know it in the exact same way that people in Jesus's day knew that He was not the promised Messiah. Certain people love to think that these are somehow separable, but according to Jesus's own words, they are not. It's the same process. And as He taught clearly, it starts with the easier bit: receiving the prophets.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How can a person be sure enough that God told them to be God's spokesman, that they risk eternal consequences for other human beings?

Well, Jesus did.  And Moses.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it is wrong for people to claim to speak for God. They are essentially trying to stand between a person and God.

I am constantly surprised at the continued growth and prevalence of this false doctrine.  It is absolutely one of the most successful tools of the adversary I've seen in my lifetime.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I question my own perceptions and thoughts and assumptions and prejudices all the time. I also question God. I argue with Him and even wrestle with Him. I've found that He seems to just enjoy the interaction, but maybe that's because He knows my heart and that, therefore, He's always going to win?..............................

When the Lord appeared to Abram at Mamre (Gen 18), Abe actually negotiated with Him over the fate of Sodom, and the Lord went along with Abe's argument.  Similarly, the Lord conversed with His prophet Jonah -- who was angry and resentful that the Lord had not carried through with the promised destruction of Nineveh.  Jacob/Israel is supposed to have wrestled with God Himself, or with his angel (depending on which version of the encounter one accepts).

Jesus allowed himself to be killed in the most horrific and public fashion:  Thoroughly beaten, stripped naked, pinioned with spikes through his wrists and ankles, and crucified.  We are never allowed to see it on the silver screen the way it actually happened -- it is simply too horrible -- God's sense of humor sometimes just too grim, but always very human.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am talking about the church's own teachings about apostasy.

With respect, I don't think you are.  I think you are talking about a distorted cariacture of the Church's teachings about apostasy.

One indicator of that is that you don't seem to be citing to or quoting "the Church's own teachings," and instead are talking about them.

Quote

Apostasy in the LDS church is more than breaking the 10 Commandments and it is more than rejecting Christ.

See?  You aren't quoting anything here.  You are caricaturing.

So I'll issue a CFR.  References, please, that apostasy is worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ("the 10 Commandments") and worse "than rejecting Christ."

I'll even help to get the ball rolling.  See here:

Quote

Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief (see Activity in the Church). Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion. By not participating in Church meetings one is not considered apostate.
...
Apostates sometimes become enemies of the Church. Leaving the Church, which claims to be God's official church, containing the fulness of the gospel, often results in feelings of guilt. While many return, others develop a need to defend their actions, "disprove" the Church, or become hostile enemies. The fruits of apostasy are generally bitter. The Book of Mormon warns of unfavorable conditions that result from transgression contrary to "light and knowledge" (Alma 9:23).

LDS scriptures establish a loving and hopeful attitude toward apostates. Latter-day Saints are strongly counseled to love those who have left the faith, and to encourage, plead, and work with those who have strayed, inviting "the lost sheep" back to the fold (Luke 15:3-7). Of the wayward, the resurrected Savior taught, "Ye shall not cast him out of your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them" (3 Ne. 18:32). The desire to return is motivated by the reality of repentance enabled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. "He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them" (D&C 58:42-43).

And here (comments by then-Elder Oaks):

Quote

We have the concept of apostasy. It is grounds for Church discipline…

Apostasy, being rare, has to be carefully defined. We have three definitions of apostasy: one is open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders. Open, public, repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders — I’ll come back to that in a moment. A second one is to teach as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that that’s false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but [it is] teaching persistently after you’ve been warned. For example, if one were to teach that the Lord requires you to practice plural marriage in this day, it would be apostasy. And the third point would be to affiliate and belong to apostate sects, such as those that preach or practice polygamy.

So, we go back to the first cause of apostasy — open, public and repeated opposition to the Church and its leaders. That does not include searching for a middle ground. It doesn’t include worrying over a doctrine. It doesn’t include not believing a particular doctrine. None of those are apostasy. None of those are the basis of Church discipline. But when a person comes out publicly and opposes the Church, such as by saying, “I do not think anyone should follow the leaders of the Church in their missionary program, calling these young people to go out and preach the gospel,” or whatever the particular issue of the day. And when you go out and begin to “thump the tub” and try to gather opposition and organize opposition and pronounce and preach against the Church — that can be a basis for Church discipline.

To be sure, apostasy is a very serious thing.

Quote

Apostasy in the LDS Church takes it further to included rejection of church leadership, or rejection of LDS teachings. A person can still preach of Christ and believe in Christ and obey the 10 Commandments and yet, according to the LDS Church, be an apostate.

Yes.

Quote

I think it is wrong for people to claim to speak for God.

Unless, of course, they actually do speak for God, right?  Or do you reject the entirety of the Bible?  All prophets and apostles?

Quote

They are essentially trying to stand between a person and God.

I am curious as to what you do with the Bible, then.  Do you reject it, too?

Amos 3:7 states that "{s}urely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Revelation 10:7 states that "in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

Daniel 9:10 speaks of "the voice of the Lord our God," and "his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets."

Ephesians 4 states:

Quote

8 Wherefore he {Christ} saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God...

And so on.  The Scriptures are replete with teachings about the role of prophets and apostles.  The Scriptures are the writings of prophets and apostles.

I guess I don't understand your position.

Quote

I think that's the kind of thing a person says when they want to give themselves legitimacy as a spiritual leader and spokesman for the divine.

Yes.  But it could also be "the kind of thing a person says" when he actually does speak for God.  When really is "a spiritual leader and spokesman for the divine."

Are you claiming that there are no such things as prophets?  Apostles?  "Spokesm{e}n for the divine?"  Noah?  Moses?  Peter?  Paul?

Quote

Claiming that the LDS church has God's authority and that it will never lose it is predictable hubris of people who want to believe they have it and want others to believe they have it. But it's not humble.

I don't think it's hubris at all.  The leaders of the Church are fairly open with their faults and errors.  

Quote

By making apostasy more than just rejection of principles or rejection of Christ, the church has created its own concept of apostasy, separate from Old and New testament constructs. 

Again, you don't seem to be citing to or quoting the Church's teachings, and instead are talking about them.

Hence we seem to be descending into caricature, rather than substantive evaluation of what the Church actually teaches.  Hence my CFR above.

Quote

I'd like to believe in the good faith of most LDS prophets and that they are trying to remain faithful to what they believe is God's word.

I appreciate that.  I think they are acting in good faith.

Quote

However, I think it's entirely possible that the church has created a conundrum for them, and that conundrum is in the roots of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's teachings equating apostasy to disloyalty to the church.

Except that I don't think that is the state of things.  There are many former, and even current, members of the Church who are "disloyal" to it, but who aren't "apostates."

Quote

The church was a contentious proposition in many ways in its early days and I think a natural result of that contention was the loyalty tests that are ingrained in LDS thought and teachings.

What "loyalty tests"?  

Quote

Brigham Young insists that we should have our own witness, and Elder Perry affirms this, and yet it has to be in line with the church to be valid. A person can bear testimony of all manner of things supportive of the church and not be an apostate. But once they oppose the church, even in sincere testimony, they are wrong according to the church.

"Own own witness" of what?

"Elder Perry affirms" what?

What "has to be in line with the church to be valid"?

"Sincere testimony" of what?

I really don't understand what you are saying here.  It sure would be nice if you provided citations and quotes, rather than resorting to vague caricatures.

Quote

This is a fundamental struggle that the church has created and still manufactures in the spiritual lives of people. People today are struggling between their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church and being expected to choose between them.

This is simply false.

CFR #2: Chapter and verse, please, as to Church members "being expected to choose between {their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church}."  Where has the Church promulgated such an expectation?

Quote

What "both ways" exactly?

You said: "It {the concept of apostasy} is a way to make good people who have felt strong feelings and had powerful spiritual experiences to feel obligated to the leaders of the church.  Look at what the early prophets said about it."

You cannot both object to the concept of apostasy (which necessarily includes rejecting God's prophets) and support that position by pointing to "what the early prophets said."

You are trying to have it both ways.  I don't think that works.  You cannot point to prophetic counsel as justification for rejecting prophetic counsel.

Quote

The church is claiming to be for Christ, but then makes apostasy about things other than Christ, namely about loyalty to itself.

What if the church is Christ's Church?  What if He established it?  What if it is imbued with His authority?  His prophetic servants?

I think there is a reason why the Church is referred to as the metaphorical "bride" of Christ (see, e.g., here and here), and why we are sometimes characterized as being part of the "body of Christ."

I think you differentiate what Jesus, and Paul, and John do not.  The "church" in the New Testament has to mean something.

Quote

That is the use of ignorance and distortion. 

How so?

I'll sum up by re-posting the questions I have asked that you have not addressed:

1. The concept of apostasy is shot through the Bible.  Consider the Children of Israel after they left Egypt.  How would you characterize their worship of the Golden Calf?  Wouldn't "apostasy" be an appropriate descriptor?  If not, why not?

2. Worshipping the Golden Calf "sounds like an instance of 'apostasy.'  Do you disagree?  And how did 'ignorance and distortion' come into play in Moses' reaction?"

3. "Consider Elijah's ministry to Israel during the reign of Ahab.  What do you think he meant when he told the masses on Mount Carmel 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him'?  Doesn't that story include the concept of apostasy?  And how does 'ignorance and distortion' come in to play vis-à-vis Elijah's actions?"

4. "Are you rejecting the concept ('apostasy itself') altogether?"

5. "{W}hat are your thoughts about this article from the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church's website?  I'm thinking specifically of this part:

Quote

During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances.

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

What are your thoughts about D&C 138:44 and Daniel 2:44?"

6. "I am curious as to what you do with the Bible, then.  Do you reject it, too?"

7. "Are you claiming that there are no such things as prophets?  Apostles?  'Spokesm{e}n for the divine?'  Noah?  Moses?  Peter?  Paul?"

8. You reference "loyalty tests that are ingrained in LDS thought and teachings."  What are these?

9. CFR: "References, please, that apostasy is worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ('the 10 Commandments') and worse 'than rejecting Christ.'"

10. CFR: "Chapter and verse, please, as to Church members 'being expected to choose between {their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church}.'  Where has the Church promulgated such an expectation?"

I'd like to have a substantive discussion about this topic, so I hope you'll address at least some of these inquiries.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2019 by smac97

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

So think about that diametric opposition, but just shift the topic to apostasy.

In other words, you couldn’t find any true examples, so you set up a false equivalency and send us fishing for red herring

To say - if it is true that members disagree about A, then it is also true that members disagree about B, is a fallacy.

We simply don’t equate general apostasy with a sin worse than murder, even as much as you want to believe it about us - because you seem to be going to extreme lengths to convince yourself.

Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually a LOT has changed since I left the Church.  What the Church believes about being gay has changed.  I believe that my family would not have reacted the way they did if I came out today.  And that was them trying their best to do what the Church wanted them to do.  

I was excommunicated because I could not commit to never falling in love with someone of the same sex.  And even today, I am considered an apostate.  So all the ramifications of what it means to be an apostate has not changed as you pointed out.

I don't think you see this from my perspective.  I am gay.  I love someone of the same sex. I can never go back to the Church as long as I am in that relationship.  Given that, can I ever be forgiven?

No.  And I didn't really think that until someone posted those verses from the D&C which is why I posted on this thread.

So what is the doctrine?  What will happen to me after I die?

You know your experience with the Church is vastly different than mine.  From where I have been, the Church puts a pretty bad light on gay families and their. children. They have put a pretty bad light on just about everything I have done since I have left the Church.  It is the Church that labels me as an apostate. Can you acknowledge that?  Maybe you can tell me what you think that means.  

And honestly I don't see how I fit into this "Plan of Happiness".  Sure the plan is great if you are straight, not so good if you are gay.  Would you say that is a fair characterization of the Church?  

Unrelated policies have changed, but what does that have to do with canonical doctrines?

You ask, "can I ever be forgiven?"  First, to say that you won't be forgiven is very different from saying you can't be forgiven.  Second, to not repent of a sin does not make you a son of perdition.  Bid difference!  

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I don't think you are.  I think you are talking about a distorted cariacture of the Church's teachings about apostasy.

One indicator of that is that you don't seem to be citing to or quoting "the Church's own teachings," and instead are talking about them.

See?  You aren't quoting anything here.  You are caricaturing.

So I'll issue a CFR.  References, please, that apostasy is worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ("the 10 Commandments") and worse "than rejecting Christ."

I'll even help to get the ball rolling.  See here:

And here (comments by then-Elder Oaks):

To be sure, apostasy is a very serious thing.

Yes.

Unless, of course, they actually do speak for God, right?  Or do you reject the entirety of the Bible?  All prophets and apostles?

I am curious as to what you do with the Bible, then.  Do you reject it, too?

Amos 3:7 states that "{s}urely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Revelation 10:7 states that "in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

Daniel 9:10 speaks of "the voice of the Lord our God," and "his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets."

Ephesians 4 states:

And so on.  The Scriptures are replete with teachings about the role of prophets and apostles.  The Scriptures are the writings of prophets and apostles.

I guess I don't understand your position.

Yes.  But it could also be "the kind of thing a person says" when he actually does speak for God.  When really is "a spiritual leader and spokesman for the divine."

Are you claiming that there are no such things as prophets?  Apostles?  "Spokesm{e}n for the divine?"  Noah?  Moses?  Peter?  Paul?

I don't think it's hubris at all.  The leaders of the Church are fairly open with their faults and errors.  

Again, you don't seem to be citing to or quoting the Church's teachings, and instead are talking about them.

Hence we seem to be descending into caricature, rather than substantive evaluation of what the Church actually teaches.  Hence my CFR above.

I appreciate that.  I think they are acting in good faith.

Except that I don't think that is the state of things.  There are many former, and even current, members of the Church who are "disloyal" to it, but who aren't "apostates."

What "loyalty tests"?  

"Own own witness" of what?

"Elder Perry affirms" what?

What "has to be in line with the church to be valid"?

"Sincere testimony" of what?

I really don't understand what you are saying here.  It sure would be nice if you provided citations and quotes, rather than resorting to vague caricatures.

This is simply false.

CFR #2: Chapter and verse, please, as to Church members "being expected to choose between {their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church}."  Where has the Church promulgated such an expectation?

You said: "It {the concept of apostasy} is a way to make good people who have felt strong feelings and had powerful spiritual experiences to feel obligated to the leaders of the church.  Look at what the early prophets said about it."

You cannot both object to the concept of apostasy (which necessarily includes rejecting God's prophets) and support that position by pointing to "what the early prophets said."

You are trying to have it both ways.  I don't think that works.  You cannot point to prophetic counsel as justification for rejecting prophetic counsel.

What if the church is Christ's Church?  What if He established it?  What if it is imbued with His authority?  His prophetic servants?

I think there is a reason why the Church is referred to as the metaphorical "bride" of Christ (see, e.g., here and here), and why we are sometimes characterized as being part of the "body of Christ."

I think you differentiate what Jesus, and Paul, and John do not.  The "church" in the New Testament has to mean something.

How so?

I'll sum up by re-posting the questions I have asked that you have not addressed:

1. The concept of apostasy is shot through the Bible.  Consider the Children of Israel after they left Egypt.  How would you characterize their worship of the Golden Calf?  Wouldn't "apostasy" be an appropriate descriptor?  If not, why not?

2. Worshipping the Golden Calf "sounds like an instance of 'apostasy.'  Do you disagree?  And how did 'ignorance and distortion' come into play in Moses' reaction?"

3. "Consider Elijah's ministry to Israel during the reign of Ahab.  What do you think he meant when he told the masses on Mount Carmel 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him'?  Doesn't that story include the concept of apostasy?  And how does 'ignorance and distortion' come in to play vis-à-vis Elijah's actions?"

4. "Are you rejecting the concept ('apostasy itself') altogether?"

5. "{W}hat are your thoughts about this article from the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church's website?  I'm thinking specifically of this part:

What are your thoughts about D&C 138:44 and Daniel 2:44?"

6. "I am curious as to what you do with the Bible, then.  Do you reject it, too?"

7. "Are you claiming that there are no such things as prophets?  Apostles?  'Spokesm{e}n for the divine?'  Noah?  Moses?  Peter?  Paul?"

8. You reference "loyalty tests that are ingrained in LDS thought and teachings."  What are these?

9. CFR: "References, please, that apostasy is worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ('the 10 Commandments') and worse 'than rejecting Christ.'"

10. CFR: "Chapter and verse, please, as to Church members 'being expected to choose between {their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church}.'  Where has the Church promulgated such an expectation?"

I'd like to have a substantive discussion about this topic, so I hope you'll address at least some of these inquiries.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dead prophets have said it is. Did some reading of the JoD and there were a couple or more from different prophets. One was said that the apostate needs their blood spilt. So it has been in the church, but a living prophet takes care of fixing it, as always. 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Dead prophets have said it is. Did some reading of the JoD and there were a couple or more from different prophets. One was said that the apostate needs their blood spilt. So it has been in the church, but a living prophet takes care of fixing it, as always. 

Now you appeal to doctrines which have long been condemned and renounced to prove that we equate apostasy with a sin worse than murder?  Do you know what other sins Brigham Young said blood atonement applied to?  Fornication, and yes, even theft!  So perhaps you are misunderstanding something unless you think Brigham Young thought theft was worse than murder. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Dead prophets have said it is. Did some reading of the JoD and there were a couple or more from different prophets.

Again, you are not quoting anything. You are talking about a distorted cariacture of the Church's teachings about apostasy.  You don't seem to be citing to or quoting "the Church's own teachings," and instead are talking about them.

I assume you are referencings this discourse by Brigham Young in 1867.  I think you'll be hard-pressed to legitimately claim that these remarks from 150+ years ago, during an era of much horrendous persecution (no small portion of which was attributable to "apostates"), is an accurate statement of the Church's position on the generalized concept of "apostasy" in 2019.

Quote

One was said that the apostate needs their blood spilt. So it has been in the church, but a living prophet takes care of fixing it, as always. 

Again, you are not quoting anything.  

And yes, we have "living prophets" who have provided corrective counsel.  You speak of this in seemingly disparaging tones.  Why?  If an error has been presented by a past leader, ought not current leaders "{take} care of fixing it"?

Also, here again are some of the questions I have asked before, and which I ask you address (including two CFRs, which are not supposed to be optional):

1. The concept of apostasy is shot through the Bible.  Consider the Children of Israel after they left Egypt.  How would you characterize their worship of the Golden Calf?  Wouldn't "apostasy" be an appropriate descriptor?  If not, why not?

2. Worshipping the Golden Calf "sounds like an instance of 'apostasy.'  Do you disagree?  And how did 'ignorance and distortion' come into play in Moses' reaction?"

3. "Consider Elijah's ministry to Israel during the reign of Ahab.  What do you think he meant when he told the masses on Mount Carmel 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him'?  Doesn't that story include the concept of apostasy?  And how does 'ignorance and distortion' come in to play vis-à-vis Elijah's actions?"

4. "Are you rejecting the concept ('apostasy itself') altogether?"

5. "{W}hat are your thoughts about this article from the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church's website?  I'm thinking specifically of this part {pertaining to D&C 138:44 and Daniel 2:44}.

What are your thoughts about D&C 138:44 and Daniel 2:44?"

6. "I am curious as to what you do with the Bible, then.  Do you reject it, too?"

7. "Are you claiming that there are no such things as prophets?  Apostles?  'Spokesm{e}n for the divine?'  Noah?  Moses?  Peter?  Paul?"

8. You reference "loyalty tests that are ingrained in LDS thought and teachings."  What are these?

9. CFR: "References, please, that apostasy is worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ('the 10 Commandments') and worse 'than rejecting Christ.'"

10. CFR: "Chapter and verse, please, as to Church members 'being expected to choose between {their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church}.'  Where has the Church promulgated such an expectation?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2019 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

I may have missed one aspect of apostasy being equated with murder in all these posts.

The idea has occasionally be floated that apostasy is as serious as murder because it has the potential to rob others of their eternal potential of endless lives and eternal increase.

For example an apostate parent will frequently lead a child away from salvation and exaltation.  The child retains their agency but the actions of the parent can literally cut off future generations into eternity. 

If true far worse than murder in the grand scheme.  Satan's greatest sin was halting all future progression and increase for 1/3 part of God's children by spreading apostasy.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I may have missed one aspect of apostasy being equated with murder in all these posts.

The idea has occasionally be floated that apostasy is as serious as murder because it has the potential to rob others of their eternal potential of endless lives and eternal increase.

For example an apostate parent will frequently lead a child away from salvation and exaltation.  The child retains their agency but the actions of the parent can literally cut off future generations into eternity. 

If true far worse than murder in the grand scheme.  Satan's greatest sin was halting all future progression and increase for 1/3 part of God's children by spreading apostasy.

"If true" being the operative phrase there.

I think this sort of reasoning is way too speculative.  It presumes too much.  It's just guesswork.  It also doesn't meaningfully account for, inter alia, such foundational issues as the justice of God, the atoning power of Jesus Christ, the agency of the individual, and D&C 137:7 ("All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God").

Don't get me wrong.  I think apostasy is a serious transgression.  But the reasoning above - which I think you are merely presenting, not advocating - is not very good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"If true" being the operative phrase there.

I think this sort of reasoning is way too speculative.  It presumes too much.  It's just guesswork.  It also doesn't meaningfully account for, inter alia, such foundational issues as the justice of God, the atoning power of Jesus Christ, the agency of the individual, and D&C 137:7 ("All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God").

Thanks,

-Smac

Plus that interpretation   sounds like children are damned eternally for the sins of their fathers.

I can see it applying in mortality, but that is only likely half the story....and probably less imo.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The ever changing policies/doctrines makes my head spin. One prophet says something and it turns out it is a wrong teaching after all. And you know the scripture about false prophets, if just one prophecy doesn't pan out, then they are considered a false prophet. But you guys on here and elsewhere, say the prophets aren't perfect, they are fallible. So which is it?  I think God is angry at what is said about Him in the Bible and in most religions, honestly. Or those prophets out there that speak for Him, and it's not from Him at all. That's what I mean about taking back authority, I need to go on my own, since a living prophet supersedes a dead one, and a living prophet will be dead as well, so what gives if over and over we need to believe a living prophet but then when they die the next prophet says things that discount what the dead one said. See how this harms so many people that believe in a prophet or a fallible one? We must take that authority and put it on ourselves, to know what is false or not. It's common sense usually, or a moral compass. And never speak for the Lord or say it in His name, when it isn't.

I distrust anyone claiming to be speaking for deity.  There is a degree of hubris in that mentality that immediately is suspect.  
 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Now you appeal to doctrines which have long been condemned and renounced to prove that we equate apostasy with a sin worse than murder?  Do you know what other sins Brigham Young said blood atonement applied to?  Fornication, and yes, even theft!  So perhaps you are misunderstanding something unless you think Brigham Young thought theft was worse than murder. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, you are not quoting anything. You are talking about a distorted cariacture of the Church's teachings about apostasy.  You don't seem to be citing to or quoting "the Church's own teachings," and instead are talking about them.

I assume you are referencings this discourse by Brigham Young in 1867.  I think you'll be hard-pressed to legitimately claim that these remarks from 150+ years ago, during an era of much horrendous persecution (no small portion of which was attributable to "apostates"), is an accurate statement of the Church's position on the generalized concept of "apostasy" in 2019.

Again, you are not quoting anything.  

And yes, we have "living prophets" who have provided corrective counsel.  You speak of this in a disparaging why.  Why?

Also, here again are some of the questions I have asked before, and which I ask you address (including two CFRs, which are not supposed to be optional):

1. The concept of apostasy is shot through the Bible.  Consider the Children of Israel after they left Egypt.  How would you characterize their worship of the Golden Calf?  Wouldn't "apostasy" be an appropriate descriptor?  If not, why not?

2. Worshipping the Golden Calf "sounds like an instance of 'apostasy.'  Do you disagree?  And how did 'ignorance and distortion' come into play in Moses' reaction?"

3. "Consider Elijah's ministry to Israel during the reign of Ahab.  What do you think he meant when he told the masses on Mount Carmel 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him'?  Doesn't that story include the concept of apostasy?  And how does 'ignorance and distortion' come in to play vis-à-vis Elijah's actions?"

4. "Are you rejecting the concept ('apostasy itself') altogether?"

5. "{W}hat are your thoughts about this article from the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church's website?  I'm thinking specifically of this part:

What are your thoughts about D&C 138:44 and Daniel 2:44?"

6. "I am curious as to what you do with the Bible, then.  Do you reject it, too?"

7. "Are you claiming that there are no such things as prophets?  Apostles?  'Spokesm{e}n for the divine?'  Noah?  Moses?  Peter?  Paul?"

8. You reference "loyalty tests that are ingrained in LDS thought and teachings."  What are these?

9. CFR: "References, please, that apostasy is worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ('the 10 Commandments') and worse 'than rejecting Christ.'"

10. CFR: "Chapter and verse, please, as to Church members 'being expected to choose between {their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church}.'  Where has the Church promulgated such an expectation?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Whoa, I'm sorry that I can't answer every single thing asked of me here. I will say in a nutshell though, I don't believe a lot of what is said by men in the Bible actually comes from God, if I did, I'd have a terrible time believing in God/Jesus. So I may go to hell for saying so, or I may make Him glad I discounted the rotten things men have said that aren't from God at all. 

I'm sorry if I never really make myself clear in my posts. I have stated something after reading what dead prophets have said of apostates, and neglected to say I understand that it isn't the teaching any longer. But that is the problem with listening to apostles/prophets sometimes, such as in the Bible, how much of it actually comes from God/Jesus?

That is the dangerous thing about religion, the teachings can be so harmful. I believe some apostates have been killed but probably not authorized by the leaders in the early church. Such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre wasn't ordered by BY, but IMO the sermons BY gave possibly led those that committed the atrocious crimes to kill the innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_and_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Reformation

Several sermons by Willard Richards and George A. Smith that had been delivered earlier in the history of the LDS Church had touched on the concept of blood atonement, suggesting that apostates and those who committed certain other denounced sins, such as murder, were beyond the saving power of the blood of Christ and could be redeemed only by the voluntary shedding of their own blood. On September 21, 1856, while calling for sincere repentance by church members, Young took the idea further, and stated: "I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course."^[12]

As to #5 on the list. I don't know that I believe in the Great Apostasy, so therefore you may just want to ignore my posts. And #9, #10...I don't know that I said what you CFR'd. It feels like you're putting words into my posts that I haven't said, or I could be wrong and I'll take a look at what I've said. If in fact I did do as you say, I'll definitely concede and say the current leaders of the church don't teach those things you say I said they did. I think your lawyer-ness (made up word) is coming through here. I'm not a jury, okay? 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"If true" being the operative phrase there.

I think this sort of reasoning is way too speculative.  It presumes too much.  It's just guesswork.  It also doesn't meaningfully account for, inter alia, such foundational issues as the justice of God, the atoning power of Jesus Christ, the agency of the individual, and D&C 137:7 ("All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God").

Sure.  The theory just came to my memory and it seems on topic.  I've heard it once or twice over the years and thought I'd bring it up.

It kind of relates to  Pres. Joseph F. Smith's statement in General Conference concerning what is lost through apostasy:

• "I would rather take my boys and my girls to the grave, while they are innocent, than to see them entrapped in the wickedness, the unbelief, and the spirit of apostasy so prevalent in the world, and be led away from the Gospel of salvation."

(He said the same thing about interfaith marriage a couple of years earlier).

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I distrust anyone claiming to be speaking for deity.  There is a degree of hubris in that mentality that immediately is suspect.  

I understand and respect that sentiment.  But for my spiritual experiences in the Church, I'd probably share your position.

I don't sustain the leaders of the Church because they "claim" spokesmanship.  I sustain them because I have received spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon, and also the prophetic mantle as presently existing in the Church.  I extrapolate from there.

I also don't see "hubris" in the leaders of the Church, at least not any that would be unseemly, debilitating, disqualifying, etc.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Plus that interpretation   sounds like children are damned eternally for the sins of their fathers.

I can see it applying in mortality, but that is only likely half the story....and probably less imo.

No, that's not the point of the speculative theory.
The idea is that we all have the agency to choose, but if a parent teaches their child to reject the gospel they are affecting multiple future generations, not just themselves.
If the rejection is complete enough that can reach into the next life.

It's not the parents sins that damn the children.  It's rejection of truth.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea has occasionally be floated that apostasy is as serious as murder...

By whom?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I distrust anyone claiming to be speaking for deity.  There is a degree of hubris in that mentality that immediately is suspect.  

Does that include Jesus?  That Jewish carpenter's son and Rabbi who began speaking on behalf of his Heavenly Father repeatedly?
He even went so far as to proclaim himself deity.

Prophets have always spoken for deity.  In fact it's the only way we know anything about deity.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

By whom?

Danged if I can remember.  I've been around a while.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand and respect that sentiment.  But for my spiritual experiences in the Church, I'd probably share your position.

I don't sustain the leaders of the Church because they "claim" spokesmanship.  I sustain them because I have received spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon, and also the prophetic mantle as presently existing in the Church.  I extrapolate from there.

I also don't see "hubris" in the leaders of the Church, at least not any that would be unseemly, debilitating, disqualifying, etc.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I understand, I have had spiritual experiences as well, and I honor those.  I interpret them differently than I used to though.  I don't see spiritual experience as confirmation that everything being said was necessarily inspired or from God.  

Also, I've thought long and hard about what people who claim to be speaking for God must be thinking in their minds when they make those claims.  I used to do this to some extent when I was giving priesthood blessings.  However, I never felt comfortable saying that I knew what I said during those moments came from God.  At times I felt like I was being inspired to say something, but I never had that level of confidence to proclaim that the words I was speaking were God's words.  I think it takes an extra level of hubris to make claims like that.  I personally am thankful that I never felt right about it when people would make such bold claims.  I remember on a couple occasions having a more senior person in a blessing circle tell me that I should have used more bold language, that they were feeling such a strong spirit that they would have told the person to be healed and that they personally knew it was God's will through the spirit they were feeling.  I never felt that way myself.  If God wants to heal someone, then that's up to God, I was never comfortable acting as if I were so in tune with God that I could make such a bold claim.  

This is part of why I have a hard time with Joseph Smith these days.  I believe he crossed a line from his early revelations where he speaks in more passive voice to a more direct voice proclaiming to be speaking for God.  I think that is a dangerous road he traversed, this is my personal opinion, and I don't share it lightly or often, but from my vantage point, this line that he crossed was a perilous one.  

 

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does that include Jesus?  That Jewish carpenter's son and Rabbi who began speaking on behalf of his Heavenly Father repeatedly?
He even went so far as to proclaim himself deity.

Prophets have always spoken for deity.  In fact it's the only way we know anything about deity.

I don't think we know enough about what Jesus actually said to make a judgement call about how bold Jesus was. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/006063040X/?coliid=I1LZQPG7KZP60Q&colid=3DENV5AC8WEYS&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

In other words, you couldn’t find any true examples, so you set up a false equivalency and send us fishing for red herring

To say - if it is true that members disagree about A, then it is also true that members disagree about B, is a fallacy.

We simply don’t equate general apostasy with a sin worse than murder, even as much as you want to believe it about us - because you seem to be going to extreme lengths to convince yourself.

Sam Young intentionally created this deceptive conflation of terms, as has been pointed out.

Quote

Apostasy, former member Sam Young explains, "is the worst possible sin you can commit. Apostasy is considered worse than murder." 

The “worst possible sin” is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Apostasy is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. The former is forgivable and the latter is not. Under specific and extreme circumstances which have been explained here multiple times, apostasy can lead one to that end. That some misinformed, thoughtless, or unfeeling members use these words loosely does not make it our doctrine....meaning those people who make unwarranted and unwelcome judgments at funerals or other situations.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I distrust anyone claiming to be speaking for deity.  There is a degree of hubris in that mentality that immediately is suspect.  
 

Seems like you are making a judgment and speaking for Deity.