Apostasy is worse than murder

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.  

The quote from Sam Young doesn't speak to different types of apostasy, so since he said that apostasy is worse than murder he must be talking about that same kind of apostasy that quotes from early church leaders say are guilty of the unpardonable sin which is worse than murder.  He doesn't say "all kinds of apostasy" are worse than murder.  The quote from Joseph in the HC, also doesn't talk about different degrees of apostasy.  I can't recall any quotes shared in this thread that elucidate this idea that there are different degrees of apostasy and how those degrees of apostasy might differ.  It seems that the participants in the thread are putting forward that theory.  If this idea is a teaching of the church, then we ought to be able to find some church leaders explaining how these different types of apostasy work.  Is there anything you can share that talks about different types of apostasy?  

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The quote from Sam Young doesn't speak to different types of apostasy, so since he said that apostasy is worse than murder he must be talking about that same kind of apostasy that quotes from early church leaders say are guilty of the unpardonable sin which is worse than murder.  He doesn't say "all kinds of apostasy" are worse than murder.  The quote from Joseph in the HC, also doesn't talk about different degrees of apostasy.  I can't recall any quotes shared in this thread that elucidate this idea that there are different degrees of apostasy and how those degrees of apostasy might differ.  It seems that the participants in the thread are putting forward that theory.  If this idea is a teaching of the church, then we ought to be able to find some church leaders explaining how these different types of apostasy work.  Is there anything you can share that talks about different types of apostasy?  

While there may be different levels of apostasy, I think the quote from HC is simply saying that some apostates have gone as far as committing the unpardonable sin beyond their apostasy.  It's a separate issue.

Edited December 30, 2019 by InCognitus

[Calm]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a degree of hubris in that mentality that immediately is suspect.  

Might there be some hubris in telling a person they can’t be experiencing what they believe they are experiencing without any evidence but one’s personal bias?  (Not tslking about times when there is evidence of mental illness)?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If the rejection is complete enough that can reach into the next life.

Reach in the sense of preventing any further change towards God?

That is a bit “if” in my opinion in the face of knowledge of our preexistence (we are eternal beings with preferences likely existing for much longer than 100 years) and what we know of spirit prison where we are exposed to teachers who are informed and taught themselves by perfected beings for as long as it takes for us to be fully aware of our choices we have to make, which means to me also the impact. 

I don’t see earthly parents as having that great of an impact on an individual’s eternal personality that a earthly parent’s preferences for eternity get transplanted somehow into their children and are able to resist any influence from the preexistence personal preferences of the child. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The quote from Sam Young doesn't speak to different types of apostasy, so since he said that apostasy is worse than murder he must be talking about that same kind of apostasy that quotes from early church leaders say are guilty of the unpardonable sin which is worse than murder.  He doesn't say "all kinds of apostasy" are worse than murder.  The quote from Joseph in the HC, also doesn't talk about different degrees of apostasy.  I can't recall any quotes shared in this thread that elucidate this idea that there are different degrees of apostasy and how those degrees of apostasy might differ.  It seems that the participants in the thread are putting forward that theory.  If this idea is a teaching of the church, then we ought to be able to find some church leaders explaining how these different types of apostasy work.  Is there anything you can share that talks about different types of apostasy?  

Why in the world would Sam Young be randomly explaining our doctrine of denying the Holy Ghost and how serious it is?

If he would have said “denying the Holy Ghost is worse than murder”, we would respond, “ummm, and...? “Ok...?”  “So what’s your point?”

It makes no sense whatsoever that he is simply explaining our doctrine of perdition as we actually believe it.  What does that have to do with Sam or anything he is about?  His followers would likely be confused at the failed attempt at a dig if he used more accurate terminology.

No, Sam is clearly attempting to falsely portray the church as cultish in viewing detractors (as he is) as worse than murderers.  You see, that is what is relevant to him.  That is his attempt at a dig.  If you can’t see that, I am really surprised.  He doesn’t care about our actual doctrine of perdition, nor does anybody else.  That clearly is not what he is talking about.  He is clearly equivocating terms to deceive those who don’t know better into believing we are absurd and cultish over those who doubt and leave the church - Viewing them as the ultimate sinners.  

Edited December 31, 2019 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Might there be some hubris in telling a person they can’t be experiencing what they believe they are experiencing without any evidence but one’s personal bias?  (Not tslking about times when there is evidence of mental illness)?

I wouldn't call that hubris, but I would call that rude or insensitive.  I'm not in the business of confronting people when they make proclamations about what they believe they are experiencing.  Even though I don't believe in the supernatural, I try to be respectful of others who do, and I can't recall ever telling someone directly that they aren't experiencing what they are experiencing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I recognize that it’s “one person’s view” against another’s — which is why your complaints hold no probative weight with me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I’m talking about the insinuation in your first paragraph implying that Church leaders really harbor the sentiments you impute to them but are refraining from saying so for appearance’s sake. To me, it appears you are engaging in vacuous, attempted mind-reading. 
 

And your attitude here, devoid of substantiation, reflects an I-wouldn’t-put-it-past-‘em approach. More attempted mind reading. 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/30/2019 at 12:22 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

 If you honestly believe God has told you Joseph is a prophet, that's your experience. If someone else honestly believes God warned them away from Joseph saying Joseph Smith is a false prophet, that is their experience. People have spiritual experiences that, to them, confirm diametrically opposed points of view. 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/30/2019 at 1:46 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

~Why are you surprised that people take the doctrine and teachings seriously and at their word? If there is confusion, it's not always a faulty of the believer. Sometimes it can be the system itself.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/30/2019 at 2:07 PM, 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

You've repeated questions that I already answered. First, I said that the church defines apostasy in more ways than just defiance of the 10 Commandments or rejecting Christ. A person can believe in Christ, obey the 10 commandments, and still be guilty of apostasy in the LDS church. This is literally true, it is by no means a caricature.

So, you can dispense of all those questions associated with your tangent and focus on the church's definitions of apostasy. Thanks.

I took the time to answer your questions. Repeating them again tells me you're not listening.

My position is not to state LDS doctrine, but to argue that it is not unreasonable for a genuine believer to think that in the LDS view, apostasy is worse than murder. I've already focused on sons of perdition as a way people may reason themselves to this conclusion that apostasy is worse than murder. Those who deny the Holy Ghost on a level of Perdition are committing something worse than murder. Do you agree or not?

Assuming you agree, we have then this specific case of apostasy, the Sons of Perdition case, where apostasy is worse then murder.

So, on that point, regarding that version of apostasy, albeit very extreme, Sam Young is correct.

The question then falls to how people identify those levels of apostasy.

I'll wait for your response to see if we're on the same page before I continue.

 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/30/2019 at 6:12 PM, pogi said:

Yep, it is astonishing to me that we are even having this conversation, and that it has continued on for 9 pages.  You would think that if we truly believed that apostasy is the "worst possible sin one could commit" there would be at least one believing member defending Sam Young's comments - tellingly, we only see doubters who defend his comment without being able to provide any teachings to support it.

Why is it astonishing? The question was begun as a claim made by a known apostate Sam Young. The bias is already going to be triggered by his name.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/30/2019 at 2:35 PM, 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.

I used an example of something related, one of the closest real-life examples I know of personally, and which was meaningful to me, with which I had a prolonged experience working out the difficult question.  

It is related. My friend's brother was raised in the church but died when his spiritual standing with God was concerning from the perspective of church teachings. He died while inactive and living with his girlfriend.

So, consider the reasoning that one can follow through while contemplating their son or brother's spiritual welfare:

1. We are taught that we find safety by making and keeping covenants. Yes or No.

2. We are taught that, once covenants are made, our responsibility increases. Do you agree or disagree?

3. Therefore, one could be concerned that her brothers spiritual welfare was in jeapardy because he had made covenants which he was apparently not keeping. Agree or disagree?

Some would go so far to say that he broke his covenants and by doing so as part of his lifestyle, as opposed to one slip-up, he was openly rebelling against what he knew to be true.

It is not a fallacy to consider closely-related questions to try to use one to answer the other. When we get down to it, apostasy is essentially rebellion against God, and in the case of the church, apostasy is also specifically rebellion against the church. 

As for apostasy that is worse than murder, perdition is a form of apostasy, and it is the worst of all offenses against God. Think about that for a moment. According to church teachings, why were 1/3 of the host of heaven lost to Outer Darkness? Was it murder? No. It was open rebellion against God's plan, right?

And, although church leaders have been reluctant to identify sons of perdition, Cain is considered one. But, Joseph Smith did characterize apostates as Perdition in a poetic version of the vision of the 76th Section of the D&C. (see here https://archive.org/stream/TimesAndSeasonsVol4/Times_and_Seasons_Vol_4_djvu.txt and find it with the "find" function by searching "apostasy.") 

These are not unreasonable assertions. That apostasy is the worse sin a person can commit is very much a part of Mormonism.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

You've repeated questions that I already answered.

Well, if that's so, I'll apologize.  But I'm not sure that's so.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

First, I said that the church defines apostasy in more ways than just defiance of the 10 Commandments or rejecting Christ.

Perhaps this comes down to a misunderstading.  You said: "Apostasy in the LDS church is more than breaking the 10 Commandments and it is more than rejecting Christ."

I understood "apostasy...is more than" as apostasy is worse than ("breaking the 10 commandments ... {and} more than rejecting Christ").

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

A person can believe in Christ,

I don't understand.  Plenty of people can "believe in Christ" and still commit other transgressions.  As James aptly noted:

Quote

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
...
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
...
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Belief in Christ is a fundamental part of the Gospel, but it must be built upon.  

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

obey the 10 commandments, and still be guilty of apostasy in the LDS church.

The same can be said for all sorts of transgressions.  Surely you concede that the Ten Commandments are a starting point, and not the sum total of the Gospel?

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

This is literally true, it is by no means a caricature.

It is very much a caricature.  A distortion.  A false representation of our beliefs.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So, you can dispense of all those questions associated with your tangent and focus on the church's definitions of apostasy. Thanks.

Well, I won't dispose of them.  I think they are still fairly relevant.  I'll leave them open.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I took the time to answer your questions. Repeating them again tells me you're not listening.

I don't think you've answered them.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

My position is not to state LDS doctrine, but to argue that it is not unreasonable for a genuine believer to think that in the LDS view, apostasy is worse than murder.

That is profoundly unreasonable.  It is manifestly false.  Damnably false.  In "the LDS view" there is only one sin that is "worse than murder."  "Apostasy" is not it.

Equating leaving the Church with the-sin-worse-than-death-that-merits-banishment-to-Outer-Darkness is bad faith.  See here:

Quote

So apostasy is a part of this unpardonable sin, but certainly not the sum total of it.  There are plenty of people who "apostatize" (who "reject{} the revelations and ordinances of God, change{} the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebel{} against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority"), but who have not "receive{d} the Holy Ghost, ha{d} the heavens opened unto {them}, and know{n} God, and then sin{ned} against Him," who have not "den{ied} Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto {them}, and [denied} the plan of salvation with {their} eyes open to the truth of it," who have not "commit{ted} murder wherein {they} shed innocent blood, and assent unto {Christ's} death," who have not "crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame," who "were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.  Those who sin against the light and knowledge of the Holy Ghost may be said to crucify more than the body of our Lord, they crucify the Spirit."

According to Latter-day Saint soteriology, apostates can apparently attain the Terrestrial Kingdom.  See 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).

Apostates could also attain the Telestial Kingdom.  See here:

Quote

Within the telestial glory there will be varying degrees of glory even as the stars vary in brightness as we see them. It embraces those who on earth willfully reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, and commit serious sins such as murder, adultery, lying, and loving to make a lie (but yet do not commit the unpardonable sin), and who do not repent in mortality. They will be cleansed in the postmortal spirit world or spirit prison before the resurrection (D&C 76:81-85, 98-106; Rev. 22:15).

As noted above, even murderers attain the Telestial Kingdom.

"Outer Darkness," then, is reserved for "Sons of Perdition," or those who commit the "unpardonable sin."  See here (emphases added):

Quote

Sons of perdition are not merely wicked; they are incorrigibly evil. In sinning against the revelations of the Holy Ghost, they have sinned against the greater light and knowledge of God. They willfully and utterly pervert principles of righteousness and truth with which they were once endowed, and transform them into principles of evil and deception. Joseph Smith declared, "You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance" (TPJS, p. 358). No divine principle can cleanse the sons of perdition; following the last judgment, they will remain "filthy still" (D&C 29:44;88:35). It is revealed that "it had been better for them never to have been born" (D&C 76:32).

Those who become sons of perdition while in mortality will be resurrected with unglorified physical bodies and "rise to the damnation of their own filthiness" (TPJS, p. 361). Cain, thus resurrected, will then rule over the unembodied Lucifer (Moses 5:23; MD, p. 109).

It has been suggested that in the absence of the life-sustaining powers of God's Spirit, sons of perdition will eventually become disorganized and return to "native element" (JD 1:349-52; 5:271; 7:358-59). However, scripture declares that "the soul can never die" (Alma 12:20) and that in the Resurrection the spirit and the body are united "never to be divided" (Alma 11:45; cf. 12:18; D&C 93:33). The ultimate fate of sons of perdition will be made known only to those who are partakers thereof and will not be definitely revealed until the last judgment (D&C 29:27-30;43:33;76:43-48; TPJS, p. 24).

Few individuals have been identified as sons of perdition. Although Judas is often so regarded, there is a question whether he had received the Holy Ghost sufficiently to sin against it at the time of his betrayal of Christ (John 17:12; Smith, pp. 433-34).

 

There are plenty of good and decent people who leave the Church, or who otherwise commit "apostasy" as defined by the Church, and who cannot be fairly characterized as more than "merely wicked," as "incorrigibly evil."

What you and Sam Young are saying about us is wildly, flagrantly false.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I've already focused on sons of perdition as a way people may reason themselves to this conclusion that apostasy is worse than murder. Those who deny the Holy Ghost on a level of Perdition are committing something worse than murder. Do you agree or not?

No, I don't agree.  Equating "apostasy" (as defined by the Church) with the-sin-worse-than-death-that-designates-you-a-Son-of-Perdition-and-merits-banishment-to-Outer-Darkness is based on either profound ignorance of our beliefs, or else profound bad faith (or, perhaps, some combination of the two).

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Assuming you agree, we have then this specific case of apostasy, the Sons of Perdition case, where apostasy is worse then murder.

No, you can't make that assumption.  And no, we don't have a "specific case of apostasy."  Again, apostasy is a part of this unpardonable sin, but certainly not the sum total of it. 

Per section 6.7.3 of the Handbook, the following forms of conduct fall within the Church's definition of "apostasy":

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

I have never met a member of the Church who believes that any of these things are "worse th{a}n murder."

No reasonably informed member of the Church believes such a thing.

Such a thing is manifestly at odds with the teachings of the Church.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So, on that point, regarding that version of apostasy, albeit very extreme, Sam Young is correct.

No, he's not.  He is flagrantly incorrect.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The question then falls to how people identify those levels of apostasy.

No, it doesn't.  No informed member of the Church equates "apostasy" with being a Son of Perdition.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I'll wait for your response to see if we're on the same page before I continue.

My "page" is based on the teachings and policies of the Church.  Your "page" is based on the distorted caricatures and mispresentations of Sam Young.

Meanwhile, here are my two previous CFRs (which, unlike the various questions I have posed, you are obligated to answer):

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

You have not responded to these.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

It's never fun to see members having to take teachings of old and denying them.  A simple old teaching, commonly spouted about was that people who leave are apostates and that they commit the sin of denying that which they knew to be true.  These days, though, in order to not sound as harsh, members look at those old teachings and try to apply the impossible to the words put out suggesting no one ever could possibly be what these teachings suggest.  As it turns out then, the pages of recorded times that leaders went off condemning apostates in the worst imaginable ways, was really just condemning nobody at all--because such conditions, as people spin it today, couldn't possibly apply to any known person.  We have it today that Tom Phillips (the guy who claimed to have received the 2nd anointing from Elder Holland himself, as I recall) told all about that secret event and tried to sue the Church (?) or something, but I don't see anyone even saying he's much more than a guy who didn't know what he was talking about and wasn't far enough in (but some no doubt think he's evil incarnate as some seem to think of this Young fellow).    

Don't get me wrong...it's quite good that the members recognize the evilness of past teachings, and frankly deny them.  But it's sad to see them have to twist their brains into pretzels trying to explain themselves.  What's odd in this case the twisting of the brains is happening in order to condemn a fellow sojourner.  The message seems to be, "well Young is too stupid to be really bad, but he definitely is evil".  wait...what?  Come again?  "I mean to say he's some guy who's full of himself so that means he's bad and the Church is really good".  

All that this comes down is people objecting to the notion that Young could possibly think the past leaders meant what they said.  "oh that's really evil stuff there".  

[Meadowchik]

On 12/30/2019 at 11:48 PM, InCognitus said:

While there may be different levels of apostasy, I think the quote from HC is simply saying that some apostates have gone as far as committing the unpardonable sin beyond their apostasy.  It's a separate issue.

And yet blaspheming against the Holy Ghost IS a form of apostasy.

Sam Young might reject the idea that he's rebelled against the Holy Ghost, but there are surely people who would insist that he must be rebelling against the Holy Ghost. So, from his perspective, he's being honest and genuine, but is still faced with people who think the opposite.

 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I used an example of something related, one of the closest real-life examples I know of personally, and which was meaningful to me, with which I had a prolonged experience working out the difficult question.  

It is related. My friend's brother was raised in the church but died when his spiritual standing with God was concerning from the perspective of church teachings. He died while inactive and living with his girlfriend.

So, consider the reasoning that one can follow through while contemplating their son or brother's spiritual welfare:

No, let's not do that.  Let's instead consider what the Church actually teaches.

Quote

1. We are taught that we find safety by making and keeping covenants. Yes or No.

Yes.

Quote

2. We are taught that, once covenants are made, our responsibility increases. Do you agree or disagree?

Yes.

Quote

3. Therefore, one could be concerned that her brothers spiritual welfare was in jeapardy because he had made covenants which he was apparently not keeping. Agree or disagree?

I don't know what "spiritual welfare was in jeopardy" means.

Moreover, the topic at hand is the demonstrably false claim that Latter-day Saints believe that "apostasy is worse than murder."  

Your friend's brother broke the Law of Chastity, and in other ways did not keep his covenants.  None of this equates to a transgression "worse than murder" (because, as you apparently do not know, breaking the Law of Chastity can be forgiven through repentance, whereas blasphemy against the Holy Ghost - the only sin worse than muder - cannot be forgiven).

Again, according to Latter-day Saint soteriology, apostates can apparently attain the Terrestrial Kingdom.  See 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).

Apostates could also attain the Telestial Kingdom.  See here:

Quote

Within the telestial glory there will be varying degrees of glory even as the stars vary in brightness as we see them. It embraces those who on earth willfully reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, and commit serious sins such as murder, adultery, lying, and loving to make a lie (but yet do not commit the unpardonable sin), and who do not repent in mortality. They will be cleansed in the postmortal spirit world or spirit prison before the resurrection (D&C 76:81-85, 98-106; Rev. 22:15).

As noted above, even murderers attain the Telestial Kingdom.

"Outer Darkness," then, is reserved for "Sons of Perdition," or those who commit the "unpardonable sin."  See here (emphasis added):

Quote

Sons of perdition are not merely wicked; they are incorrigibly evil. In sinning against the revelations of the Holy Ghost, they have sinned against the greater light and knowledge of God. They willfully and utterly pervert principles of righteousness and truth with which they were once endowed, and transform them into principles of evil and deception. Joseph Smith declared, "You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance" (TPJS, p. 358). No divine principle can cleanse the sons of perdition; following the last judgment, they will remain "filthy still" (D&C 29:44;88:35). It is revealed that "it had been better for them never to have been born" (D&C 76:32).

Those who become sons of perdition while in mortality will be resurrected with unglorified physical bodies and "rise to the damnation of their own filthiness" (TPJS, p. 361). Cain, thus resurrected, will then rule over the unembodied Lucifer (Moses 5:23; MD, p. 109).

It has been suggested that in the absence of the life-sustaining powers of God's Spirit, sons of perdition will eventually become disorganized and return to "native element" (JD 1:349-52; 5:271; 7:358-59). However, scripture declares that "the soul can never die" (Alma 12:20) and that in the Resurrection the spirit and the body are united "never to be divided" (Alma 11:45; cf. 12:18; D&C 93:33). The ultimate fate of sons of perdition will be made known only to those who are partakers thereof and will not be definitely revealed until the last judgment (D&C 29:27-30;43:33;76:43-48; TPJS, p. 24).

Few individuals have been identified as sons of perdition. Although Judas is often so regarded, there is a question whether he had received the Holy Ghost sufficiently to sin against it at the time of his betrayal of Christ (John 17:12; Smith, pp. 433-34).

It is wildly, flagrantly false for you or Sam Young to characterize our beliefs in the way you are doing.

Quote

Some would go so far to say that he broke his covenants and by doing so as part of his lifestyle, as opposed to one slip-up, he was openly rebelling against what he knew to be true.

Meh.  It's not our place to speculate about his motives.

Quote

It is not a fallacy to consider closely-related questions to try to use one to answer the other.

It is a fallacy to patently distort and misrepresent what Latter-day Saints believe.

Quote

When we get down to it, apostasy is essentially rebellion against God, and in the case of the church, apostasy is also specifically rebellion against the church. 

No reasonable usage of "apostasy" allows it to be equivalent to the-sin-worse-than-death-that-designates-you-a-Son-of-Perdition-and-merits-banishment-to-Outer-Darkness.

This is not even a close call, Meadow.  I often say that "reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things," but this isn't one of them.  There is no reasonable basis for equating "apostasy" with the sin worse than murder.

The only way to create such equivalence is to resort to rank ignorance or rank misrepresentation of our beliefs.

Quote

As for apostasy that is worse than murder, perdition is a form of apostasy, and it is the worst of all offenses against God.

Oh, brother.  All you are doing is re-defining "apostasy" to an unreasonable extreme - one that is essentially never used by the Church or its members - and then foisting it on us.  That just does not work.

Sam Young distorted and misrepresented our beliefs when he claimed that we believe that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."

There are plenty of things we can disagree about, Meadow.  This should not be one of them.  You and Sam Young are attempting to foist onto us a claim about our beliefs that, AFAICS, has been rejected by every conversant Latter-day Saint participant who has seen it.  Shouldn't that, well, mean something to you?

I will own up to all sorts of doctrinal beliefs that are controversial and/or unpopular. 

The Book of Mormon?  Yes, I believe it is the translation of an ancient record Joseph Smith found and translated through divine means. 

Living prophets and apostles?  Yes, I believe they exist, and that they are identifiable. 

Polygamy?  Yes, I believe God can and has authorize polygamy at times. 

Tithing?  Word of Wisdom?  Law of Chastity?  Rejection of same-sex marriage and same-sex behavior (as compatible with the Restored Gospel)?  Yes, I affirm all of these things.

But "apostasy is worse than murder"?  No.  Nope.  Uh-uh.  Not true.  Flagrantly misrepresentative, in fact.

Quote

And, although church leaders have been reluctant to identify sons of perdition, Cain is considered one. But, Joseph Smith did characterize apostates as Perdition in a poetic version of the vision of the 76th Section of the D&C. (see here https://archive.org/stream/TimesAndSeasonsVol4/Times_and_Seasons_Vol_4_djvu.txt and find it with the "find" function by searching "apostasy.") 

Wow.  I'll call for a third CFR on this one.  Chapter and verse, please.  I'm not seeing it.

Quote

These are not unreasonable assertions.

Yes, they are.  You are not accurately stating or characterizing our beliefs.

Quote

That apostasy is the worse sin a person can commit is very much a part of Mormonism.

No, it's not.  This is a falsehood.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Why is it astonishing? The question was begun as a claim made by a known apostate Sam Young. The bias is already going to be triggered by his name.

You are right, I shouldn’t be surprised at his antics at all.

I guess I am more surprised at how people that know better try and justify his mischaracterization of our doctrine.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's never fun to see members having to take teachings of old and denying them. 

Nor is it fun to see antagonists and critics distort and misrepresent our beliefs.

Funny how Sam Young, and Meadow, and now you, are talking about "teachings of old" without actually, you know, quoting these "teachings."

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A simple old teaching, commonly spouted about was that people who leave are apostates and that they commit the sin of denying that which they knew to be true. 

Meh.  This doesn't jibe.  According to Latter-day Saint soteriology, apostates can apparently attain the Terrestrial Kingdom.  See 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).

Apostates could also attain the Telestial Kingdom.  See here:

Quote

Within the telestial glory there will be varying degrees of glory even as the stars vary in brightness as we see them. It embraces those who on earth willfully reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, and commit serious sins such as murder, adultery, lying, and loving to make a lie (but yet do not commit the unpardonable sin), and who do not repent in mortality. They will be cleansed in the postmortal spirit world or spirit prison before the resurrection (D&C 76:81-85, 98-106; Rev. 22:15).

As noted above, even murderers attain the Telestial Kingdom.

"Outer Darkness," then, is reserved for "Sons of Perdition," or those who commit the "unpardonable sin."  See here (emphasis added):

Quote

Sons of perdition are not merely wicked; they are incorrigibly evil. In sinning against the revelations of the Holy Ghost, they have sinned against the greater light and knowledge of God. They willfully and utterly pervert principles of righteousness and truth with which they were once endowed, and transform them into principles of evil and deception. Joseph Smith declared, "You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance" (TPJS, p. 358). No divine principle can cleanse the sons of perdition; following the last judgment, they will remain "filthy still" (D&C 29:44;88:35). It is revealed that "it had been better for them never to have been born" (D&C 76:32).

Those who become sons of perdition while in mortality will be resurrected with unglorified physical bodies and "rise to the damnation of their own filthiness" (TPJS, p. 361). Cain, thus resurrected, will then rule over the unembodied Lucifer (Moses 5:23; MD, p. 109).

It has been suggested that in the absence of the life-sustaining powers of God's Spirit, sons of perdition will eventually become disorganized and return to "native element" (JD 1:349-52; 5:271; 7:358-59). However, scripture declares that "the soul can never die" (Alma 12:20) and that in the Resurrection the spirit and the body are united "never to be divided" (Alma 11:45; cf. 12:18; D&C 93:33). The ultimate fate of sons of perdition will be made known only to those who are partakers thereof and will not be definitely revealed until the last judgment (D&C 29:27-30;43:33;76:43-48; TPJS, p. 24).

Few individuals have been identified as sons of perdition. Although Judas is often so regarded, there is a question whether he had received the Holy Ghost sufficiently to sin against it at the time of his betrayal of Christ (John 17:12; Smith, pp. 433-34).

Sam Young is not being fair or accurate in his statements about the Church.  

Neither is Meadow.

Neither are you.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

These days, though, in order to not sound as harsh, members look at those old teachings and try to apply the impossible to the words put out suggesting no one ever could possibly be what these teachings suggest. 

Here you are talking about, but noticeably not quoting, "these teachings."

Just like Sam Young and Meadow are doing.

Now why is that, I wonder?

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As it turns out then, the pages of recorded times that leaders went off condemning apostates in the worst imaginable ways, was really just condemning nobody at all--because such conditions, as people spin it today, couldn't possibly apply to any known person. 

Meh.  The topic at hand is the accuracy of Sam Young's assertion that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We have it today that Tom Phillips (the guy who claimed to have received the 2nd anointing from Elder Holland himself, as I recall) told all about that secret event and tried to sue the Church (?) or something, but I don't see anyone even saying he's much more than a guy who didn't know what he was talking about and wasn't far enough in (but some no doubt think he's evil incarnate as some seem to think of this Young fellow).

Double meh.  No informed and observant member of the Church is going to presume to characterize Tom Phillips (or, I think, anyone else) as a Son of Perdition.  Such is not our judgment to make.  

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Don't get me wrong...it's quite good that the members recognize the evilness of past teachings, and frankly deny them. 

Again, funny how nobody is actually quoting these "teachings."

And nobody is conceding any "evilness."  Where are you getting such nonsense?  You seem to be just making things up now.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But it's sad to see them have to twist their brains into pretzels trying to explain themselves. 

Nope.  The twistings and distortions are coming pretty much entirely from Sam Young and Meadow (and now you).

I am fine with owning belief in controversial things.  Sam Young's caricature of our beliefs about apostasy is not one of them, because that caricature is distorted, even substantively false.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What's odd in this case the twisting of the brains is happening in order to condemn a fellow sojourner. 

Oh, brother.  Who has "condemn{ed}" Sam Young?  Nobody.

You are just bearing false witness now.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The message seems to be, "well Young is too stupid to be really bad, but he definitely is evil".  wait...what?  Come again? 

More false witness.  Again, you're just making things up now.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

All that this comes down is people objecting to the notion that Young could possibly think the past leaders meant what they said.  "oh that's really evil stuff there".  

Again, funny how neither he, nor Meadow, nor you, are actually quoting what "past leaders ... said."

Calumnies abound in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, here are my two previous CFRs (which, unlike the various questions I have posed, you are obligated to answer):

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

You have not responded to these.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I will not CFR the first because that is not what I said. I was arguing the point about ignorance and distortion perpetuated by church teachings. My point was that the church has broadened apostasy to mean something other than breaking the 10 Commandments, and something other than denying Christ. A person can be an apostate for fighting the church. 

I did respond to the first already by trying to clarify that you had misunderstood me.

For the second:

Apostasy, according to Handbook One, describes members who formally join another church. Until recently for a few years it also included those in same-gender marriage.

 

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

These are not unreasonable assertions. That apostasy is the worse sin a person can commit is very much a part of Mormonism.

I won’t address your whole post because it all hinges on this.

You are simply propagating Sam’s equivocation of terms to make us look cult-like in perceiving apostates as the ultimate sinners - worse than murderers.  It is a fallacy to equivocate.

If you are simply more accurate in your use of terminology we can all smile, agree, and move on.  If you simply say “denying the Holy Ghost is worse than murder”, we will all agree and say, “so what?”

[Teancum]

On 12/29/2019 at 4:55 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Seems to me that is a question you’ll have to answer for yourself. Have you broken the covenant? Do you even believe there is a covenant? If so, what can be done about it? If not, why worry about it?

I actually know my own personal view on the topic. Maybe I did not phrase it well but I was more curious to know what active believing members thought about my position.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Meanwhile, here are my two previous CFRs (which, unlike the various questions I have posed, you are obligated to answer):

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

You have not responded to these.  

I will not CFR the first because that is not what I said.

So apostasy is not worse than worshipping false gods, adultery, murder, and so on ("the 10 Commandments") and worse "than rejecting Christ"?

Isn't that your entire premise?

You also said: "People today are struggling between their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church and being expected to choose between them."

So yes, that is exactly what you said.  I'll give you one more chance to substantiate this assertion.  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?

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I was arguing the point about ignorance and distortion perpetuated by church teachings.

False.  You have asserted, over and over, that the Church teaches that "apostasy in the LDS church is more than breaking the 10 Commandments and it is more than rejecting Christ."  You have yet to substantiate this assertion.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

My point was that the church has broadened apostasy to mean something other than breaking the 10 Commandments, and something other than denying Christ. A person can be an apostate for fighting the church. 

No, it hasn't.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I did respond to the first already by trying to clarify that you had misunderstood me.

Ah, well.  

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

For the second:

Apostasy, according to Handbook One, describes members who formally join another church. Until recently for a few years it also included those in same-gender marriage.

You said: "People today are struggling between their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church and being expected to choose between them."

How is formally joining another church a "{struggle} between their convictions about Christ and {members'} testimony of the church"?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are plenty of things we can disagree about, Meadow.  This should not be one of them.  You and Sam Young are attempting to foist onto us a claim about our beliefs that, AFAICS, has been rejected by every conversant Latter-day Saint participant who has seen it.  Shouldn't that, well, mean something to you?

As I have said from the start, this is a point I understand some people believe, and I do not think it unreasonable given church teachings. 

The subject was brought up with Sam Young on the outset. Of course there would be some immediate bias against claims he makes.

 

[smac97]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Quote

There are plenty of things we can disagree about, Meadow.  This should not be one of them.  You and Sam Young are attempting to foist onto us a claim about our beliefs that, AFAICS, has been rejected by every conversant Latter-day Saint participant who has seen it.  Shouldn't that, well, mean something to you?

As I have said from the start, this is a point I understand some people believe, and I do not think it unreasonable given church teachings. 

And as I have said from the start, this is a point that is necessarily borne of profound ignorance or bad faith.

I have also noted that you keep referring to "church teachings," but you never actually quote any of them.  Shouldn't that mean something to you?

Just now, Meadowchik said:

The subject was brought up with Sam Young on the outset. Of course there would be some immediate bias against claims he makes.

This really isn't a matter of bias.  He is flagrantly misrepresenting the teachings of the Church.  So are you.

No informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes that "apostasy is worse than murder."

Thanks,

-Smac