Apostasy is worse than murder

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the applicable part is the following:

Does Sam really think this applies to him? 

Does Sam claim to have received the Holy Ghost (baptism of fire) which is different from confirmation?  Does he deny Jesus Christ after having the heavens opened unto him?  Nope.   

Once again, to say that some apostates have denied the Holy Ghost is NOT to say that apostasy is worse than murder.  Your quote doesn't support Sam Young at all in his false claims. 

No church leader is going to come out and declare Sam is a Son of Perdition.  Instead they just echo the fearful warnings of earlier church leaders and let people come to their own conclusions. 

What ex-member is actually going to say that they believe these statements apply to them personally?  Sam likely doesn't take these statements seriously.  I don't take them seriously either.  Lots of people on this board will affirm that church leaders aren't infallible, yet they rarely are willing to point to specific statements of church leaders that they find to be in error. 

I have no trouble calling these theological ideas about apostasy and unpardonable sins a bunch of hogwash.  They aren't part of the core message gospel of Jesus and I think are antithetical to the central commandments of loving God and your neighbor.  

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

According to D&C 76 all sins, including the sin of murder, may eventually be forgiven, the lone exception being the sin of total apostasy, which is commonly known as the unpardonable or the sin against the Holy Ghost. The following two verses may be the source the individual had in mind...

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come. (D&C 84)

Just curious,  if after I die and I still love my partner, where do you think the Church leaders believe I will end up?

See my comments below.

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes, but if I want to stay committed to the person I love, where do you think Church leaders think I will end up.  Because on this earth, they think that is apostasy.  So in all likelihood I will die an apostate.

You may indeed die an apostate, but that is not a permanent state.  A lot takes place after we die.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

................... it was my understanding when I was active in the church that I could not be a Son of Perdition.  ................

Correct.

Quote

Am I really not that far gone according to Church leaders if I don't give up my partner and die still deeply in love and committed to him?  Do you have something I could read what the Church now teaches?  Because last time I talked to priesthood leaders about this 20+ years ago, it seemed pretty grim.  When I left the Church, it was pretty clear: When you choose to leave the Church and fall in love with a guy, you are walking away from God, or at least what Church leaders think is the will of God.

I don't intend to ever leave my partner.  I will die an apostate.  Doesn't Church leaders teach that separates me from God for eternity?

No.

14 hours ago, california boy said:

.................  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?

Forgiven for what sin?  If having SSAttraction is not a decision but is inborn, how can one be blamed for it?  Sin is always connected to volition, to deliberate actions.  Jesus never assigned guilt for inborn traits.  Just the opposite.  LDS doctrine does  not fault SSA, but only acting on that urge.  Is SSA a mitigating factor?  Of course.  Only a perfect judge could ever adjudicate such cases.  You mustn't assume that you cannot be forgiven, because God can forgive anyone.  Moreover, being actively gay is probably a fairly minor issue for God.  Just my personal perspective.

Quote

................................

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

A lot of unfinished business gets taken care of after we die, but that only takes place in concert with living humans who perform holy ordinances on behalf of those who have passed on.  How that is transmitted to the dead is opaque at best, but there is free agency operative among the dead, and a lot remains unfinished until the final judgment.  The LDS Church is sometimes accused of being universalist in its attitude toward salvation of the dead.  What is obvious is that God the Father wants to bring back the entire human family to His presence.  Is that possible?

Quote

...............................

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?  

Actually, the Plan of Salvation (= Plan of Happiness) is the same for everybody.  God is no respecter of persons according to their particular flaws.  All are the same to Him.  All of us have shortcomings, and only the Atonement kicks in to save through grace at the end time and final judgment.  Jesus already paid the price for us.  All of us.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No church leader is going to come out and declare Sam is a Son of Perdition.  Instead they just echo the fearful warnings of earlier church leaders and let people come to their own conclusions. 

What constitutes a son of perdition has been described in revelation - general apostasy is not included in that description or teachings anywhere.  It is as simple as that. You are right about one thing though - no church leader would ever declare Sam Young a son of perdition for apostasy, or teach that general apostasy is worse than murder.  Why?  Because we don't believe it.  It is not in our doctrine, making his comment totally bogus!  

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Lots of people on this board will affirm that church leaders aren't infallible, yet they rarely are willing to point to specific statements of church leaders that they find to be in error.  

I am not one of those members.  I openly acknowledge error where I see it.  This is not one of those cases where an error has been made by anybody but Sam Young and those who defend his comment.  There is not one person who has shown a teaching which equates general apostasy with a sin worse then murder.  Nor can you or anyone point to a believing member who even believes what Sam Young said.  How can you defend Young in this blatant mischaracterization in an attempt to smear the image of the church in lies?  

I don't even know what you are insinuating here.  In this particular case, where has a church leader been fallible or made an error?  Who is the only one making an error in this case?  Sam Young and his defenders. 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Nice to agree on some things for a change.  As for the line Joseph crossed, this is my analysis of his early career based on my study of the evidence.  His early revelations read in a more passive voice, see D&C 3 & 4, the earliest versions of these are speaking in a 3rd person for God.  Then moving into D&C 5 from a few months later you can start to see the boldness and change in speech and this continues in the later revelations. 

I'm not sure how this constitutes meaningful, probative evidence of Joseph Smith becoming more hubristic.

In contrast, consider this assessment of Joseph Smith by Daniel Peterson (emphasis added):

Quote

Question: Is the quote of Joseph Smith's "boasting" of keeping the Church intact accurate?

The entries in History of the Church were made by scribes after Joseph's death

There are two issues here:

• The accuracy of the quote in History of the Church, since it is based upon a synopsis of Joseph's remarks by Thomas Bullock.
• Assuming that the quote is accurate, it is evident in any case that the quote has been removed from its larger context. For more detail on this aspect, see "Question: Was Joseph Smith prone to boasting?".

Even in the History of the Church (where the speech is recreated in 6:408-409), it is described as resting upon a "synopsis" by Thomas Bullock. Is it, therefore, a primary source? Arguably not.^[1]

But there are further questions. The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844. A month later, the Prophet was dead. Did he supervise this entry? No. The last years of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death.^[2] It was common at the time for other authors to write as if someone else was speaking. So, these are not Joseph's words--they are the words which others (who admired him enormously after his murder) put in his mouth. The basic content is more likely to be accurate than the subtle details of tone and style.

This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called "Documentary History." Even when it seems to have Joseph Smith speaking in the first person, the History of the Church may or may not actually be representing Joseph Smith's actual voice. (Dean Jessee's "Preface" to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that entered into Joseph's later statements which was quite foreign to the man himself--this came not because Joseph suddenly became egotistical, but because the voice we hear is no longer Joseph's: it is the work of scribes following his death. They felt comfortable "praising" Joseph in ways which he would probably not have used.)

The impression which one gets of Joseph Smith from reading his authenticated personal statements is that of a humble and sincere man, struggling to do the will of God as he understood it. However, even if a note of proud defiance had crept into Joseph's tone during a speech in Nauvoo, at a time when both city and Church were under threat and pressure from gangs of unprincipled bigots, such a moment of weakness would be understandable.

So which assessment is more accurate?  Yours or Peterson's?

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Joseph got more confident in how he spoke, proclaiming first person speech for God over time.  I'll never know for sure what went on in his or anyone else's head, but my speculation is that psychologically he crossed a line of sorts during this time period.  

Again, what "line"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

What constitutes a son of perdition has been described in revelation - general apostasy is not included in that description or teachings anywhere.  It is as simple as that. You are right about one thing though - no church leader would ever declare Sam Young a son of perdition for apostasy, or teach that general apostasy is worse than murder.  Why?  Because we don't believe it.  It is not in our doctrine, making his comment totally bogus!  

Well, except the quote that I shared earlier in the thread from HoC where it says "This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.".  It doesn't talk about general apostasy in that quote and that is your interpretation of what it means, but I don't think thats a reasonable interpretation.  Ultimately, I'm not sure what current church leaders think about apostasy, you don't see them clarifying the earlier statements from Joseph and Brigham, rather they are printing these statements anew in church materials.  So unless you can point to actual modern church leaders toning down the rhetoric of the past, making clarifying statements to describe the dire consequences of apostasy as not being quite so dire, then I see the old statements as being a problem still.  

At least with President Kimball, he was willing to put the kibosh on the old Adam God doctrines, unfortunately his declarations about those teachings weren't historically accurate, but at least he put his foot down.  We don't have enough of that today.  We have a whole lot of old teachings that church leaders wish would never get brought up.  They don't want to be seen criticizing past leaders because they believe it hurts their current status of authority.  Very poor vision if you ask me...

 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure how this constitutes meaningful, probative evidence of Joseph Smith becoming more hubristic.

In contrast, consider this assessment of Joseph Smith by Daniel Peterson (emphasis added):

So which assessment is more accurate?  Yours or Peterson's?

Again, what "line"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, of course I prefer my interpretation to Peterson's.  I wasn't thinking about that Nauvoo statement of Joseph's specifically anyway, but I do think Joseph got very full of himself during the Nauvoo period.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you can study the history just like anyone else.  I only brought up the whole idea in the first place in relationship to my own experience giving blessings and my discomfort with people who declare they are speaking for God.  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

 Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’

I love this quote.  It's so true.  You cannot return to neutral once you've learned the truth.

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No church leader is going to come out and declare Sam is a Son of Perdition.  Instead they just echo the fearful warnings of earlier church leaders and let people come to their own conclusions. 

I'm no leader, but I'll come out and declare he is not a Son of Perdition.
You have to rise much higher than he did to fall that far.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Nice to agree on some things for a change.  As for the line Joseph crossed, this is my analysis of his early career based on my study of the evidence.  His early revelations read in a more passive voice, see D&C 3 & 4, the earliest versions of these are speaking in a 3rd person for God.  Then moving into D&C 5 from a few months later you can start to see the boldness and change in speech and this continues in the later revelations.  I think Joseph got more confident in how he spoke, proclaiming first person speech for God over time.  I'll never know for sure what went on in his or anyone else's head, but my speculation is that psychologically he crossed a line of sorts during this time period.  

To me, it seems that over time he became more confident and courageous in his prophetic calling, a quality that comes with experience and divine tutelage. If that is “crossing a line,” would that more would cross that “line” who are called to fill roles and accomplish tasks that the Lord asks. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No church leader is going to come out and declare Sam is a Son of Perdition.  Instead they just echo the fearful warnings of earlier church leaders and let people come to their own conclusions. 

What ex-member is actually going to say that they believe these statements apply to them personally?  Sam likely doesn't take these statements seriously.  I don't take them seriously either.  Lots of people on this board will affirm that church leaders aren't infallible, yet they rarely are willing to point to specific statements of church leaders that they find to be in error. 

I have no trouble calling these theological ideas about apostasy and unpardonable sins a bunch of hogwash.  They aren't part of the core message gospel of Jesus and I think are antithetical to the central commandments of loving God and your neighbor.  

A propos your first paragraph above you are indulging in some blatant mind-reading and engaging in the wouldn’t-put-it-past-em attack. Not persuasive. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, except the quote that I shared earlier in the thread from HoC where it says "This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.". 

No, that is not an exception.  Nowhere does that quote say "apostasy is the worst possible sin you can commit. Apostasy is considered worse than murder."  Surely you see the difference and how Sam is twisting things.  That is like saying that because apples (sons of perdition) are red (apostates), all red things (apostates) are apples (sons of perdition).  It is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of what we actually believe.  Surely you see that.  Surely, you understand we don't believe what he said!  

Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But here's the thing about that so-called "middle man".  Contrary to the Protestant notion of "all we need is Jesus", the Savior authorized his servants to represent him, and he put a lot of weight on accepting or rejecting their authority.

I have reached the conclusion that one of the reasons the Saviour gives us prophets as 'middlemen' is because we learn to follow Christ by following the men He calls as prophets. It's the exact same process in the end, and people who think they want to follow God but who find it hard to follow a prophet are simply deceiving themselves, quite a bit like what John taught about love:

Quote

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

 

This makes perfect sense given that the whole point of our being here on earth is to help us develop qualities that allow us to have greater opportunities and participate with God in governing in his kingdom (all of the "overcome" verses in the book of Revelation come to mind).  God the Father has a Son, the Son is his representative.  The Son appoints men who are called as prophets and apostles to represent him.  Authority is delegated and every leader appointed by the Father is his representative (including the Savior).   How can we really follow The Father if we don't accept his chosen representatives?  By rejecting them we reject his methods and disrespect his choices.  

And the thing I really like about the way the Lord teaches us these principles is that everyone gets to participate in this process in one degree or another through the callings we receive in the church.  As we seek the Lord's help in fulfilling our callings, we get a taste for how it all works.  We know our own weaknesses and shortcomings and we stumble in our callings sometimes.  And those who now serve as our bishops, stake presidents, apostles and even our prophet has had to go through this same process. You'd think we'd be more willing to cut them some slack if they act slightly human sometimes.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

In the process of countering those on this thread who would support Sam Young’s false doctrine (or rather, his egregious misrepresentation ofChurch doctrine) there have been some superbly eloquent posts here. I appreciate them very much. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This makes perfect sense given that the whole point of our being here on earth is to help us develop qualities that allow us to have greater opportunities and participate with God in governing in his kingdom (all of the "overcome" verses in the book of Revelation come to mind).  God the Father has a Son, the Son is his representative. 

Yes.  And the Lord's servants are His representatives.

Unity is a big theme in the Gospel.  Jesus is numerically distinct from the Father, but unified in will, and purpose, and righteousness.  Part of our spiritual growth involves us learning to approximate that unity.  Hence Jesus "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man..."  (Ephesians 4:11-13.)

It seems that disunity is one of the biggest stumblingblocks for people who are leaving the Church.  These folks are often wonderful in many ways, but some cannot reconcile themselves with accepting prophetic counsel, with being part of the "Body of Christ," with their assigned role in that body, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I issued 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.'"

You also said: "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."

I issued a 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 think you are substantially distorting the teachings of the Church on these two points.  If so, I ask that you retract them.  If not, I ask that you substantiate your assertions.

Okay.  I look forward to you addressing the above two points.

I'm not asking you to be "a jury."  One of the main reasons this board has value is that it is not utterly freewheeling.  Posters have broad, but not unlimited, latitude to speak their minds.  If such speaking-of-one's-mind includes statements of fact, then other posters are entitled to issue CFRs.  This is an important check against discussions devolving into the normative shouting matches we see so frequently online. 

We are discussing important topics here.  I think we need to be cautious and circumspect in what we say, particularly when we move from statements of opinion to statements of fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

Objection!!

Those quotes are by Meadowchik. I'd like to take credit because she makes some good points.  

 

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Objection!!

Those quotes are by Meadowchik. I'd like to take credit because she makes some good points.  

 

 

Ah!  My apologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

 Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.’

I love this quote.  It's so true.  You cannot return to neutral once you've learned the truth.

I like the quote to the extent that it means we are accountable for the knowledge that we have.  What I don't like is that the author of the quote is essentially saying that membership in the church is serving God and leaving that membership is serving the evil one.  People should know better than to resort to such simplistic fear mongering that goes against the heart of the Christian message.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm no leader, but I'll come out and declare he is not a Son of Perdition.
You have to rise much higher than he did to fall that far.

It would mean a lot more coming from a church authority.  Not for my satisfaction as I don't believe in the whole Son of Perdition nonsense, but it would go a long ways toward helping the more orthodox who might actually believe in these old quotes from church leaders.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me, it seems that over time he became more confident and courageous in his prophetic calling, a quality that comes with experience and divine tutelage. If that is “crossing a line,” would that more would cross that “line” who are called to fill roles and accomplish tasks that the Lord asks. 

One person's view that this looks confident and courageous looked at through a different lens appears like hubris and perhaps even Machiavellian.  

To the Scientologists, L. Ron Hubbard seems similarly confident and courageous.  

In an attempt to be objective and fair across all religious traditions, let me restate that I am very skeptical of anyone claiming to speak for deity across all religious traditions.  

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Emphasis on “he hunts me; he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the Devil-- the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life....” Hunt, kill, thirst for blood, spirit of the Devil, crucify Christ...just your average ex-Mormon?

 

Wait for it......" the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost.” Oh. There is a bit of a difference, no? Maybe we can agree that there are different degrees of apostasy just as there are different degrees of faith? One size does not fit all? In that we all sin, we are all in some degree of apostasy, but we all strive to do good and so we are all in some degree of faith. Repentance and forgiveness are granted. That does not make us Sons of Perdition.  They have no repentance and no forgiveness. 

Yes, that quote actually proves that apostasy is NOT the same as committing the unpardonable sin, because otherwise he would have said, "this is the case with all apostates of the Church".  And certainly the apostates that Joseph had in mind that fit into that category were those who were out for his blood, as the context shows.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Check the quote I just posted that comes from the History of the Church.  Its attributed to Joseph Smith, although I don't have a strong knowledge about the background for that quote.  It would be good to have Dan Vogel's series on the History of the Church for things like this to better reference where the actual source material comes from.  

This is as close as you can come to the original source:  Joseph Smith Papers:   https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/348

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No church leader is going to come out and declare Sam is a Son of Perdition.  Instead they just echo the fearful warnings of earlier church leaders and let people come to their own conclusions. 

What ex-member is actually going to say that they believe these statements apply to them personally?  Sam likely doesn't take these statements seriously.  I don't take them seriously either.  Lots of people on this board will affirm that church leaders aren't infallible, yet they rarely are willing to point to specific statements of church leaders that they find to be in error. 

I have no trouble calling these theological ideas about apostasy and unpardonable sins a bunch of hogwash.  They aren't part of the core message gospel of Jesus and I think are antithetical to the central commandments of loving God and your neighbor.  

A propos your first paragraph above you are indulging in some blatant mind-reading and engaging in the wouldn’t-put-it-past-em attack. Not persuasive. 

The quotes I provided come from recently published church materials.  Is that what you're referring to?  I'm not sure what point you're saying is a wouldn't-put-it-past-em attack?  

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I love this quote.  It's so true.  You cannot return to neutral once you've learned the truth.

 I was going to unpack a lot on this one but decided it is not worth the effort.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

No, that is not an exception.  Nowhere does that quote say "apostasy is the worst possible sin you can commit. Apostasy is considered worse than murder."  Surely you see the difference and how Sam is twisting things.  That is like saying that because apples (sons of perdition) are red (apostates), all red things (apostates) are apples (sons of perdition).  It is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of what we actually believe.  Surely you see that.  Surely, you understand we don't believe what he said!  

The quote is callings "many" apostates Son's of Perdition who are guilty of the unpardonable sin.  Re-read the quote.  It explains exactly what it takes to qualify for the unpardonable sin and then it says many apostates are guilty of that sin.  You can disagree with the quote all you want, but that is what it says.  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Yes, that quote actually proves that apostasy is NOT the same as committing the unpardonable sin, because otherwise he would have said, "this is the case with all apostates of the Church".  And certainly the apostates that Joseph had in mind that fit into that category were those who were out for his blood, as the context shows.

This is as close as you can come to the original source:  Joseph Smith Papers:   https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/348

 

I read the part about them hunting Joseph down as a prediction of what apostates will do when they lose the spirit.  Not saying that you have to do those things to qualify to be an apostate.  

Also, thanks for the JSP link.  I don't see anywhere in the source notes that says where that particular section comes from.  This is where Vogels extensively researched work would come in handy.  I just couldn't justify spending $1k on these books just for my own satisfaction of having reference materials since I'm certainly not a professional researcher.  

http://www.signaturebooks.com/product/history-of-joseph-smith/

 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The quote is callings "many" apostates Son's of Perdition who are guilty of the unpardonable sin.  Re-read the quote.  It explains exactly what it takes to qualify for the unpardonable sin and then it says many apostates are guilty of that sin.  You can disagree with the quote all you want, but that is what it says.  

I know what it says.  I am not disagreeing with the quote.  I am disagreeing with what Sam Young said which the quote doesn't support.  Once again, the quote said that apples are red.  Sam Young is using a false equivalency in saying that all red things are apples.   The quote does not support Sam's comment at all.  Are you just messing with me now because I don't understand how this is not an obvious misrepresentation?  

Hope, Sam didn't specify apostate sons of perdition who commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost.  Because he didn't specify, he is using "apostasy" in the general sense.  Do you think our position is that general apostasy is worse then murder?  Be honest.  

Edited December 30, 2019 by pogi