pogi Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Well look, you're calling me an outsider. And that's not the first time here that someone has put me on some "other side" and tried to delegitimise my thoughts because I no longer believe the claims of the church. You have to admit, it is strange that we don’t see any believing members who supports your claim about our beliefs. There are very open minded believers on here who call a spade a spade, why can’t anyone see it your way? That tells me something about your judgment as an outsider. It is not meant to be offensive, we simply are not members of the same belief system and it is a matter of perspective and bias. If I want to understand church doctrine/beliefs, I listen to active church members. You have previously accused me of bias in this thread as an insider, we’ll, if in an insider, what does that make you? Are you immune to bias yourself? Apparently not. To the rest of your post, it has been answered well by others. I just want to add that the atonement covers every single person on earth, unrepentant, angry, “bitter apostate”, “spiritual germ”, and even a lowly murderer to a degree of glory. No one can escape its reach - with one exception only. You know who. That is what we believe. As an outsider you are failing in trying to convince me otherwise. Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi 3
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Oh well? I have provided numerous lengthy quotes in context from leaders that clearly elucidate what it means to sin against the Holy Ghost. Rather than respond to what they said, you simply call them speculative, wacky, and esoteric? It’s not complicated. What could be more accurate to say of Sons of Perdition than that “they have sinned away the power to repent”? That’s a precise description. They cannot repent and cannot be saved. Perhaps these teachings will clarify what it means “to sin away the power to repent.“ Clearly it refers to those who sin against the Holy Ghost. On a more practical level, Mormon’s description of Nephite depravity in thir final days suggests that those people had sinned away the power to repent. They sinned against great knowledge. I can’t think of a better description of the mental and spiritual state of those who sin against the Holy Ghost and what they are capable of doing. Those who have been identified as Sons of Perdition appear to have some things in common.... betrayal, cursing God, seeking evil, incapable of repenting, murder. I recall Joseph Smith’s description of the apostates who sought to hunt and kill him. Perhaps this can help identify those who might fall under that condemnation. The typical run-of-the-mill LDS apostate, right? Nope. In any case, only God will make that judgment. I haven't been reading all of your responses as closely as I've primarily been having a back and forth with SMAC. However, one thing I asked him for, and that still hasn't been provided has been a clear definition of apostasy elucidated by modern church leaders, describing differing degrees of apostasy, one of those degrees being the unforgivable sin and the other lesser degrees and what it takes to qualify for those degrees. I think the larger topic of how to qualify to be a Son of Perdition overlaps to some extent into the apostasy discussion, since apparently according to current church curriculum which quotes many of these older church leaders as saying that "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin. How many? How do they fall into this category? I'm looking for guidance from modern church leaders and officially endorsed curriculum on the topic, yet it seems quite gray. 1
stemelbow Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 17 hours ago, smac97 said: Everyone who has ever lived that we can definitively state have committed the sin worse than murder, you mean? Yes, I believe he was. Are you surprised by this? No, we can only definitively identify Cain as a Son of Perdition. We don't know if Judas was a Son of Perdition. See here: Apart from Cain, we don't know about the disposition of anyone. I suspect some have. We just don't know who. You could start with Moses 5. And here. Thanks, -Smac Ok. So you say it carries meaning, but in the whole of many billions of people it really can only definitively apply to one. To me that amounts to a meaningless teaching. All of the warnings of the leaders to the lay people were useless because these warnings could never possibly apply to them. You say you suspect some are sons of Perdition but who could possible have met the level of knowledge required, as latter explanations have come? To me this teaching has come down to taking the foot out of the mouth of past prophets.
stemelbow Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Elder Faust answered your question. How did Elder Faust know that? Is it him just guessing?
HappyJackWagon Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 13 hours ago, JLHPROF said: So true. It takes about as much knowledge to make a devil as a God. Great way to put it. I wish all members had that perspective. I've been called an apostate, a Korihor by members of my own family (all while attending church weekly and serving faithfully in a calling with a current temple recommend) My parents act as if I'm lost and will never receive salvation. Of course I believe that they believe I could "repent" of my beliefs and have a shot, but I think they would believe the same thing had I committed murder. So while I don't think that members generally view apostasy as greater than murder (unless they judge a person to have committed the unpardonable sin), apostasy is treated on a level equal to murder. I think this is the case because people like my parents believe that when I share thoughts about SSM or LGBTQ equality, or female ordination etc that I am teaching a false doctrine that can murder the chances of salvation of an individual under my influence. To me it seems like a pretty harsh view, and shows a total lack of respect for the agency of the person who may happen to agree with me on some issues. As if they are too weak to withstand my overwhelmingly sinister use of the force. "This is not the church you think it is" as I wave my hand across their face. 1
let’s roll Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I haven't been reading all of your responses as closely as I've primarily been having a back and forth with SMAC. However, one thing I asked him for, and that still hasn't been provided has been a clear definition of apostasy elucidated by modern church leaders, describing differing degrees of apostasy, one of those degrees being the unforgivable sin and the other lesser degrees and what it takes to qualify for those degrees. I think the larger topic of how to qualify to be a Son of Perdition overlaps to some extent into the apostasy discussion, since apparently according to current church curriculum which quotes many of these older church leaders as saying that "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin. How many? How do they fall into this category? I'm looking for guidance from modern church leaders and officially endorsed curriculum on the topic, yet it seems quite gray. As suggested by your moniker, I trust you can understand that disciples of Christ, including Church leaders, love their brothers and sisters and thus are motivated to share the good news of the atonement, its power to cleanse and heal, and invite everyone to avail themselves of this divine gift. Thus, I believe their invitation to you and me, and certainly my invitation to all is to turn our eyes to the heavens, focus on the divine, hope for and seek after things that are virtuous and lovely. In that context, disciples will likely spend their time and efforts in inviting their brothers and sisters to come unto Christ rather than compiling a ranking of degrees of apostasy with a description of the attendant consequences for each. In fact, as demonstrated by most of the teachings quoted on this thread, a discussion of apostasy is typically done in the context of a message that the power of the atonement can heal any soul that is willing to love the divine regardless of the past. 2
smac97 Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Ok. So you say it carries meaning, I think that is necessarily and obviously true. It's not just a matter of opinion. Quote but in the whole of many billions of people it really can only definitively apply to one. No. No. You are not paying attention to what I am saying. I am saying that "Sons of Perdition" exist. I am also saying that we presently lack the standing, stewardship, and information to specifically designate any particular person (apart from Cain) as being in that category. This does not mean that there are not others. I am quite confident that there are. We simply are not situated to specifically state who they are. Lucifer and his followers all fall into this category. Cain falls into this category. I think there are are some people who have been born on this earth (apart from Cain) who are or will be in this category. We just lack the capacity to specifically identify who these individuals are. Quote To me that amounts to a meaningless teaching. I invite you to give the matter some further thought and study. In terms of percentages, very few of us will commit murder. That does not mean that the Church's teachings about that topic are "meaningless." Here are some statements by various leaders of the Church on this topic. Some excerpts: Quote Say to the brothers Hulet and to all others, that the Lord never authorized them to say that the devil, his angels, or the sons of perdition, should ever be restored; for their state of destiny was not revealed to man, is not revealed, nor ever shall be revealed, save to those who are made partakers thereof: consequently those who teach this doctrine have not received it of the Spirit of the Lord. Truly Brother Oliver declared it to be the doctrine of devils. We, therefore, command that this doctrine be taught no more in Zion. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.24) ... With the Latter-day Saints, this is not so. While it is true we teach that a man must comply with these principles of the gospel in order to receive salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of heaven -- which is proved by many passages of scripture -- nevertheless, we hold out the hope that all may be saved, excepting the sons of perdition, a class that wilfully rejects the atonement of the Savior, for the Lord intends to save all the workmanship of his hands, save these few who will not receive salvation. Our doctrine consigns none others to perdition, but holds forth the hope that all will eventually be saved in some degree of glory. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:140) ... The extent of this punishment none will ever know except those who partake of it. That it is the most severe punishment that can be meted out to man is apparent. Outer darkness is something which cannot be described, except that we know that it is to be placed beyond the benign and comforting influence of the Spirit of God -- banished entirely from his presence. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:219-221) ... Lucifer was “an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God.” He had risen high in knowledge, understanding, and power. He was Lucifer, a son of the morning (of light). For his rebellion there was no excuse. He committed the unpardonable sin, in denying that of which he had full and complete knowledge. He became thereby the father of lies (See D. & C. 76:26, 32-48). It is probable that only personages who have acquired similar full knowledge, who willfully and deliberately deny the truth, when they know it to be the truth, can commit the unpardonable sin and become sons of perdition. They are sons of perdition because, “Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to open shame” (D. & C. 76:35). They must have had a fullness of knowledge; a testimony which cannot be destroyed. One must be on a high eminence to fall so low; and few in world’s history have attained such a height. It is doubtful if even Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was sufficiently enlightened to become a son of perdition (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 545). Cain was called Perdition because of his sin, but it is added “for thou wast also before the world,” implying a reason from out of the pre-existent world, for this heavy punishment (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:24). Moreover, the expression, sons of perdition, is often used in the scriptures to describe disciples of Satan, all who defy God and teach untruth, and who delight in lies, without necessarily committing the unpardonable sin. The many brethren and sisters who have propounded questions about the sons of perdition may rest secure that with their present knowledge they cannot become sons of perdition. The concept exists. That it is extreme does not lessen its significance. Quote All of the warnings of the leaders to the lay people were useless because these warnings could never possibly apply to them. False. False. Nobody has said that these teachings "could never possibly apply to" us. You are materially misapprehending and mischaracterizing what I have said, and what the Church teaches. Please stop doing that. Quote You say you suspect some are sons of Perdition Yes, I think it's fairly obvious that some of those born to this world will, through their choices, become Sons of Perdition. We just don't know who these specific persons are. I had previously thought that Sherem was a potential candidate. But this comment by Robert Millet changed my mind: Quote Sherem’s final words are both poignant and pathetic: “I fear lest I have committed the unpardonable sin, for I have lied unto God; for I denied the Christ, and said that I believed the scriptures; and they truly testify of him. And because I have thus lied unto God I greatly fear lest my case shall be awful; but I confess unto God” (Jacob 7:19). Although the ultimate fate of Sherem is not known to us, this we do observe: deathbed repentance does not have within it the seeds of everlasting life. “It is the will of God,” Joseph Smith observed, “that man should repent & serve him in health & in the strength & power of his mind in order to secure his blessings & not wait untill [sic] he is called to die” (Words of Joseph Smith 107). It would appear that Sherem’s sin was not unpardonable—that he will not be numbered among the sons of perdition—for he still possessed a soul capable of repentance, which disposition is wholly alien to a son of perdition (TPJS 358). That sounds about right. Quote but who could possible have met the level of knowledge required, as latter explanations have come? I don't know. I'm not in the habit of presuming to know such deep-seated and important things that, in the end, are in the hearts of others. By way of example, I came across this Reddit thread purportedly quoting a Latter-day Saint who presumed to designate John Dehlin as a Son of Perdition. I strongly disagree with this, for two reasons. First, it is profoundly presumptuous and wrong to render such a judgment, let alone do so publicly. Second, I have read and listened to a lot of what John Dehlin has had to say. I have found him surprisingly uninformed as to much of the Restored Gospel in general. I would be hard-pressed to believe he meets the threshold requirements to be a Son of Perdition, let alone the subsequent requirements. Quote To me this teaching has come down to taking the foot out of the mouth of past prophets. Meh. A gratuitous cheap shot. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 3, 2020 by smac97 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: How did Elder Faust know that? Is it him just guessing? Not sure what you are asking....how did he know what?
smac97 Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I just re-read the entire entry from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that you linked to and that I copied into the thread earlier, and it says nothing about "All sins but two are forgivable: murder and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" in the apostasy entry. Perhaps you're referring to a different entry in the Encyclopedia than what you shared with me? Look at the entry on "Murder." I linked to it and quoted it earlier in this thread. See also here: Quote Unpardonable Sin See also Blaspheme, Blasphemy; Holy Ghost; Murder; Sons of Perdition The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, Matt. 12:31–32 (Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). It is impossible for those who were made partakers of the Holy Ghost to renew them again unto repentance, Heb. 6:4–6. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Heb. 10:26. If ye deny the Holy Ghost and know that ye deny it, this is a sin which is unpardonable, Alma 39:5–6 (Jacob 7:19). They have no forgiveness, having denied the Only Begotten Son, having crucified him unto themselves, D&C 76:30–35.The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, which is shedding innocent blood after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, D&C 132:26–27. And here: Quote Murder See also Cain; Capital Punishment The deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. Murder is a sin condemned from earliest times (Gen. 4:1–12; Moses 5:18–41). Whoever sheds a man’s blood shall have his blood shed by man, Gen. 9:6 (JST, Gen. 9:12–13; Ex. 21:12; Alma 34:12). Thou shalt not kill, Ex. 20:13 (Deut. 5:17; Matt. 5:21–22; Mosiah 13:21; D&C 59:6). Jesus said, thou shalt do no murder, Matt. 19:18. Murderers shall have their part in the second death, Rev. 21:8. Ye are murderers in your hearts, 1 Ne. 17:44. Wo to the murderer who kills deliberately, 2 Ne. 9:35. God has commanded that men should not murder, 2 Ne. 26:32. Murder is an abomination to the Lord, Alma 39:5–6. He that kills shall not have forgiveness, D&C 42:18. Any person who kills shall be delivered up to the laws of the land, D&C 42:79. See also Alma 39:5 ("Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?") See also Matthew 12:32 ("And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.") With respect, this is all pretty basic stuff. You can find it very easily by yourself. 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: And I'm looking for clarity from modern authorities in the church. Then go do some research. 18 hours ago, hope_for_things said: As evidenced by this thread, there are a lot of differing interpretations about the scriptures and quotes from early leaders. Its also interesting that your FAIR Mormon link continues to provide old quotes from early leaders which don't provide any clarity on the subject. They must have really had a hard time finding anything authoritative because they even quote a BYU professor named Rodney Turner, who I've never heard of. I think "they" are helping a little, but they don't work for you. You don't seem to be doing much to do your own research and study on this matter, and are instead expecting everyone else to hop to and serve up information to you on a silver platter. That is not a good way to study and research any topic. Thanks, -Smac 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I haven't been reading all of your responses as closely as I've primarily been having a back and forth with SMAC. However, one thing I asked him for, and that still hasn't been provided has been a clear definition of apostasy elucidated by modern church leaders, describing differing degrees of apostasy, one of those degrees being the unforgivable sin and the other lesser degrees and what it takes to qualify for those degrees. I think the larger topic of how to qualify to be a Son of Perdition overlaps to some extent into the apostasy discussion, since apparently according to current church curriculum which quotes many of these older church leaders as saying that "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin. How many? How do they fall into this category? I'm looking for guidance from modern church leaders and officially endorsed curriculum on the topic, yet it seems quite gray. All the above has been answered many times by many people. What more do you need? Would you please provide an example of the current church curriculum that says "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin? The number, according to many quotes, is "very few." 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Ok. So you say it carries meaning, but in the whole of many billions of people it really can only definitively apply to one. To me that amounts to a meaningless teaching. All of the warnings of the leaders to the lay people were useless because these warnings could never possibly apply to them. You say you suspect some are sons of Perdition but who could possible have met the level of knowledge required, as latter explanations have come? To me this teaching has come down to taking the foot out of the mouth of past prophets. Are you asking for a list of suspected Sons of Perdition? How would that be compiled? Isn't it sufficient for leaders to say they are very few and only God can know their condition and their fate?
smac97 Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: All the above has been answered many times by many people. What more do you need? Would you please provide an example of the current church curriculum that says "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin? The number, according to many quotes, is "very few." Yep. Apostasy is a necessary predicate for becoming a Son of Perdition, but it is patently false to say it is the only predicate. Thanks, -Smac 3
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 46 minutes ago, let’s roll said: As suggested by your moniker, I trust you can understand that disciples of Christ, including Church leaders, love their brothers and sisters and thus are motivated to share the good news of the atonement, its power to cleanse and heal, and invite everyone to avail themselves of this divine gift. Thus, I believe their invitation to you and me, and certainly my invitation to all is to turn our eyes to the heavens, focus on the divine, hope for and seek after things that are virtuous and lovely. In that context, disciples will likely spend their time and efforts in inviting their brothers and sisters to come unto Christ rather than compiling a ranking of degrees of apostasy with a description of the attendant consequences for each. In fact, as demonstrated by most of the teachings quoted on this thread, a discussion of apostasy is typically done in the context of a message that the power of the atonement can heal any soul that is willing to love the divine regardless of the past. I’m all for focusing on the positive and that is where I’m naturally inclined. There is much good to focus on that is inspirational and uplifts. I don’t think that means we should ignore the harmful elements and doctrines in the church. There are those who’s suffering can be alleviated as we root out the bad and repent of our cultural and institutionally perpetuated mistakes. It’s a both/and approach.
Bernard Gui Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Great way to put it. I wish all members had that perspective. I've been called an apostate, a Korihor by members of my own family (all while attending church weekly and serving faithfully in a calling with a current temple recommend) My parents act as if I'm lost and will never receive salvation. Of course I believe that they believe I could "repent" of my beliefs and have a shot, but I think they would believe the same thing had I committed murder. So while I don't think that members generally view apostasy as greater than murder (unless they judge a person to have committed the unpardonable sin), apostasy is treated on a level equal to murder. I think this is the case because people like my parents believe that when I share thoughts about SSM or LGBTQ equality, or female ordination etc that I am teaching a false doctrine that can murder the chances of salvation of an individual under my influence. To me it seems like a pretty harsh view, and shows a total lack of respect for the agency of the person who may happen to agree with me on some issues. As if they are too weak to withstand my overwhelmingly sinister use of the force. "This is not the church you think it is" as I wave my hand across their face. The bolded part is not correct. When you share such thoughts, what is your intent? 1
stemelbow Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think that is necessarily and obviously true. It's not just a matter of opinion. No. No. You are not paying attention to what I am saying. I am saying that "Sons of Perdition" exist. I am also saying that we presently lack the standing, stewardship, and information to specifically designate any particular person (apart from Cain) as being in that category. This does not mean that there are not others. I am quite confident that there are. We simply are not situated to specifically state who they are. Lucifer and his followers all fall into this category. Cain falls into this category. I think there are are some people who have been born on this earth (apart from Cain) who are or will be in this category. We just lack the capacity to specifically identify who these individuals are. I invite you to give the matter some further thought and study. Here are some statements by various leaders of the Church on this topic. Some excerpts: The concept exists. That it is extreme does not lessen its significance. False. False. Nobody has said that these teachings "could never possibly apply to" us. You are materially misapprehending and mischaracterizing what I have said, and what the Church teaches. Please stop doing that. Yes, I think it's fairly obvious that some of those born to this world will, through their choices, become Sons of Perdition. We just don't know who these specific persons are. I had previously thought that Sherem was a potential candidate. But this comment by Robert Millet changed my mind: That sounds about right. I don't know. I'm not in the habit of presuming to know such deep-seated and important things that, in the end, are in the hearts of others. By way of example, I came across this Reddit thread purportedly quoting a Latter-day Saint who presumed to designate John Dehlin as a Son of Perdition. I strongly disagree with this, for two reasons. First, it is profoundly presumptuous and wrong to render such a judgment, let alone do so publicly. Second, I have read and listened to a lot of what John Dehlin has had to say. I have found him surprisingly uninformed as to much of the Restored Gospel in general. I would be hard-pressed to believe he meets the threshold requirements to be a Son of Perdition, let alone the subsequent requirements. Meh. A gratuitous cheap shot. Thanks, -Smac Ok. Then. Apparently you have no idea if any apostate is a son of Perdition (well except for the make believe Cain), right? But what you don't know, in spite of pretending to know, is if all apostates are sons of perdition--that's simply not for you to decide. You'd have to come up with explanations like, "well they don't know as much as me" in order to try and explain away any such notion, apparently. you've even imagined candidates who sit amongst the apostates, it seems. So is it possible for a person who has murdered another, like Nephi, to receive celestial glory? And is it possible for an unrepentant apostate to receive celestial glory?
Navidad Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Apostates, yes, because they are in open defiance of the principles, teachings, and leaders of the Church, and the Word of the Lord in Jacob 2: Have they committed the sin against the Holy Ghost? Of course not. In my experience, it is the policy of the Church and the practice of the members that I have known that apostates (for whatever reason they leave the Church) are not shunned, excluded, hated, or feared, but to be ministered to if they are willing with the hope that they will return to the fold. Even if they chose to stay away, we love them and are concerned about them and we are willing to help and serve them in whatever way we can. Thanks to you and Pogi for your replies. My research is into an earlier time (1920s-40s) and how those who engaged in plural marriage were treated back then. I know things are different now. I find it interesting that here in the colonies, the folks are hesitant to talk about how their grandparents, for example treated the LeBaron family when they lived here from 1924-1944. The folks were really quite abusive toward this family. Only the parents had been excommunicated; the children were baptized LDS members; more than half graduated from the academy. There is a pretty clear record of how badly the siblings were treated as children. One LDS bishop/medical doctor here attributed the dysfunction of the LeBarons in latter life to how they were treated as children, using the then popular diagnostic category of dementia praecox. The last male polygamist with multiple living spouses living in Colonia Juarez died in 1939. He and his family were not treated badly because they were married into the principle in the post-manifesto years with permission of the Church presidency. Apparently there was a clear distinction here in the colonies between those who lived the principle based on permission of the hierarchy and those who lived it outside of that authority. As far as I can tell the last living polygamous wife here in the LDS colonies died in the mid-1960's. Since the recent killings in our area there has been a renewed interest in post-manifesto polygamy and the interrelationships between fundamentalist groups, and between fundamentalists and LDS folk. It is certainly complicated. I may be speaking on this subject in both Rochester and St. George this year. Rulon Allred was born here; his grandpa was a LDS branch president here. Benjamin Franklin Johnson lived here with his younger brother who was a bishop of Colonia Diaz. There are folks living in La Mora who lost relatives who are direct descendants of Bishop Langford of the Sonoran LDS colonies. It is a rich woven tapestry. Sorry, I write too much! 1
pogi Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I haven't been reading all of your responses as closely as I've primarily been having a back and forth with SMAC. However, one thing I asked him for, and that still hasn't been provided has been a clear definition of apostasy elucidated by modern church leaders, describing differing degrees of apostasy, one of those degrees being the unforgivable sin and the other lesser degrees and what it takes to qualify for those degrees. I highly doubt that you will find a quote that describes "differing degrees of apostasy". There are not revealed classes or degrees in a hierarchy of apostate states. I would suggest that the degree of apostasy is equivalent to the degree of sin. The most basic definition of apostasy provided by the Church is this: Quote When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/apostasy?lang=eng Because we are all imperfect, it could be suggested that we all apostatize from certain principles here and there. However, I think the term "apostate" is reserved for those who no longer seek reconciliation - they are in a "state of apostasy" - a state of turning away - rather than a state of desiring reconciliation, feeling remorse for their actions, and continually striving to be in-line with the principles of the restored gospel despite their mistakes. So again, there are not different structured classes or degrees of apostasy. It all simply connotes a turning away. How far you turn away depends on the degree of sin and desire for reconciliation. You can see how broad a term apostasy is, and how saying that "apostasy is worse then murder" really confuses the issue. He is comparing a general "turning away" (which we all do) to a very specific sin. Apples and oranges. He should compare sin to sin as there are no defined states of apostasy. Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi 3
smac97 Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Ok. Then. Apparently you have no idea if any apostate is a son of Perdition (well except for the make believe Cain), right? First, please stop the gratuitous cheap shots ("make believe Cain"). Common courtesy sure would be nice. If you keep this up, I'll just blow you off. Second, you are correct in that I do not presume to know the heart and mind of any other person. I do not have standing, stewardship, or information sufficient to justify any declaration as to any particular person being a Son of Perdition. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: But what you don't know, in spite of pretending to know, is if all apostates are sons of perdition--that's simply not for you to decide. Again, please stop the gratuitous cheap shots. I am not "pretending to know" anything. It's absurd to say that "all apostates are sons of perdition." The Church doesn't teach that, or anything close to it. I dont' believe that, or anything close to it. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: You'd have to come up with explanations like, "well they don't know as much as me" in order to try and explain away any such notion, apparently. Again, please stop the gratuitous cheap shots. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: you've even imagined candidates who sit amongst the apostates, it seems. I previously theorized Sherem as a potential candidate. Then I gave the matter a bit of study and reached the conclusion that this was probably erroneous. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So is it possible for a person who has murdered another, like Nephi, to receive celestial glory? I reject the premise. We have no information that Nephi "murdered another." If you are referencing Laban, please see here: And here: Was Nephi’s Slaying of Laban Legal? And here: Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban But to answer your question (apart from Nephi): No, murder is one of the two unforgiveable sins. David lost his exaltation because he murdered Uriah. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And is it possible for an unrepentant apostate to receive celestial glory? I don't think so. See, e.g., here: Quote To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God-salvation in the ultimate sense (D&C 132:17). Latter-day Saints believe that all mankind (except the sons of perdition) will receive varying degrees of glory in the afterlife. Exaltation is the greatest of all the gifts and attainments possible. It is available only in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom and is reserved for members of the Church of the Firstborn. This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection (TPJS, pp. 300-301; D&C 132:19). Blessings and privileges of exaltation require unwavering faith, repentance, and complete obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior stated the following conditions: "Strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me" (D&C 132:22). All Church ordinances lead to exaltation, and the essential crowning ordinances are the Endowment and the eternal marriage covenant of the temple (D&C 131:1-4, 132). And here: Quote The terrestrial glory is for those who lived honorable lives on the earth but "were blinded by the craftiness of men" and were "not valiant in the testimony of Jesus." Those who did not receive a testimony of Jesus while on earth, but who could have done so except for their neglect, are also heirs to the Terrestrial Kingdom (D&C 76:72-74, 79). They obtain not "the crown over the kingdom of our God" (D&C 76:79) and remain without exaltation in their saved condition (D&C 132:17). They "receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father," and their kingdom differs from the celestial "as the moon differs from the sun" (D&C 76:77-78). Thanks, -Smac
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 37 minutes ago, smac97 said: See also here: Quote Unpardonable Sin See also Blaspheme, Blasphemy; Holy Ghost; Murder; Sons of Perdition The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, Matt. 12:31–32 (Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). It is impossible for those who were made partakers of the Holy Ghost to renew them again unto repentance, Heb. 6:4–6. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Heb. 10:26. If ye deny the Holy Ghost and know that ye deny it, this is a sin which is unpardonable, Alma 39:5–6 (Jacob 7:19). They have no forgiveness, having denied the Only Begotten Son, having crucified him unto themselves, D&C 76:30–35.The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, which is shedding innocent blood after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, D&C 132:26–27. This kind of explanation only makes the case more muddy because it is left open for interpretation as to what does it take to commit this sin. This bolsters Sam Young's comment because it doesn't talk about how a person can blaspheme against the HG or willfully sin after receiving a knowledge of the truth. Then we can circle back to the early church leaders statements which only complicate the problem. What we end up with is a segment of the church members who treat apostates as evil sinners and as lost and fallen. People who mourn over the loss of their own close family members and friends who they believe may have strayed into this territory. I've had this happen to me personally, similar to some experiences that HappyJackWagon posted about. Examples of real and sincere treatment by family and friends that I value and love, but who shed tears on my behalf because they are fearful that a vengeful God will judge me to be in violation of some heinous sin. You can say that these members don't understand the true doctrine as you interpret it differently. Well, I have an easy fix for that one. Just have some church authority figures talk talk about these things in conference, disavow some of the kooky interpretations of scripture around denying the HG and all the unpardonable crap. There are plenty of other scriptures that people completely ignore because they sound so out of touch with reality. Add these unpardonable sin scriptures to that same list of scriptures to ignore.
pogi Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think the larger topic of how to qualify to be a Son of Perdition overlaps to some extent into the apostasy discussion, since apparently according to current church curriculum which quotes many of these older church leaders as saying that "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin. How many? How do they fall into this category? I'm looking for guidance from modern church leaders and officially endorsed curriculum on the topic, yet it seems quite gray. You use the plural "leaders" in suggesting that "many apostates" are sons of perdition. I have only seen one quote. We know what the church has said about taking one or two quotew (which is contrary to the predominate teachings) from one leader, and how it pertains to doctrine. Can you find me more than one quote that suggests "many" apostates are sons of perdition? I can show you dozens of quotes to the contrary. Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: All the above has been answered many times by many people. What more do you need? Would you please provide an example of the current church curriculum that says "many apostates" fall into this category of the unforgivable sin? The number, according to many quotes, is "very few." I already provided that earlier in the thread. Here it is again, it comes from the History of the Church and is in this manual. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/33-kingdoms-of-glory-and-perdition?lang=eng Quote “All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
smac97 Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This kind of explanation only makes the case more muddy Oh brother. I posted this link less than an hour ago, and you are already saying it "makes the case more muddy"? You don't seem to have given much, if any, study or thought to this matter. I encourage you to fix that. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: because it is left open for interpretation as to what does it take to commit this sin. This thread has included a significant number of links and quotations that provide some clarification on this issue. In the end, though, pretty much everything is "open for interpretation." 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This bolsters Sam Young's comment because it doesn't talk about how a person can blaspheme against the HG or willfully sin after receiving a knowledge of the truth. It does not bolster Sam Young's comment. Again, this thread has included a significant number of links and quotations that provide some clarification on this issue. No informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes that "apostasy" is "worse than murder." 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Then we can circle back to the early church leaders statements which only complicate the problem. No, it doesn't. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: What we end up with is a segment of the church members who treat apostates as evil sinners and as lost and fallen. Which is a separate issue from the teachings of the Church. We should treat apostates with kindness and love. See here: Quote 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). That some Latter-day Saints do not follow these teachings, and consequently mistreat "apostates," does not rehabilitate Sam Young's false characterization of our beliefs. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: People who mourn over the loss of their own close family members and friends who they believe may have strayed into this territory. Meh. I'm not really interested in musing over hypothetical anecdotes (except to say that I have never met a single person in the Church who believes that "apostasy" is "worse than murder"). 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I've had this happen to me personally, similar to some experiences that HappyJackWagon posted about. Examples of real and sincere treatment by family and friends that I value and love, but who shed tears on my behalf because they are fearful that a vengeful God will judge me to be in violation of some heinous sin. I don't know what this has to do with Sam Young falsely equating "apostasy" with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." I am frankly skeptical that family members have accused you of this. But if that has happened, then that seems quite wrong and presumptuous and ignorant on their part. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You can say that these members don't understand the true doctrine as you interpret it differently. No, this issue doesn't really come down to a mere difference of interpretation. There is no rational, informed basis for asserting that the Church teaches that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." None. At all. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking in ignorance, in bad faith, or some combination of the two. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Well, I have an easy fix for that one. Just have some church authority figures talk talk about these things in conference, disavow some of the kooky interpretations of scripture around denying the HG and all the unpardonable crap. Or the "fix" could be for people like you to become more informed about what we actually believe. No informed, observant member of the Church believes that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." The Church doesn't teach that. Thanks, -Smac 1
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 32 minutes ago, Navidad said: Thanks to you and Pogi for your replies. My research is into an earlier time (1920s-40s) and how those who engaged in plural marriage were treated back then. I know things are different now. I find it interesting that here in the colonies, the folks are hesitant to talk about how their grandparents, for example treated the LeBaron family when they lived here from 1924-1944. The folks were really quite abusive toward this family. Only the parents had been excommunicated; the children were baptized LDS members; more than half graduated from the academy. There is a pretty clear record of how badly the siblings were treated as children. One LDS bishop/medical doctor here attributed the dysfunction of the LeBarons in latter life to how they were treated as children, using the then popular diagnostic category of dementia praecox. The last male polygamist with multiple living spouses living in Colonia Juarez died in 1939. He and his family were not treated badly because they were married into the principle in the post-manifesto years with permission of the Church presidency. Apparently there was a clear distinction here in the colonies between those who lived the principle based on permission of the hierarchy and those who lived it outside of that authority. As far as I can tell the last living polygamous wife here in the LDS colonies died in the mid-1960's. Since the recent killings in our area there has been a renewed interest in post-manifesto polygamy and the interrelationships between fundamentalist groups, and between fundamentalists and LDS folk. It is certainly complicated. I may be speaking on this subject in both Rochester and St. George this year. Rulon Allred was born here; his grandpa was a LDS branch president here. Benjamin Franklin Johnson lived here with his younger brother who was a bishop of Colonia Diaz. There are folks living in La Mora who lost relatives who are direct descendants of Bishop Langford of the Sonoran LDS colonies. It is a rich woven tapestry. Sorry, I write too much! Thanks for sharing, you make some great points. I try to have as much charity as possible towards the polygamous groups because I realize that they are part of the same heritage that birthed me and that my ancestors participated in. The outcomes of where these groups are today are all part of the fruits of Mormonism. We shouldn't ignore or mistreat them. I think part of our cultural mission needs to include helping and bringing healing and restitution to the bad that we are a part of as a society.
hope_for_things Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 25 minutes ago, pogi said: I highly doubt that you will find a quote that describes "differing degrees of apostasy". There are not revealed classes or degrees in a hierarchy of apostate states. I would suggest that the degree of apostasy is equivalent to the degree of sin. The most basic definition of apostasy provided by the Church is this: Because we are all imperfect, it could be suggested that we all apostatize from certain principles here and there. However, I think the term "apostate" is reserved for those who no longer seek reconciliation - they are in a "state of apostasy" - a state of turning away - rather than a state of desiring reconciliation, feeling remorse for their actions, and continually striving to be in-line with the principles of the restored gospel despite their mistakes. So again, there are not different structured classes or degrees of apostasy. It all simply connotes a turning away. How far you turn away depends on the degree of sin and desire for reconciliation. You can see how broad a term apostasy is, and how saying that "apostasy is worse then murder" really confuses the issue. He is comparing a general "turning away" (which we all do) to a very specific sin. Apples and oranges. He should compare sin to sin as there are no defined states of apostasy. I think you're confusing the definition for repentance and apostasy. Repent can mean to turn away from. I haven't seen that associated with apostasy. I have seen "standing apart" in the apostasy definition. This is part of why its so problematic, to have a sin out there as worse than murder and unforgivable, and then to associate many apostates with this sin as Joseph Smith does in his quote, leads a lot of well intentioned members to be very scared about what it might mean to lose their faith in the church. Fear is a good motivator though. Perhaps that’s why current church leaders continue to include these quotes in the curriculum and encourage the members to believe these things without attempting to clarify or soften the interpretations of earlier church leaders. In that way this folk doctrine serves the goals of the institution.
pogi Posted January 3, 2020 Posted January 3, 2020 41 minutes ago, Navidad said: Thanks to you and Pogi for your replies. My research is into an earlier time (1920s-40s) and how those who engaged in plural marriage were treated back then. I know things are different now. I find it interesting that here in the colonies, the folks are hesitant to talk about how their grandparents, for example treated the LeBaron family when they lived here from 1924-1944. The folks were really quite abusive toward this family. Only the parents had been excommunicated; the children were baptized LDS members; more than half graduated from the academy. There is a pretty clear record of how badly the siblings were treated as children. One LDS bishop/medical doctor here attributed the dysfunction of the LeBarons in latter life to how they were treated as children, using the then popular diagnostic category of dementia praecox. The last male polygamist with multiple living spouses living in Colonia Juarez died in 1939. He and his family were not treated badly because they were married into the principle in the post-manifesto years with permission of the Church presidency. Apparently there was a clear distinction here in the colonies between those who lived the principle based on permission of the hierarchy and those who lived it outside of that authority. As far as I can tell the last living polygamous wife here in the LDS colonies died in the mid-1960's. Since the recent killings in our area there has been a renewed interest in post-manifesto polygamy and the interrelationships between fundamentalist groups, and between fundamentalists and LDS folk. It is certainly complicated. I may be speaking on this subject in both Rochester and St. George this year. Rulon Allred was born here; his grandpa was a LDS branch president here. Benjamin Franklin Johnson lived here with his younger brother who was a bishop of Colonia Diaz. There are folks living in La Mora who lost relatives who are direct descendants of Bishop Langford of the Sonoran LDS colonies. It is a rich woven tapestry. Sorry, I write too much! How members treat others, and how they are taught to treat others in the revealed principles of the restored gospel, are two different things. That people who are "different" were treated poorly is unfortunate but not surprising. Tribe mentality is as old as man, despite our teachings. I guarantee that if members of the LeBaron group would have returned to the church, they would not have been rejected. They were not perceived as sons of perdition (which this thread is about). They were capable of reconciliation and the atonement covered them to a degree of glory. Exaltation was not even out of reach - yet. That they didn't return is really no surprise based on how they were treated. That sin is on the heads of our ancestors. 2
Recommended Posts