Apostasy is worse than murder

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 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?

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.

 

Apostasy is more than one thing, according to the church. It might be represented by breaking the commandments. It might be represented by denying Christ. But my point is that apostasy is not just a subset of those things. A person can, according to the church, be obedient to the 10 Commandments and still have a testimony of Christ, yet still according to the LDS Church be guilty of apostasy.

To the second point, there arte of course people who believe Christ guides them one way and the church another, for example people who join other churches.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?

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

I did provide a quote. At the Times and Seasons link.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I did provide a quote. At the Times and Seasons link.

No, you didn't.  A link is not a quote.

Please provide the quote.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Apostasy is more than one thing, according to the church.

Exactly.  It's a broad term.  So Sam Young's characterization that "apostasy is considered worse than murder" becomes necessarily suspect.  It trades on the general public's ignorance of what we believe, and instead assumes that "apostasy" has a discrete and finite definition, when in fact it - as you now admit - "is more than one thing."

Let's consider, for example, this definition of apostasy from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority.

Wow.  That covers a lot of ground.  But here's the thing: pretty much all of these manifestations of "apostasy" can be forgiven through repentance.

But blasphemy against the Holy Ghost - which Sam Young and you are equating with "apostasy" - cannot be forgiven.  Do you acknowledge this?

Meanwhile, the "sin worse than murder" is quite a bit more finite.  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).

And here:

Quote

In LDS doctrine, murder is second in seriousness only to the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And even that sin involves a kind of murderous treachery in that one who previously had obtained an absolute witness of Jesus' divinity (TPJS, p. 358) in effect "crucifies {Christ}" afresh or "assent{s} unto {his} death" (D&C 76:35;132:27). Thus, murder can be thought of as the archetypal sin, as in the sin of Cain (Gen. 4:6-11,and esp. Moses 5:18-26, 31).

"The unpartdonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is further described and explained here:

Quote

If a person with spiritual knowledge intentionally blasphemes God or the divine, the sin is most serious. For those who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant, blasphemy in extreme form is a sin against the Holy Ghost wherein one assents anew unto the death of Christ and the shedding of his innocent blood. This is called the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost (Matt. 12:31-32; D&C 132:27).

And here:

Quote

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 to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it;  he has 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.”  He further stated:  ‘For it is impossible for those 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.

Sam Young, and now you, are equating the generalized concept of "apostasy" (all manifestations of which are forgivable through repentance, save two) with the much more specific and well-defined concept of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" (which, like murder, is unforgivable).

Equating the two ("apostasy" and "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost") necessarily requires substantial amounts of ignorance and/or bad faith.

Quote

It might be represented by breaking the commandments.

Yes, it "might be."  But here's the thing.  "Breaking the commandments" is a pardonable offense.  A person can repent of essentially anything except 1) murder, and 2) blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Don't you see the distortion here?  Apostasy-as-meaning-"breaking-the-commandments-generally" can in no way be reconciled with Sam Young's statement that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."

Quote

It might be represented by denying Christ.

Again, don't you see the distortion here?  The fallacy of equivocation?  That is what Sam Young, and you, are trading on.  Relying on.  Why are you doing this?

Quote

But my point is that apostasy is not just a subset of those things.

There is only one thing that we believe to be "worse than murder."  That is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  It is wildly, flagrantly, distortive, then, to generally declare that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."

Quote

A person can, according to the church, be obedient to the 10 Commandments and still have a testimony of Christ, yet still according to the LDS Church be guilty of apostasy.

So what?  What does that have to do with the topic at hand?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

On 12/30/2019 at 4:35 PM, 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. 

So your defense of Sam Young's statement relies on him resorting to the Fallacy of Equivocation?

On 12/30/2019 at 4:35 PM, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Sure.  See the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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."

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

Apostates could also attain the Telestial Kingdom.  See here:

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):

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

Neither is Meadow.

Neither are you.

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?

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

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.  

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.

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.

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

You are just bearing false witness now.

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

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

Calumnies abound in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hello Smac,  I've been away for a week or so.  But back in the early pages I already went the rounds wherein I quoted past leaders and explained how it was reasonable that anyone could have taken their words to mean apostates.  I get you don't.  And that's great.  As I said, it's good that many current members don't view things so harshly.  Today it seems, no one can possibly be considered a son of Perdition as it is called--no one, in many member's minds, can fathomably be at the level of being able to deny the Holy Ghost.  Even those who are granted the second anointing can't be Sons of perdition, to many members.  It's as if the leaders of the past were just spouting nonsense because their words can't possibly apply to anyone.  But that doesn't mean all members see it that way.  Many hold to a more old school approach wherein the old teachings actually meant something, actually referred to the possibility of someone fitting the bill.  

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hello Smac,  I've been away for a week or so.  But back in the early pages I already went the rounds wherein I quoted past leaders

No, you didn't.  You haven't "quoted past leaders."  You partially quoted Joseph Smith once ("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.").  That's it.

No quotations of "leaders."  No "rounds" of quotations.

Quote

and explained how it was reasonable that anyone could have taken their words to mean apostates. 

You've asserted.  You haven't explained.

And no, it's not "reasonable" to reach this conclusion.  Such a conclusion necessarily requires ignorance, substantial decontextualization and omission, distortion, bad faith, or some combination of these.

Quote

I get you don't.  And that's great. 

No, it's not that.  This isn't a matter of opinion.  It's a matter of accurately representing the teachings of the Church.  Sam Young hasn't done that.  To the contrary, he has substantially distorted and misrepresented those teachings.  Meadowchik has been doing the same.  You are now doing the same.

Again, I am fine with owning up to controversial teachings.  But the attribution of this teaching/belief to us is incorrect.  It is misleading.  It is false.  No informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes what you, Meadow and Sam Young are attributing to us.

Quote

As I said, it's good that many current members don't view things so harshly. 

Dunno what you mean by "harshly."  

Quote

Today it seems, no one can possibly be considered a son of Perdition as it is called--no one, in many member's minds, can fathomably be at the level of being able to deny the Holy Ghost. 

We're getting off-topic.  Sam Young, remember?

And I reject the notion that "no one can possibly be considered a son of Perdition."  The concept exists.  The capacity to commit that sin exists.  The issue is whether any of us is in a position to meaningfully adjudicate any other person as a "Son of Perdition."  I think the answer is . . . no.  

So we are not denying the existence of this sin.  We are simply refraining on designating any particular person as having committed it.  We lack the standing, stewardship, and knowledge to do so.

If anything, I were to surmise anything about Sam Young, it would be that he is not a Son of Perdition.  What he has said about us seems so warped, so distorted, so ignorant and ill-informed, that I'm not inclined to think he ever reached the pinnacle of revelatory knowledge that is prerequisite to becoming a Son of Perdition.  

Quote

Even those who are granted the second anointing can't be Sons of perdition, to many members. 

This is sheer speculation.  This has no bearing on the accuracy of Sam Young's statement.

The vast majority of members don't even know about the Second Anointing, let alone Tom Phillips.  And for those few who do know about these things, none are in a position to meaningfully and competently speak as to whether Tom Phillips qualifies for this transgression.  It is simply not our place to do so.

Quote

It's as if the leaders of the past were just spouting nonsense because their words can't possibly apply to anyone. 

Yet again, it's funny how you speak of "spouting nonsense," but you do so without having actually quoted anybody.

Now why is that?

Quote

But that doesn't mean all members see it that way. 

No informed, observant Latter-day Saint equates "apostasy" with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Quote

Many hold to a more old school approach wherein the old teachings actually meant something, actually referred to the possibility of someone fitting the bill.  

"Many hold..."

Again, funny how you say that without actually, you know, quoting anyone.

You, and Sam Young, and Meadow, are attributing to us teachings and beliefs we neither teach nor believe.

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hello Smac,  I've been away for a week or so.  But back in the early pages I already went the rounds wherein I quoted past leaders and explained how it was reasonable that anyone could have taken their words to mean apostates.  I get you don't.  And that's great.  As I said, it's good that many current members don't view things so harshly.  Today it seems, no one can possibly be considered a son of Perdition as it is called--no one, in many member's minds, can fathomably be at the level of being able to deny the Holy Ghost.  Even those who are granted the second anointing can't be Sons of perdition, to many members.  It's as if the leaders of the past were just spouting nonsense because their words can't possibly apply to anyone.  But that doesn't mean all members see it that way.  Many hold to a more old school approach wherein the old teachings actually meant something, actually referred to the possibility of someone fitting the bill.  

We acknowledge that people can become sons of perdition.  We all believe in the doctrine. I think the important thing to consider is that  that we don't have the capacity to judge who fits the bill or not.  Old school thinkers or not, we all agree that we can't know for sure and are commanded not to judge in terms of final judgment.  That is for the Lord to judge, not us.  So, for Sam to make the blanket statement that "apostates are worse than murderers" (sons of perdition)...surely, you see the problem in his attempt to mislead through equivocation!  Surely, you realize that he is not simply trying to accurately portray our doctrine of denying the Holy Ghost to properly educate the public.   

Even if you are right that there are a couple "old-preschoolers" who place judgments of perdition on all apostates - they do so contrary to the teachings and doctrines of the church.  I have never seen or heard of any member who believes that way - ever!  I have a very hard time believing there is one single member who views all apostates as sons of perdition.  Either way, Sam is equivocating - making it seem as if our doctrine states that apostates are worse than murderers, when in reality, there is only a hypothetical chance of a few outliers who believe that way.  It is so deceptive.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, you didn't.  You haven't "quoted past leaders."  You quoted Joseph Smith once ("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.").  That's it.

No quotations of "leaders."  No "rounds" of quotations.

You've asserted.  You haven't explained.

And no, it's not "reasonable" to reach this conclusion.  Such a conclusion necessarily requires ignorance, substantial decontextualization and omission, distortion, bad faith, or some combination of these.

No, it's not that.  This isn't a matter of opinion.  It's a matter of accurately representing the teachings of the Church.  Sam Young hasn't done that.  To the contrary, he has substantially distorted and misrepresented those teachings.  Meadowchik has been doing the same.  You are now doing the same.

Again, I am fine with owning up to controversial teachings.  But the attribution of this teaching/belief to us is incorrect.  It is misleading.  It is false.  No informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes what you, Meadow and Sam Young are attributing to us.

Dunno what you mean by "harshly."  

We're getting off-topic.  Sam Young, remember?

And I reject the notion that "no one can possibly be considered a son of Perdition."  The concept exists.  The capacity to commit that sin exists.  The issue is whether any of us is in a position to meaningfully adjudicate any other person as a "Son of Perdition."  I think the answer is . . . no.  

So we are not denying the existence of this sin.  We are simply refraining on designating any particular person as having committed it.  We lack the standing, stewardship, and knowledge to do so.

This is sheer speculation.  This has no bearing on the accuracy of Sam Young's statement.

The vast majority of members don't even know about the Second Anointing, let alone Tom Phillips.  And for those few who do know about these things, none are in a position to meaningfully and competently speak as to whether Tom Phillips qualifies for this transgression.  It is simply not our place to do so.

Yet again, it's funny how you speak of "spouting nonsense," but you do so without having actually quoted anybody.

Now why is that?

No informed, observant Latter-day Saint equates "apostasy" with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

"Many hold..."

Again, funny how you say that without actually, you know, quoting anyone.

You, and Sam Young, and Meadow, are attributing to us teachings and beliefs we neither teach nor believe.

-Smac

Why do you say I didn't quote anyone when you noted I quoted Joseph Smith?  My apologies, I couldn't remember how much participation I put into this thread.  My memory was I had quoted others and participated more, but I go back and see I participated very little.  But I surely quoted Joseph and explained how any reasonable person could have seen his words and come away with the notion that he was speaking about those who leave the Church.  seeing your defensiveness and reaction to my comments has put me off a bit.  I'm not sure I"m interested to get too heavily into this.  I just find it notable.  At one time there was a reason to explain that someone could be apostate enough to be a son of perdition.  Today, for most members, that concept seems meaningless as it appears no one really could possibly be a Son of Perdition.  I admit I much prefer your take on it over what was Sam Young's and other members.  I'm with hope_for on this--the whole concept of a Son of Perdition is just silliness (ok I grant I can't remember what he said exactly but it was something like that).  It should be put to bed and become something quite meaningless, or un-applicable, as you have demonstrated it to be.  

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

We acknowledge that people can become sons of perdition.  We all believe in the doctrine. I think the important thing to consider is that  that we don't have the capacity to judge who fits the bill or not.  Old school thinkers or not, we all agree that we can't know for sure and are commanded not to judge in terms of final judgment.  That is for the Lord to judge, not us.  So, for Sam to make the blanket statement that "apostates are worse than murderers" (sons of perdition)...surely, you see the problem in his attempt to mislead through equivocation!  Surely, you realize that he is not simply trying to accurately portray our doctrine of denying the Holy Ghost to properly educate the public.   

Maybe it takes a bit of a perspective to be on the outside looking in to see some members actually do see it as he describes.  

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Even if you are right that there are a couple "old-preschoolers" who place judgments of perdition on all apostates - they do so contrary to the teachings and doctrines of the church.  I have never seen or heard of any member who believes that way - ever!  I have a very hard time believing there is one single member who views all apostates as sons of perdition.  Either way, Sam is equivocating - making it seem as if our doctrine states that apostates are worse than murderers, when in reality, there is only a hypothetical chance of a few outliers who believe that way.  It is so deceptive.

meh...I find it less deception and more on the over-generalization side.  But then again, many times in discussing matters with my close Mormon friends I hear them too over-generalize about "others".  I don't really think they are being deception, per se, just trying to make a point and being a little overzealous in doing so.  That's how I'd see Sam's comments.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I qualify as an active believing member.

Here’s what I think about your position:

Quote

3 Nephi 18:28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.
31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.
32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or 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.
33 Therefore, keep these sayings which I have commanded you that ye come not under condemnation; for wo unto him whom the Father condemneth.
 

This is a more recent account of what I think about your position:

Quote

I do not know who in this vast audience today may need to hear the message of forgiveness inherent in this parable [see Matthew 20:1–15], but however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made or talents you think you don’t have, or distance from home and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.

Whether you are not yet of our faith or were once with us and have not remained, there is nothing in either case you have done that cannot be undone. There is no problem which you cannot overcome. There is no dream that in the unfolding of time and eternity cannot yet be realized. Even if you feel you are the lost and last laborer of the eleventh hour, the Lord of the vineyard still stands beckoning. “Come boldly [to] the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16), and fall at the feet of the Holy One of Israel. Come and feast “without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1) at the table of the Lord. . . .

My beloved brothers and sisters, to those of you who have been blessed by the gospel for many years because you were fortunate enough to find it early, and to those of you who have come to the gospel by stages and phases later, and finally to those of you—member or not yet member—who may still be hanging back, to each of you, one and all, I testify of the renewing power of God’s love and the miracle of His grace. His concern is for the faith at which you finally arrive, not the hour of the day in which you got there.

So if you have made covenants, keep them. If you haven’t made them, make them. If you have made them and broken them, repent and repair them. It is never too late so long as the Master of the vineyard says there is time. Please listen to the prompting of the Holy Spirit telling you right now, this very moment, that you should accept the atoning gift of the Lord Jesus Christ and enjoy the fellowship of His labor. Don’t delay. It’s getting late.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/youth/video/it-is-never-too-late?lang=eng

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Exactly.  It's a broad term.  So Sam Young's characterization that "apostasy is considered worse than murder" becomes necessarily suspect.  It trades on the general public's ignorance of what we believe, and instead assumes that "apostasy" has a discrete and finite definition, when in fact it - as you now admit - "is more than one thing."

Let's consider, for example, this definition of apostasy from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Wow.  That covers a lot of ground.  But here's the thing: pretty much all of these manifestations of "apostasy" can be forgiven through repentance.

But blasphemy against the Holy Ghost - which Sam Young and you are equating with "apostasy" - cannot be forgiven.  Do you acknowledge this?

Meanwhile, the "sin worse than murder" is quite a bit more finite.  See here (emphasis added):

And here:

"The unpartdonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is further described and explained here:

And here:

Sam Young, and now you, are equating the generalized concept of "apostasy" (all manifestations of which are forgivable through repentance, save two) with the much more specific and well-defined concept of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" (which, like murder, is unforgivable).

Equating the two ("apostasy" and "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost") necessarily requires substantial amounts of ignorance and/or bad faith.

Yes, it "might be."  But here's the thing.  "Breaking the commandments" is a pardonable offense.  A person can repent of essentially anything except 1) murder, and 2) blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Don't you see the distortion here?  Apostasy-as-meaning-"breaking-the-commandments-generally" can in no way be reconciled with Sam Young's statement that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."

Again, don't you see the distortion here?  The fallacy of equivocation?  That is what Sam Young, and you, are trading on.  Relying on.  Why are you doing this?

There is only one thing that we believe to be "worse than murder."  That is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  It is wildly, flagrantly, distortive, then, to generally declare that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."

So what?  What does that have to do with the topic at hand?  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hello Smac,  I've been away for a week or so.  But back in the early pages I already went the rounds wherein I quoted past leaders and explained how it was reasonable that anyone could have taken their words to mean apostates.  I get you don't.  And that's great.  As I said, it's good that many current members don't view things so harshly.  Today it seems, no one can possibly be considered a son of Perdition as it is called--no one, in many member's minds, can fathomably be at the level of being able to deny the Holy Ghost.  Even those who are granted the second anointing can't be Sons of perdition, to many members.  It's as if the leaders of the past were just spouting nonsense because their words can't possibly apply to anyone.  But that doesn't mean all members see it that way.  Many hold to a more old school approach wherein the old teachings actually meant something, actually referred to the possibility of someone fitting the bill.  

Yes. And notice the definition of perdition depending upon "how much" Holy Ghost a person has received. There's actually no way for a human being to know how much another knows or thought or thinks they knew. So the perdition definition is very theoretical. 

Yet, just as is tradition for people to say that "know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ lives" without any special calling or qualification, the metric for knowing and therefore later denying is highly subjective. 

What's the point of teaching it then? What's the point of even rewording it so children can understand it? I think the best explanation is to engender fear and distrust of apostates and secure loyalty to the leadership. It makes sense: you can suggest that level of evil about dissenters without exactly pinning it down. The fear does the work.

It is love that conquers these notions. I much prefer love and humility, which is far superior to suggesting that people are betraying their consciences when they dissent.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Yes. And notice the definition of perdition depending upon "how much" Holy Ghost a person has received. There's actually no way for a human being to know how much another knows or thought or thinks they knew. So the perdition definition is very theoretical. 

Yet, just as is tradition for people to say that "know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ lives" without any special calling or qualification, the metric for knowing and therefore later denying is highly subjective. 

What's the point of teaching it then? What's the point of even rewording it so children can understand it? I think the best explanation is to engender fear and distrust of apostates and secure loyalty to the leadership. It makes sense: you can suggest that level of evil about dissenters without exactly pinning it down. The fear does the work.

It is love that conquers these notions. I much prefer love and humility, which is far superior to suggesting that people are betraying their consciences when they dissent.

Precisely!  All very well said.  

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe it takes a bit of a perspective to be on the outside looking in to see some members actually do see it as he describes.  

Should we dismiss those outlier members as you dismiss Sam in simply being "over-zealous" and not really meaning it?  Either way, it is not fair to generalize the beliefs of a few outliers onto the religion as a whole, as if we all believe that way.  To me, that is deceptive to those who don't know better.

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

meh...I find it less deception and more on the over-generalization side.  But then again, many times in discussing matters with my close Mormon friends I hear them too over-generalize about "others".  I don't really think they are being deception, per se, just trying to make a point and being a little overzealous in doing so.  That's how I'd see Sam's comments.  

What truthful point can he make about our doctrine of perdition that would make us look bad?  What point is he trying to make in your opinion?  The only way he can make us look bad is to intentionally equivocate, a.k.a. deceive.  

I am at least happy to see that you recognize and acknowledge that his comments are not an accurate portrayal of our beliefs. 

Edited January 2, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Should we dismiss those outlier members as you dismiss Sam in simply being "over-zealous" and not really meaning it?  Either way, it is not fair to generalize the beliefs of a few outliers onto the religion as a whole, as if we all believe that way.  To me, that is deceptive to those who don't know better.

What truthful point can he make about our doctrine of perdition that would make us look bad?  What point is he trying to make in your opinion?  The only way he can make us look bad is to intentionally equivocate, a.k.a. deceive.  

In my opinion his point is a rather simple one--to members of the Church being an apostate is really bad, and it is often so bad it results in members treating you, if you are an apostate, poorly.  It seems apparent to me, he thought he was so in he would qualify for the stipulations that joseph Smith put on those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost...or whatever.  I don't think there's any reason to go after him, as Smac has, accusing him of something nefarious, like being dishonest.  

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. And notice the definition of perdition depending upon "how much" Holy Ghost a person has received. There's actually no way for a human being to know how much another knows or thought or thinks they knew. So the perdition definition is very theoretical. 

I wouldn't say it is "theoretical".  It is doctrine. Your point about not being able to judge others is a good point though (A point I made previously).  Our doctrine is that it is not our place to judge or identify any individual as a son of perdition.  What does that tell you about Sam's comments then?  Think about it. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  See the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps you could point me to the part that talks about different degrees of individual apostasy as I can't seem to find anything in the text below.  Most of the entry is speaking about apostasy of the church as a whole, not individual apostasy. 

Its probably also important to note that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, isn't officially endorsed to my knowledge, so it doesn't satisfy my request for actual elucidation on this topic by recent church leaders.    

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Apostasy

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority. The rise of revelatory communities, apostasies, and restorations has happened cyclically throughout the history of mankind, in a series of dispensations from the time of Adam and Enoch (Moses 7) to the present. Latter-day Saints see a historical "great apostasy" and subsequent loss of authority beginning in the New Testament era and spreading in the centuries immediately following that era. Though Latter-day Saints have not emphasized the great apostasy as much as they have the concept that the Church is a revelatory restoration, the need of a restoration implies that something important was lost after the departure of the primitive Christian church.

The English word "apostasy" derives from the Greek apostasía or apóstasis ("defection, revolt"; used in a political sense by Herodotus and Thucydides); it is mentioned in a religious context in the Septuagint and the New Testament (e.g., Josh. 22:22 and 2Chr. 29:19; 2 Thes. 2:3states that an apostasía must come before the second coming of Christ). It can mean the intransitive "to stand away from," or the active "to cause to stand away from." Thus an apostasy can be an active, collective rebellion or a "falling away."

Joseph Smith in his first vision (1820) was told by Christ that all existing churches had gone astray, both in their teachings and in their practice, although they had "a form of godliness" (JS-H 1:18-19). Thus it was necessary for a "restoration" of the gospel to take place.

In addition, in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 11-14; 2 Ne. 28; cf. Morm. 8), the prophet Nephi 1 had a vision of the early Christian church and its twelve apostles, against whom the "multitudes of the earth" and the house of Israel fought (1 Ne. 11:34-35). He foresaw a "great and abominable church" that persecuted true Christians and the poor, and whose members were motivated by such things as pride, clothing themselves in precious raiment, and indulging in sexual immorality (see Great and Abominable Church). It altered the simplicity of the gospel insidiously, did away with covenants, excised important scriptures, and denied the existence of miracles. This apostasy can be linked, in the allegory of Zenos, with the scattering of Israel when all the trees in the Lord's vineyard had become corrupt (Jacob 5:39-48), and it was paralleled by the calamitous apostasy of the Nephites in the New World (1 Ne. 12:15-19; 4 Ne. 1:24-46).

However, this "great church" was not any one specific church, according to Nephi; in his apocalyptic vision there are only two churches, and "whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church" (1 Ne. 14:10). It is typological, symbolic of many historical and social movements (2 Ne. 27:1); even nominal adherents to Christ's church, if driven by pride, wealth, prestige, and their appurtenances, may find themselves members of that "great church" (cf. 1 Ne. 8:27-28).

All through their history, Latter-day Saints have written and theorized about historical events involved in the "great apostasy," a theme discussed in several Restorationist writings of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (see Restorationism, Protestant). In 1833, referring to Mark 16:17-18 and 1Corinthians 12, Joseph Smith stated: "By the foregoing testimonies we may look at the Christian world and see [that] the apostasy there has been from the apostolic platform" (TPJS, p. 15). Oliver Cowdery wrote on the apostasy in the first issue of the messenger and advocate (1834). In 1840 Orson Pratt spoke of "a general and awful apostasy from the religion of the New Testament" (Listen to the Voice of Truth, 1.1). He particularly emphasized a lack of binding ordinances because of the absence of priesthood authority; baptism was a key example. In Pratt's view all churches before the Restoration were wrong in some ways, doctrinally and ritually, even though they might be right in others. Benjamin Winchester, an early LDS pamphleteer, wrote an extensive treatise using New Testament sources to demonstrate that an apostasy had been prophesied (A History of Priesthood, Philadelphia, 1843, pp. 72-96). In the 1850s and 1860s many references were made to "the great apostasy" (O. Pratt, JD 12:247) and "the great falling away" (W. Woodruff, JD 8:262) in Latter-day Saint sermons.

This idea-breaking off from established religion because it seems out of tune with New Testament Christianity-has obvious Protestant overtones, but the LDS view differs from typical Protestant attitudes in its emphasis on the loss and restoration of exclusive, clear-cut priesthood authority, correct ordinances, and continuing revelation. In contrast, Protestants typically rely primarily on biblical reinterpretation.

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6;4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9;14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12). Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects. He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced [cf. Moro. 8]; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled by bishops; thus the medieval church showed little similarity to the organization or practices of the New Testament church).

LDS teachings on the early Christian apostasy have received additional support in the twentieth century as some scholars have argued that the primitive Church began as a centralized Judaic organization, was faced with the challenge of a Hellenized/Oriental, ascetic Gnostic Christianity, and became like its enemy in order to compete. The very idea of a centralized Christianity has given way to a picture of diverse and fragmented early Christianity, where it is hard to determine what is orthodox and what is heretical, what is Gnostic and what is "mainstream." For instance, Peter Brown and William Phipps argue that Augustine's influential doctrine of original sin, with its concomitant ritual, infant baptism, was derived from his Gnostic background and was, in reality, heretical, while Pelagius' opposition to these ideas was orthodox. But Augustine's doctrines prevailed, and continue to influence Western theology and culture. Another early Christian doctrine that did not survive in Western Christianity was deification, though it remained central to Eastern Christianity.

A complex religious and cultural milieu both nurtured and transformed early Christianity. Many factors must be taken into consideration in analyzing this transformation of Christianity. For example, some have put the blame exclusively on Greek philosophy and the influence of philosophy on Gnosticism for the rise of the great apostasy. But asceticism (i.e., hatred of the body, of sexuality, of the physical world) played a major role in the apostasy of the early church, and extreme asceticism is characteristically Oriental. Moreover, much of Greek philosophy has been found to be consistent with the gospel; Elder Orson F. Whitney referred to Plato and Socrates as "servants of the Lord," although in a "lesser sense" than the prophets (CR [April 1921]:33).

The concept of a historical apostasy from early Christianity can present a barrier between Latter-day Saints and others concerned with interfaith relationships. But Latter-day Saints do not view these events judgmentally; much of spiritual value happened during the Middle Ages and in other Christian churches. Brigham Young emphasized that good men before the restoration had "the spirit of revelation" and stated that John Wesley was as good a man "as ever walked on this earth" (JD 7:5; 6:170; 11:126). President Young held that all churches and religions have "more or less truth" (JD 7:283), and he admonished the Saints to seek and accept truths wherever they might be found. In conference talks, General Authorities, including President Spencer W. Kimball and President Thomas S. Monson, have quoted or praised such luminaries as Billy Graham and Mother Teresa.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Why do you say I didn't quote anyone when you noted I quoted Joseph Smith? 

You said you quoted "leaders."  You didn't.  You quoted one part of one statement by Joseph Smith (which I acknowledged).

Quote

My apologies, I couldn't remember how much participation I put into this thread.  My memory was I had quoted others and participated more, but I go back and see I participated very little.  But I surely quoted Joseph and explained how any reasonable person could have seen his words and come away with the notion that he was speaking about those who leave the Church. 

No, that is not reasonable.  It is not reasonable to read one decontextualized snippet from one remark from Joseph Smith, to ignore the rest of what he said, to ignore the various other statements from other leaders and sources on this issue, and so on.

As I have said many times, Sam Young's characterization of our beliefs is reliant on substantial ignorance, or bad faith, or some combination thereof.

Quote

seeing your defensiveness and reaction to my comments has put me off a bit. 

I resent substantial mischaracterizations of the teachings of my faith.

Again, I have no qualms with owning up to real controversial teachings and beliefs.  The notion that "apostasy" is worse than murder, that it is the equivalent of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," is not one of them.  We do not believe that.  It is a gross distortion and mischaracterization of our beliefs.  It is notable that the only people who seem to be subscribing to it are people who A) are openly antagonistic toward our faith (Sam Young, Meadow, and you), and B) are avoiding actual quotations of what we believe, and instead overwhelmingly rely on caricatures about what we believe.

Quote

I'm not sure I"m interested to get too heavily into this.  I just find it notable. 

You have substantially misrepresented our beliefs, and now you want to walk away rather than substantiate your position.  That's your prerogative, I suppose. 

I've substantiated my position.  I have provided verbatim quotes to primary and secondary authorities.  I have provided reasoning and argument.

I think my position is informed and well-reasoned.  I have laid out quite a bit of explanation as to why I find your position, and Sam Young's, and Meadow's, to be something other than informed and well-reasoned.

Quote

At one time there was a reason to explain that someone could be apostate enough to be a son of perdition. 

Well, of course there is.  Apostasy is a necessary component of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  The issue here, though, is the one-to-one equating of the two by Sam Young, by Meadow, and by (it seems) you.

Quote

Today, for most members, that concept seems meaningless as it appears no one really could possibly be a Son of Perdition. 

False.  Flagrantly false.  The concept is right there in our scriptures.  For pete's sake, the scriptures designate Cain as a Son of Perdition.  How on earth can you say, then, that we believe "no one really could possibly be a Son of Perdition"?

Excepting Cain, we are not situated to speak competently on which specific individuals are, or will become, a "Sons of Perdition."  That does not mean we reject the concept.

Quote

I admit I much prefer your take on it over what was Sam Young's and other members. 

I am not presenting my "take."  I am presenting the position and teachings of the Church.  The position/teachings that have been wildly misrepresented in this thread by Sam Young and Meadowchik.

Quote

I'm with hope_for on this--the whole concept of a Son of Perdition is just silliness (ok I grant I can't remember what he said exactly but it was something like that). 

I'm fine with you thinking that it's a silly concept.  As long as you don't misrepresent or distort it.

Quote

It should be put to bed and become something quite meaningless, or un-applicable, as you have demonstrated it to be.  

I have done nothing of the sort.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my opinion his point is a rather simple one--to members of the Church being an apostate is really bad, and it is often so bad it results in members treating you, if you are an apostate, poorly.    

Again, that is generalizing unfairly.  Also, saying that apostasy is "bad" vs "worse than murder" is an important detail to distinguish between don't you think?  I have no doubt that some people who have left the church are treated poorly by some members (who need to repent), but that doesn't justify his attempt to malign us all. 

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems apparent to me, he thought he was so in he would qualify for the stipulations that joseph Smith put on those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost...or whatever. I don't think there's any reason to go after him, as Smac has, accusing him of something nefarious, like being dishonest.

He was a bishop.  He knows that all apostates are not sons of perdition.  I wouldn't be surprised if he welcomed apostates back into the church in his tenure.  I am fairly confident that if a bishop apostatized and came to Sam Young as a bishop seeking forgiveness and fellowship, Sam would not have turned him away as a son of perdition.   He knows better than to be so careless in his statements.  I completely agree with Smac on this, he is intentionally equivocating for a cheap dig.  

Edited January 2, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. And notice the definition of perdition depending upon "how much" Holy Ghost a person has received. There's actually no way for a human being to know how much another knows or thought or thinks they knew. So the perdition definition is very theoretical. 

Exactly.  So for Sam Young to equate "apostasy" with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is quite incorrect.

Quote

Yet, just as is tradition for people to say that "know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ lives" without any special calling or qualification, the metric for knowing and therefore later denying is highly subjective. 

Fortunately, that's not really a metric we have to worry about.  We are not called upon to "measure" any such a thing.  We are, in fact, commanded to abstain from such judgments, and to leave them to God.

Quote

What's the point of teaching it then?

Because it is a revealed precept.  Because it has meaning.  Because it helps elucidate the mercy of God.  And so on.

Quote

What's the point of even rewording it so children can understand it?

Who has done that?

Quote

I think the best explanation is to engender fear and distrust of apostates and secure loyalty to the leadership.

I think the teachings about Sons of Perdition do indeed engender fear, but not of "apostates."  Where on earth are you getting that idea?  Projecting, much?

Quote

It makes sense: you can suggest that level of evil about dissenters without exactly pinning it down. The fear does the work.

You are speaking falsehoods.  No informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes that "apostates" are Sons of Perdition.  That is a fabrication of your making, which you are falsely attributing to us.  Please stop it.

Quote

It is love that conquers these notions. I much prefer love and humility, which is far superior to suggesting that people are betraying their consciences when they dissent.

Who is "suggesting that people are betraying their consciences when they dissent"?  

Where are you getting this piffle?  Why are you attributing it to us?

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you could point me to the part that talks about different degrees of individual apostasy as I can't seem to find anything in the text below. 

It's in the article's first sentence: "Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority."

"Rejects the revelations and ordinances of God."  Or...

"Changes the gospel of Jesus Christ."  Or...

"Rebels against the commandments of God."

There seems to be huge "degrees of individual apostasy" available within these descriptions.

To some extent, we are all in a state of apostasy, hence the need for the Atonement and ongoing repentance.

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Most of the entry is speaking about apostasy of the church as a whole, not individual apostasy. 

Again, from the first sentence: ""Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community..."

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its probably also important to note that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, isn't officially endorsed to my knowledge,

It's a secondary authority, to be sure.  But it's a pretty good one.

And it is surely more reliable than the dreck Sam Young is dishing out.

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

so it doesn't satisfy my request for actual elucidation on this topic by recent church leaders.    

Most, perhaps even all, of the authoritative statements on this topic have been quoted verbatim in this thread (including, notably, several citations within the EOM article itself).

I'm not sure if "recent church leaders" have provided much in the way of "actual elucidation on this topic."  But for Sam Young's public mischaracterization of it, it wouldn't be getting much attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Exactly.  So for Sam Young to equate "apostasy" with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is quite incorrect.

Fortunately, that's not really a metric we have to worry about.  We are not called upon to "measure" any such a thing.  We are, in fact, commanded to abstain from such judgments, and to leave them to God.

Because it is a revealed precept.  Because it has meaning.  Because it helps elucidate the mercy of God.  And so on.

Who has done that?

I think the teachings about Sons of Perdition do indeed engender fear, but not of "apostates."  Where on earth are you getting that idea?  Projecting, much?

You are speaking falsehoods.  No informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes that "apostates" are Sons of Perdition.  That is a fabrication of your making, which you are falsely attributing to us.  Please stop it.

Who is "suggesting that people are betraying their consciences when they dissent"?  

Where are you getting this piffle?  Why are you attributing it to us?

-Smac

I am the one who used perdition as a way to elucidate the reasoning that can lead to Young's opinion.

Perdition is based on a subjective scale. If there is something as bad as it, then there is something less bad. I think we both agree that the LDS teaching is that both apostasy and murder are less bad than Perdition. However, murder is a relatively discrete act. It's done or it isn't and it is relatively objectively identifiable. Apostasy, however, is much more subjective, is much more a state of being and reasonably at some point apostasy becomes perdition, and does so much more in a way of a continuum.  

Here's the quote, the piece of the poetic version of Section 76 attributed to Joseph Smith:

Quote

"The Savior will save all his Father did give. / Even all that he gave in the regions abrood. Save the Sons of Perdition : They 're lost ; ever lost, And can never return to the presence of God. 36 They are they, who must reign with the de- vil in hell, In eternity now, and eternity then, Where the worm dieth not, and the lire is rot quench'd ; — And the punishment still, is eternal. Amen, 37. And which is the torment apostates receive, But the end, or the place where the torment began, Save to them who are made to partake ef the same, Was never, nor will be, revealed unto man." https://archive.org/stream/TimesAndSeasonsVol4/Times_and_Seasons_Vol_4_djvu.txt

 

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You said you quoted "leaders."  You didn't.  You quoted one part of one statement by Joseph Smith (which I acknowledged).

No, that is not reasonable.  It is not reasonable to read one decontextualized snippet from one remark from Joseph Smith, to ignore the rest of what he said, to ignore the various other statements from other leaders and sources on this issue, and so on.

As I have said many times, Sam Young's characterization of our beliefs is reliant on substantial ignorance, or bad faith, or some combination thereof.

I resent substantial mischaracterizations of the teachings of my faith.

Again, I have no qualms with owning up to real controversial teachings and beliefs.  The notion that "apostasy" is worse than murder, that it is the equivalent of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," is not one of them.  We do not believe that.  It is a gross distortion and mischaracterization of our beliefs.  It is notable that the only people who seem to be subscribing to it are people who A) are openly antagonistic toward our faith (Sam Young, Meadow, and you), and B) are avoiding actual quotations of what we believe, and instead overwhelmingly rely on caricatures about what we believe.

You have substantially misrepresented our beliefs, and now you want to walk away rather than substantiate your position.  That's your prerogative, I suppose. 

I've substantiated my position.  I have provided verbatim quotes to primary and secondary authorities.  I have provided reasoning and argument.

I think my position is informed and well-reasoned.  I have laid out quite a bit of explanation as to why I find your position, and Sam Young's, and Meadow's, to be something other than informed and well-reasoned.

Well, of course there is.  Apostasy is a necessary component of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  The issue here, though, is the one-to-one equating of the two by Sam Young, by Meadow, and by (it seems) you.

False.  Flagrantly false.  The concept is right there in our scriptures.  For pete's sake, the scriptures designate Cain as a Son of Perdition.  How on earth can you say, then, that we believe "no one really could possibly be a Son of Perdition"?

Excepting Cain, we are not situated to speak competently on which specific individuals are, or will become, a "Sons of Perdition."  That does not mean we reject the concept.

I am not presenting my "take."  I am presenting the position and teachings of the Church.  The position/teachings that have been wildly misrepresented in this thread by Sam Young and Meadowchik.

I'm fine with you thinking that it's a silly concept.  As long as you don't misrepresent or distort it.

I have done nothing of the sort.

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay, well I misunderstood you.  Who in today's world is a son of Perdition?  Cain was a make believe biblical character, he can't count--well unless you can show me which bigfoot he really is (but your references would have to be pretty reliable for your position to qualify).   

My main issue with continuing here is going down another set of rabbit holes as you continue to try and paint my participation as something it is not.  I've already granted that Sam Young would be wrong to think all Mormons or even most think anyone who leaves the Church is worse off than a murderer.  BUt of course, that is not what Sam said.  who knows if he's thinking any sin is apostate or if he's actually thinking of himself as being one who has met all the required late-to-the-game explanations of what really constitutes a son of perdition?  Either way, I only objected to people condemning him as lying, or deceiving.  I think that judgment hasty, angry and unjust at this point.  

[stemelbow]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, that is generalizing unfairly. 

It could be, but that doesn't mean anything nefarious on his part.  It might mean he's mistaken too.  

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Also, saying that apostasy is "bad" vs "worse than murder" is an important detail to distinguish between don't you think?  I have no doubt that some people who have left the church are treated poorly by some members (who need to repent), but that doesn't justify his attempt to malign us all. 

He didn't necessarily define an apostate as anyone who has left the Church.  

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

He was a bishop.  He knows that all apostates are not sons of perdition.  I wouldn't be surprised if he welcomed apostates back into the church in his tenure.  I am fairly confident that if a bishop apostatized and came to Sam Young as a bishop seeking forgiveness and fellowship, Sam would not have turned him away as a son of perdition.   He knows better than to be so careless in his statements.  I completely agree with Smac on this, he is intentionally equivocating for a cheap dig.  

I think attacking him is a cheap dig, but that's getting us nowhere I see.  

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my opinion his point is a rather simple one--to members of the Church being an apostate is really bad,

"Worse than murder" is a lot more than just "really bad."

Again, repentance is available for essentially any sin except murder and the sin worse than murder: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and it is often so bad it results in members treating you, if you are an apostate, poorly. 

Members need to do better.  But that doesn't affect the falsity of Sam Young's characterization.

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems apparent to me, he thought he was so in he would qualify for the stipulations that joseph Smith put on those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost...or whatever. 

"So in?"  He thought he "had obtained an absolute witness of Jesus' divinity"?

That his conduct has been such that he "in effect 'crucifies {Christ}' afresh or 'assent{s} unto {his} death'"?

That he had sufficient "spiritual knowledge" so as to "intentionally blaspheme God"?

That he committed "blasphemy in extreme form is a sin against the Holy Ghost wherein one assents anew unto the death of Christ and the shedding of his innocent blood"?

That he "ha{d} the heavens opened unto him, and kn{e}w God, and then sin{ned} against Him"?

That he has "den{ied} Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him"?

That he has "den{ied} the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it"?

That he has "tasted of the heavenly gift, and {been} made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and ha{s} tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come," and has thereafter "fall{en} away"?

That he has "crucif{ied} to {himself} the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame"?

That he has "crucif{ied} more than the body of our Lord," but has "crucif{ied} the Spirit"?

That he is now "not merely wicked," but is "incorrigibly evil"?

That he has "willfully and utterly pervert{ed} principles of righteousness and truth with which {he was} once endowed"?

That he has "transform {himself} into principles of evil and deception"?

Surely nobody has leveled such accusations against Sam Young.  Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think there's any reason to go after him, as Smac has, accusing him of something nefarious, like being dishonest.  

Publishing false characterizations of our faith merits attention.  

Thanks,

-Smac