Apostasy is worse than murder

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

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

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

So you think Sam is innocent of any cheap dig and we are the guilty ones?

You previously said you thought he was "over-generalizing" and being "overzealous" to prove a point that members treat apostates "poorly".  I don't disagree that is what he was trying to do.  That to me is an unfair, inaccurate, and cheap dig at the membership as a whole.  How do you not see it that way?  Defending ourselves against unfair "over-generalizations" and "overzealous" comments that paint us in an unfair light is a warranted response and not a cheap dig at all. 

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Apostasy is not "worse than murder."  Apostasy is a forgiveable sin.  Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not.

Quote

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.

Then it's pretty darn misleading for Sam Young and you to assert that we believe that apostasy is worse than murder.

Quote

However, murder is a relatively discrete act.

Doesn't matter.  It's still predicated on the motive of the individual.

Quote

It's done or it isn't

The same goes for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  "It's done or it isn't."

That we are not situated to discern such things is a separate issue.

Quote

and it is relatively objectively identifiable.

I'll go along with that.

Quote

Apostasy, however, is much more subjective,

All the more reason, then, to not flagrantly distort and misrepresent it, as you have done in this thread.

Quote

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.

No, apostasy is not a "state of being."  It's a consequence of choices we make.

Quote

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

 

Huh.  So a single line ("And which is the torment apostates receive") from a poem that Joseph Smith may or may not have authored (see here: "Close textual comparisons, however, lead one to suspect that W. W. Phelps was the author. For a long period Phelps served as a personal scribe for Joseph. The poem is a response to Phelps' 'Vade Mecum'").

That's it?  

Moreover, Joseph Smith also said this (emphasis added):

Quote

All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me; he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the Devil-- the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life,-- the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance: they make open war like the Devil, and awful is the consequence.

Are you suggesting that the purported reference to apostates above ("And which is the torment apostates receive") is something that can or ought to be applied to all apostates, everywhere?  Regardless of the various other qualifiers relating to perdition?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

So you think he is innocent of any cheap dig and we are guilty?

You previously said you thought he was "over-generalizing" and being "overzealous" to prove a point that members treat apostates "poorly".  I don't disagree that is what he was trying to do.  That to me is an unfair, inaccurate, and cheap dig at the membership as a whole.  How do you not see it that way?  Defending ourselves against unfair "over-generalizations" and "overzealous" comments that paint us in an unfair light is not a "cheap dig" at Sam.  

 

Why the "we are guilty" projection? We are talking about an institution way beyond the control of any one person. And those of us who were active believers may have participated every bit as any of you so this is is not a "we versus you," it is human beings talking about the impact of institutionalised beliefs.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Okay, well I misunderstood you.  Who in today's world is a son of Perdition? 

I don't know.  I lack the standing, stewardship and knowledge to make such a judgment.

Cain?  Yes.  Anyone else?  Dunno.  

Quote

Cain was a make believe biblical character,

I disagree.

Quote

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).   

It seems you're not very serious about this topic.

Quote

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. 

Dandy.  

Quote

BUt of course, that is not what Sam said. 

He said that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."  That's flagrantly misrepresentative of what we believe.

Quote

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? 

Indeed, who knows?  But whatever he's "thinking" about is a separate issue from what he's talking about.  What he said about what we believe is false and misleading.

Quote

Either way, I only objected to people condemning him as lying, or deceiving. 

So you think he's profoundly ignorant about what we believe about apostasy and perdition?  That seems unlikely.  Simple dishonesty is the more likely explanation for his false characterization of our beliefs.

Quote

I think that judgment hasty, angry and unjust at this point.  

He made a statement about what Latter-day Saints teach and believe.  I have contrasted his claim with what Latter-day Saints actually teach and believe.

So my conclusion wasn't hasty.  It was measured and informed.  

Was my conclusion "angry"?  Not really.  I resent mischaracterizations of my faith.  That's about it.

Was it "unjust"?  I don't think so.  The alternative explanation - that he is profoundly ignorant of our beliefs - seems unlikely given his long experience in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why the "we are guilty" projection? We are talking about an institution way beyond the control of any one person. And those of us who were active believers may have participated every bit as any of you so this is is not a "we versus you," it is human beings talking about the impact of institutionalised beliefs.

I was talking about the accusation that we are the ones guilty of making a cheap dig against Sam, but not the other way around. I am not projecting anything.

Sam's comments do not describe any "institutional way" or "belief".   That is hogwash you are propagating. 

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

This is a list of things a person could do to qualify for apostasy.  This doesn't talk about the punishments for apostasy having differing degrees.  The only punishment mentioned here is losing blessings of the HG and divine authority.  I thought you were making a case for different punishments by degree, which would include qualifying for the unpardonable sin in some circumstances, and apparently in other circumstances losing blessings of the HG and of divine authority.  Unfortunately, this EOM doesn't talk about these degrees of punishment.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

So, at least Sam Young has some early church leaders statements to support his quote.  So far, I haven't seen people provide authoritative statements to support the idea that there are different degrees of apostasy that result in different types of punishment and what a person would do to qualify for those degrees of apostasy.  It seems that is the gray area where I'm asking for supporting evidence.  

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apostasy is not "worse than murder."  Apostasy is a forgiveable sin.  Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not.

Then it's pretty darn misleading for Sam Young and you to assert that we believe that apostasy is worse than murder.

Doesn't matter.  It's still predicated on the motive of the individual.

The same goes for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  "It's done or it isn't."

That we are not situated to discern such things is a separate issue.

I'll go along with that.

All the more reason, then, to not flagrantly distort and misrepresent it, as you have done in this thread.

No, apostasy is not a "state of being."  It's a consequence of choices we make.

Huh.  So a single line ("And which is the torment apostates receive") from a poem that Joseph Smith may or may not have authored (see here: "Close textual comparisons, however, lead one to suspect that W. W. Phelps was the author. For a long period Phelps served as a personal scribe for Joseph. The poem is a response to Phelps' 'Vade Mecum'").

That's it?  

Moreover, Joseph Smith also said this (emphasis added):

Are you suggesting that the purported reference to apostates above ("And which is the torment apostates receive") is something that can or ought to be applied to all apostates, everywhere?  Regardless of the various other qualifiers relating to perdition?

Thanks,

-Smac

As I have said, I don't think it is unreasonable for a person to believe that apostasy can be worse than murder. 

Look at the totality of that Joseph Smith quote:

Quote

All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me; he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the Devil-- the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life,-- the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance: they make open war like the Devil, and awful is the consequence.

Joseph Smith is saying that many apostates of the church "say that the sun does not shine when he sees it." One must assume that he is using hyperbole. 

Personally, I am an enemy to the work of the church. I am also an ally. I am an enemy to some of its aims yet I gladly join forces with others. I do believe that I would fall into that category of those who "receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God," and then by virtue of renouncing the conclusions formerly drawn from those experiences and speaking out against the church to be (in the church's perspective, "sin[ning] against him.") So I am in that category of apostates described by Joseph Smith, except I do not thirst for his blood, but I sure am angry at the works he accomplished and I can reasonably assume that the "never ceases to thirst for my blood" part that he says is also hyperbole.

And thus, a reasonable read of this passage does make apostates like myself look quite bad indeed.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was talking about the accusation that we are the ones guilty of making a cheap dig against Sam

 

Ok, fair enough. My apology.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a list of things a person could do to qualify for apostasy. 

Yes.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

This doesn't talk about the punishments for apostasy having differing degrees. 

I don't follow.  The only issue here is the difference between a can-be-repented-of sin and the two cannot-be-repented-of sins.  Those two sins are "murder" and "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."  

Sam Young has publicly declared that Latter-day Saints believe that "apostasy" is "worse than murder."  That is, that "apostasy" is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

That is a profoundly distorted and dishonest characterization of our beliefs.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The only punishment mentioned here is losing blessings of the HG and divine authority. 

I'm not really interested in discussing gradations of punishment.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought you were making a case for different punishments by degree,

I am not.  I am making a case for sins that are forgiveable versus sins that are not.

"Apostasy," without more, cannot be said to be unforgiveable.  Sam Young's characterization to the contrary, that "apostasy" is "worse than murder," is false and misleading.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

which would include qualifying for the unpardonable sin in some circumstances, and apparently in other circumstances losing blessings of the HG and of divine authority.  Unfortunately, this EOM doesn't talk about these degrees of punishment.  

Again, I'm not interested in discussing "degrees of punishment."

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

So, at least Sam Young has some early church leaders statements to support his quote. 

No, he does not.  Decontextualization is a tool of deceit.

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

So far, I haven't seen people provide authoritative statements to support the idea that there are different degrees of apostasy that result in different types of punishment and what a person would do to qualify for those degrees of apostasy. 

I invite you to read through the thread again, as it includes citations to primary and secondary authorities regarding "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" and "Sons of Perdition."

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems that is the gray area where I'm asking for supporting evidence.  

Already provided.  

And not that gray.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As I have said, I don't think it is unreasonable for a person to believe that apostasy can be worse than murder. 

It is necessarily unreasonable to believe that.  It contravenes the primary and secondary sources provided and repeated several times in this thread.

Quote

Look at the totality of that Joseph Smith quote:

Quote

All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me; he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the Devil-- the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life,-- the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance: they make open war like the Devil, and awful is the consequence.

Joseph Smith is saying that many apostates of the church "say that the sun does not shine when he sees it."

Sigh.

Joseph Smith said that about some apostates in the 1840s.   Hence the need for contextualization, which you are studiously avoiding.

Quote

One must assume that he is using hyperbole. 

No, that's not a necessary assumption.  He could have been expressing his personal views.  He could have been correct in his assessment, but that assessment could be limited to those selected "apostates" he had in mind.

Again, context matters.

Quote

Personally, I am an enemy to the work of the church.

Okay.  I find that rather sad.  Of all the organizations to be an "enemy" to, you have chosen the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Quote

I am also an ally.

Um...

Quote

I am an enemy to some of its aims yet I gladly join forces with others. I do believe that I would fall into that category of those who "receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God," and then by virtue of renouncing the conclusions formerly drawn from those experiences and speaking out against the church to be (in the church's perspective, "sin[ning] against him.")

Again, context matters.

A "Son of Perdition" has "obtained an absolute witness of Jesus' divinity." 

His conduct has been such that he "in effect 'crucifies {Christ}' afresh or 'assent{s} unto {his} death.'"  He must have had "spiritual knowledge" so as to "intentionally blaspheme God."  He must have 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."

He must have "ha{d} the heavens opened unto him, and kn{e}w God, and then sin{ned} against Him," and "den{ied} Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him," and "den{ied} the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it."  He must have "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 had thereafter "fall{en} away."

He must have "crucif{ied} to {himself} the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame," and "crucif{ied} more than the body of our Lord," but has "crucif{ied} the Spirit."

He must be more than "merely wicked," but be "incorrigibly evil."  He must have "willfully and utterly pervert{ed} principles of righteousness and truth with which {he was} once endowed."  He most have "transform{ed} {himself} into principles of evil and deception."

Do you acknowledge these characterizations as applying to you?  If so, that would be very distressing.  But I'm skeptical you will accept such characterizations (and to be candid, even if you did accept these characterizations for yourself, I am skeptical that you would be correct, since you just don't seem that bad).

Quote

So I am in that category of apostates described by Joseph Smith,

Sorry, but I don't believe that.

Quote

And thus, a reasonable read of this passage does make apostates like myself look quite bad indeed.

No, it's not a reasonable read of this passage.  You continue to decontextualize.  To read this passage in isolation.  To deliberately disregard and ignore scriptural and other provisions pertaining to this issue.  I don't think that's right.  Or reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours 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.

For convenience, I will repeat the quote from Elder Holland that I posted above....there's not much engendering of fear and distrust here. Seems like he pins it down pretty securely.

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

This demonstrates the extreme rarity of those who may commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. "You have no 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....His concern is for the faith at which. you finally arrive, not the hour of the day in which you got there....It is never too late so long as the Master of the vineyard says there is time." There are three kingdoms of glory. Attaining any one of them is salvation.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is necessarily unreasonable to believe that.  It contravenes the primary and secondary sources provided and repeated several times in this thread.

Sigh.

Joseph Smith said that about some apostates in the 1840s.   Hence the need to contextualization, which you are studiously avoiding.

No, that's not a necessary assumption.  He could have been expressing his personal views.  He could have been correct in his assessment, but that assessment could be limited to those selected "apostates" he had in mind.

Again, context matters.

Okay.  

Um...

Again, context matters.

A "Son of Perdition" has "obtained an absolute witness of Jesus' divinity." 

His conduct has been such that he "in effect 'crucifies {Christ}' afresh or 'assent{s} unto {his} death.'"  He must have had "spiritual knowledge" so as to "intentionally blaspheme God."  He must have 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."

He must have "ha{d} the heavens opened unto him, and kn{e}w God, and then sin{ned} against Him," and "den{ied} Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him," and "den{ied} the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it."  He must have "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 had thereafter "fall{en} away."

He must have "crucif{ied} to {himself} the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame," and "crucif{ied} more than the body of our Lord," but has "crucif{ied} the Spirit."

He must be more than "merely wicked," but be "incorrigibly evil."  He must have "willfully and utterly pervert{ed} principles of righteousness and truth with which {he was} once endowed."  He most have "transform{ed} {himself} into principles of evil and deception."

Do you acknowledge these characterizations as applying to you?  If so, that would be very distressing.  But I'm skeptical you will accept such characterizations.

Sorry, but I don't believe that.

No, it's not a reasonable read of this passage.  You continue to decontextualize.  To read this passage in isolation.  To deliberately disregard and ignore scriptural and other provisions pertaining to this issue.  I don't think that's right.  Or reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

What does it mean to crucify Jesus and put Him to an open shame? Again, this is also metaphor and hyperbole. It sounds to me like someone rejecting the saving power of Jesus Christ. 

And what does "incorrigibly evil" mean? If it means that I don't think I will ever change my mind about Joseph Smith being a false prophet, that's me: incorrigible in that way. The church has equated evil with dissent. 

I would not have believed it until I saw people do it to me, essentially equated my dissent with evil: 1)my former BYU roommate (not the one whose brother died, but another) who compared me to Korihor because I opposed the church's position on gay relationships. 2)My own brother insisting that me speaking against the church on Facebook means that I "hate" him and his family. Gosh. The association of dissent with evil is strong, and it has roots in the church. You can see it in the obscure poem attributed to Joseph Smith, you can see it in the hyperbole in his own quote that you provided. I can very easily believe that somewhere on that continuum of sin between murder and Perdition, someone would conclude I belong there. 

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

For convenience, I will repeat the quote from Elder Holland that I posted above....there's not much engendering of fear and distrust here. Seems like he pins it down pretty securely.

This demonstrates the extreme rarity of those who may commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. "You have no 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....His concern is for the faith at which. you finally arrive, not the hour of the day in which you got there....It is never too late so long as the Master of the vineyard says there is time." There are three kingdoms of glory. Attaining any one of them is salvation.

I do not think Elder Holland's quote helps the case. He does not seem to be acknowledging perdition at all. I think it would be great if the concept of perdition was repudiated altogether, but he's not doing that, he's ignoring it if he makes no mention of it in this lecture.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What does it mean to crucify Jesus and put Him to an open shame?

If you have to ask, can you really be said to have done it?

Quote

Again, this is also metaphor and hyperbole. It sounds to me like someone rejecting the saving power of Jesus Christ. 

I think it means a lot more than that.  A lot.

Quote

And what does "incorrigibly evil" mean?

Again, if you have to ask...

Quote

If it means that I don't think I will ever change my mind about Joseph Smith being a false prophet, that's me: incorrigible in that way.

Ah, well.  Closed-mindedness is something we all work on addressing.

Quote

The church has equated evil with dissent. 

No, it hasn't.

Then-Elder Oaks wrote a lengthy article about "dissent" in the Church, and at no point did he simplistically "equate" it with "evil."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations. ...

I encourage you to give it a read.

Quote

I would not have believed it until I saw people do it to me, essentially equated my dissent with evil:

I can't speak to that.  People err in perceptions and assessments of others all the time.

Quote

1) my former BYU roommate (not the one whose brother died, but another) who compared me to Korihor because I opposed the church's position on gay relationships.

I wasn't there, alas.

Moreover, the Church allows active members to support same-sex marriage.  Are you seriously suggesting that these members are headed for Outer Darkness?

Quote

2) My own brother insisting that me speaking against the church on Facebook means that I "hate" him and his family.

Again, I wasn't there.

Also, whether you "hate" him or not is quite a separate issue from you being a Daughter of Perdition.  That you conflate the two only substantiates my concern that you are not familiar with the teachings of the Church on this issue.

Quote

Gosh. The association of dissent with evil is strong, and it has roots in the church.

Meh.  Now you are trying to say that dissent is evil, so dissenters are going to be condemned to Outer Darkness?

Your are decontexualizing.  A lot.  Like, on steroids.

Quote

You can see it in the obscure poem attributed to Joseph Smith,

Which was never canonized.  And which may not have been written by him.  And which has apparently never been taught by the Church.

That you are resorting to this "obscure poem" as evidence of the Church's teachings only demonstrates how vacuous your assertion is.

"Apostasy" is not equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."  It's just not.  To say otherwise is to speak in ignorance, or in bad faith, or in some combination of the two.

Quote

I can very easily believe that somewhere on that continuum of sin between murder and Perdition, someone would conclude I belong there. 

Again, no informed, observant member of the Church believes that "apostasy" is "worse than murder."

The more this goes on, the more it looks like you are looking for reasons to take offense.

I don't think anyone has told you that you are bound for Outer Darkness.  If so, you are taking offense where none has been given (or even intended).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[Navidad]

I simply have a question related to a subject I am deeply researching right now for a variety of reasons. Has not the hierarchy of the LDS church from around 1920 to today considered LDS members who continued to practice plural marriage and/or be seen as advocating it as apostates? They may have been faithful members in every other way, but if they were believed to be living  in a plural relationship (at least one not authorized by the leadership - a muddy thing from 1905 to 1918 or so) or advocating the same, were they not considered apostates and shunned (to use an Anabaptist term) by the faithful? I am not seeking to take this thread astray into a discussion of plural marriage in this dispensation. I am just seeking to understand and perhaps confirm that this was the case with those who "continue the principal" into post second manifesto times (again without proper authority from the leadership which probably stopped with the ascendancy of Heber J Grant to the presidency)? Weren't they considered and treated as apostates, which treatment most likely varied depending on local leadership?  Thanks.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Appears to be meaningless, maybe, but still a possibility and there are some who are called by that name. How can it be called silliness when the Savior himself identified Judas as a son of perdition? We have no way of knowing who qualifies for this second death, but Alma taught about it.

Quote

Alma 12:32 Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, according to the supreme goodnessof God.

And the Lord described this who will be cast out in in D&C 29. It is clear here that something more than drinking a cup of coffee, not marrying your girlfriend, stealing your neighbor's cow, or whatever other sin. Those people (and we do not know who they are or how many there are, but we have been taught they are few) cannot be redeemed because they will not repent, they love darkness, and they persist in doing evil.

Quote

41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed. 42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son. 43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe; 44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not; 45 For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey.

In dealing with the apostasy of two children and fearing for their salvation, I have taken great comfort in the teachings of the prophets about what will happen in the eternities. It is clear to me that while I have children who are in apostasy, they are emphatically not Sons of Perdition. Hope on, trust on!

Quote

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 110).

Elders Faust and Bednar significantly expanded on this teaching of Orson Whitney:

Quote

The “tentacles of Divine Providence” described by Elder Whitney may be considered a type of spiritual power, a heavenly pull or tug that entices a wandering child to return to the fold eventually. Such an influence cannot override the moral agency of a child but nonetheless can invite and beckon. Ultimately, a child must exercise his or her moral agency and respond in faith, repent with full purpose of heart, and act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

 President James E. Faust (1920–2007), former Second Counselor in the First Presidency, provided the most comprehensive explanation of this eternally important concept:

“I believe and accept the comforting statement of Elder Orson F. Whitney:

“‘The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.’ 

 “A principle in this statement that is often overlooked is that they must fully repent and ‘suffer for their sins’ and ‘pay their debt to justice.’ I recognize that now is the time ‘to prepare to meet God’ [Alma 34:32]. If the repentance of the wayward children does not happen in this life, is it still possible for the cords of the sealing to be strong enough for them yet to work out their repentance? In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told, ‘The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, “‘And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation’ [D&C 138:58–59].

“We remember that the prodigal son wasted his inheritance, and when it was all gone he came back to his father’s house. There he was welcomed back into the family, but his inheritance was spent. [See Luke 15:11–32.] Mercy will not rob justice, and the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement. Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.

 “There are very few whose rebellion and evil deeds are so great that they have ‘sinned away the power to repent.’⁷ That judgment must also be left up to the Lord. He tells us, ‘I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men’ [D&C 64:10].

“Perhaps in this life we are not given to fully understand how enduring the sealing cords of righteous parents are to their children. It may very well be that there are more helpful sources at work than we know.⁸ I believe there is a strong familial pull as the influence of beloved ancestors continues with us from the other side of the veil.”⁹ 

President Faust’s teachings authoritatively summarize the things we do and do not know about righteous parents and wayward children. The influence of parents who honor covenants and obey commandments indeed can have a decisive spiritual impact upon children who stray by activating the tentacles of divine Providence—in ways that have not been revealed fully and are not understood completely. However, righteous parental influence (1) does not replace in the life of an individual the need for the redeeming and strengthening power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, (2) does not overrule the consequences of the unrighteous exercise of moral agency, and (3) does not negate the responsibility of an individual as an agent “to act … and not to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26).

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, no informed, observant member of the Church believes that "apostasy" is "worse than murder."

They may well believe it can be.

Brigham Young spoke about getting out his knife to "conquer or die" if he heard of apostates gaining ground in Utah. 

I don't think I'm decontextualizing. In recent years Marvin K Jensen compared modern apostasy to apostasy in Kirtland.

I am acknowledging an alternate viewpoint to be reasonably drawn from church teachings.

Here's the easy quotes accumulated by Mormonthink:

 

Quote

Prophet Brigham Young (1801 - 1877):

“I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath [sic] my bowie knife, and conquer or die [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.]. Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet [Voices, generally, ‘go it, go it.']. If you say it is right, raise your hands [All hands up.]. Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 83; online at Link is here.

“‘What will you do with all those who have sought to kill you?' Make them soap-boilers and kitchen flunkeys, we are not going to send them into hell fire, for it takes a good Latter-day Saint apostatized to get down that deep (did I say bottomless?) pit. A person, to become an angel of the Devil, has first to be a good Saint, and then deny the Lord who bought him.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 179; online at Link is here.

Apostle Heber C. Kimball (1802 - 1868):

“I have not a doubt but there will be hundreds who will leave us and go away to our enemies. I wish they would go this fall: it might relieve us from much trouble; for if men turn traitors to God and His Servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants.”

- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 375; online at Link is here.

Apostle Orson Hyde (1805-1878):

“I would have a tendency to place terror on those who leave these parts [Utah], that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public.... I believe it to be pleasing in the sight of heaven to sanctify ourselves and put these things away from our midst.”

- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 73; online at Link is here.

“...it was the imperative duty of the Church to obey the word of Joseph Smith, or the presidency, without question or inquiry, and that if there were any that would not, they should have their throats cut from ear [to] ear.”

- Sidney Rigdon letter to Apostle Orson Hyde, October 21, 1844, in Nauvoo Neighbor, December 4, 1844; see also Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 94

Danites: (see also: Danite)


“Punishment by death is the penalty for refusing to obey the orders of the Priesthood. I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo by the Danites. It was then the rule that all enemies of the Prophet Joseph should be killed, and I knew of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his apostles while the church was there.”

- Elder John D. Lee (1812 – 1877), Danite and adopted son of Brigham Young, John D. Lee Diaries

"I always feel that it is my duty to look to myself, for I am in as much danger of apostatizing as any in the Church. If I ever do get led astray and depart from the principles of the gospel of salvation, it will be because I led myself off from the path; it was not my brethren who led me away, it was my own doing."

- Elder Hosea Stout (1810 - 1889), Danite, General Conference, 1858; online at Link is here.

Apostle Melvin J. Ballard (1873 - 1939):

“Any man or woman who has heard the Gospel and rejected it – not only those in the days of Noah, but any man or woman in this day who has had a good chance to receive and embrace the Gospel and enjoy its blessings and privileges, but who has been indifferent to these things, ignoring and neglecting them – such a person need not hope or anticipate that when he is dead the work can be done for him and he can gain celestial glory. Don't you Latter-day Saints get the notion that a man can live in defiance or total indifference, having had a good chance – not just a casual chance or opportunity – to accept the Gospel and that when he dies you can go and do the work for him and have him receive every blessing that the faithful ones are entitled to.”

- Apostle Melvin J. Ballard, Crusader for Righteousness, p. 221

Apostle Boyd K. Packer (1924 - 😞

“Remember: when you see the bitter apostate, you do not see only an absence of light, you see also the presence of darkness. Do not spread disease germs.”

- Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” speech given August 1981 at BYU, Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1981; available online as a PDF file BYU Studies Volume 21:3 or as a web page at Link is here.

“Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness [sic], there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness.”

- Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness,” speech available on-line at Link is here.  

Especially to the underlined points:

Apostasy is referred to as something requiring Blood Atonement or meriting death. That's definitely equating it with evil, is it not?

Packer referring to the "bitter apostate" as having "the presence of darkness." That's seems like he is equating it with evil, too.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I simply have a question related to a subject I am deeply researching right now for a variety of reasons. Has not the hierarchy of the LDS church from around 1920 to today considered LDS members who continued to practice plural marriage and/or be seen as advocating it as apostates? They may have been faithful members in every other way, but if they were believed to be living  in a plural relationship (at least one not authorized by the leadership - a muddy thing from 1905 to 1918 or so) or advocating the same, were they not considered apostates and shunned (to use an Anabaptist term) by the faithful? I am not seeking to take this thread astray into a discussion of plural marriage in this dispensation. I am just seeking to understand and perhaps confirm that this was the case with those who "continue the principal" into post second manifesto times (again without proper authority from the leadership which probably stopped with the ascendancy of Heber J Grant to the presidency)? Weren't they considered and treated as apostates, which treatment most likely varied depending on local leadership?  Thanks.  

Apostates, yes, because they are in open defiance of the principles, teachings, and leaders of the Church, and the Word of the Lord in Jacob 2:

Quote

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Have they committed the sin against the Holy Ghost? Of course not. 

In my experience, it is the policy of the Church and the practice of the members that I have known that apostates (for whatever reason they leave the Church) are not shunned, excluded, hated, or feared, but to be ministered to if they are willing with the hope that they will return to the fold. Even if they chose to stay away, we love them and are concerned about them and we are willing to help and serve them in whatever way we can.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They may well believe it can be.

Brigham Young spoke about getting out his knife to "conquer or die" if he heard of apostates gaining ground in Utah. 

I don't think I'm decontextualizing. In recent years Marvin K Jensen compared modern apostasy to apostasy in Kirtland.

I am acknowledging an alternate viewpoint to be reasonably drawn from church teachings.

Here's the easy quotes accumulated by Mormonthink:

 

Especially to the underlined points:

Apostasy is referred to as something requiring Blood Atonement or meriting death. That's definitely equating it with evil, is it not?

Packer referring to the "bitter apostate" as having "the presence of darkness." That's seems like he is equating it with evil, too.

Are you not aware of what Brigham, Orson, Heber, et al., went through? Have you ever heard of PTSD? 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They may well believe it can be.

But they can't do so and be informed and observant.  Only a hostile and tendentious and decontextualized and ignorant approach to the teachings of the Church could yield such a conclusion.

Quote

Brigham Young spoke about getting out his knife to "conquer or die" if he heard of apostates gaining ground in Utah. 

Context, Meadow.  Context.

Quote

I don't think I'm decontextualizing. 

You are doing nothing but decontextualizing.  Your assertions about what we teach and believe on this issue require decontextualization.

Quote

In recent years Marvin K Jensen compared modern apostasy to apostasy in Kirtland.

But did he compare apostasy to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"?  I think . . . not.

Quote

I am acknowledging an alternate viewpoint to be reasonably drawn from church teachings.

There is no "reasonable" reading of the teachings of the Church that yield the conclusion that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

None.  At all.

Those who have committed "blasphemey against the Holy Ghost" are beyond hope.  Compare that with this observation:

Quote

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

All apostasy is a sin that can be forgiven through repentance.  Those who go beyond "apostasy" and blaspheme against the Holy Ghost cannot receive forgiveness.

Sam Young, and you, profoundly mischaracterize and distort our beliefs and teachings when you claim that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 2, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So you think Sam is innocent of any cheap dig and we are the guilty ones?

I haven't suggested anything about him offering a cheap dig.  One can offer a cheap dig and not be dishonest though.  I sincerely am not thinking you guys are lying, as you guys think he is doing.  I think you're simply over-reacting--perhaps in a similar fashion as he has.  Whose guilty in all of this?  who cares, really?  Just discussing ideas here.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You previously said you thought he was "over-generalizing" and being "overzealous" to prove a point that members treat apostates "poorly".  I don't disagree that is what he was trying to do.  That to me is an unfair, inaccurate, and cheap dig at the membership as a whole.  How do you not see it that way? 

Because the point carries merit.  It is no fun to be categorized as an apostate by people you are close to, it often results in poor behavior.  It's a good point to say members tend to see apostates in a bad light, even at times, being cynical enough to think they are lying when they are not.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Defending ourselves against unfair "over-generalizations" and "overzealous" comments that paint us in an unfair light is a warranted response and not a cheap dig at all. 

 

I have no issue at all if one is to say something like "I don't believe that at all and find it offensive.  if someone wants to read some leaders thoughts as suggesting as much I think they are mistaken."  But that is not what is going on here at all.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  I lack the standing, stewardship and knowledge to make such a judgment.

Cain?  Yes.  Anyone else?  Dunno.  

I disagree.

It seems you're not very serious about this topic.

Dandy.  

He said that "apostasy is considered worse than murder."  That's flagrantly misrepresentative of what we believe.

Indeed, who knows?  But whatever he's "thinking" about is a separate issue from what he's talking about.  What he said about what we believe is false and misleading.

So you think he's profoundly ignorant about what we believe about apostasy and perdition?  That seems unlikely.  Simple dishonesty is the more likely explanation for his false characterization of our beliefs.

He made a statement about what Latter-day Saints teach and believe.  I have contrasted his claim with what Latter-day Saints actually teach and believe.

So my conclusion wasn't hasty.  It was measured and informed.  

Was my conclusion "angry"?  Not really.  I resent mischaracterizations of my faith.  That's about it.

Was it "unjust"?  I don't think so.  The alternative explanation - that he is profoundly ignorant of our beliefs - seems unlikely given his long experience in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

So out of everyone who has ever lived, you're saying Cain was a real person, so him and Judas?  No one else has merited the title of Son of Perdition?  I wonder what either of them did to merit the notion of blaspheming against the Holy Ghost?  

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you not aware of what Brigham, Orson, Heber, et al., went through? Have you ever heard of PTSD? 

I can understand PTSD, of course. What happens when someone with PTSD who expressed symptoms of it in lectures and over pulpits has authority over a church? Understand them sure, but the sayings still make an impact.

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So out of everyone who has ever lived, you're saying Cain was a real person, so him and Judas?  No one else has merited the title of Son of Perdition?  I wonder what either of them did to merit the notion of blaspheming against the Holy Ghost?  

Elder Faust answered your question.

Quote

 “There are very few whose rebellion and evil deeds are so great that they have ‘sinned away the power to repent.’  That judgment must also be left up to the Lord. 

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't suggested anything about him offering a cheap dig.  One can offer a cheap dig and not be dishonest though.  I sincerely am not thinking you guys are lying, as you guys think he is doing.  I think you're simply over-reacting--perhaps in a similar fashion as he has.  Whose guilty in all of this?  who cares, really?  Just discussing ideas here.  

Because the point carries merit.  It is no fun to be categorized as an apostate by people you are close to, it often results in poor behavior.  It's a good point to say members tend to see apostates in a bad light, even at times, being cynical enough to think they are lying when they are not.  

I have no issue at all if one is to say something like "I don't believe that at all and find it offensive.  if someone wants to read some leaders thoughts as suggesting as much I think they are mistaken."  But that is not what is going on here at all.  

Just to clarify, you don't think Sam was being dishonest at all?  You think he, a former bishop who likely dealt with this stuff, sincerely believes that we view apostasy in general as worse than murder? 

Quote

Because the point carries merit.  It is no fun to be categorized as an apostate by people you are close to, it often results in poor behavior.  It's a good point to say members tend to see apostates in a bad light, even at times, being cynical enough to think they are lying when they are not.  

That point may have some merit, but that is not what he said, is it?  His statement has exactly zero merit.  It is untruthful.  It is misleading.  And he knows better.  I don't think he is lying because he is an apostate.  I would call BS on anyone who said that who should know better. 

Edited January 2, 2020 by pogi