Apostasy is worse than murder

[smac97]

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So out of everyone who has ever lived,

Everyone who has ever lived that we can definitively state have committed the sin worse than murder, you mean?

Quote

you're saying Cain was a real person,

Yes, I believe he was.  Are you surprised by this?

Quote

so him and Judas? 

No, we can only definitively identify Cain as a Son of Perdition.  We don't know if Judas was a Son of Perdition.  See here:

Quote

In LDS scripture Lucifer and cain are called Perdition, meaning "destruction" (D&C 76:26; Moses 5:24). The unembodied spirits who supported Lucifer in the war in heaven and were cast out (Moses 4:1-4) and mortals who commit the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost will inherit the same condition as Lucifer and Cain, and thus are called "sons of perdition."
...
The awful realization that they are truly damned, have lost all favor with God, have rejected all that he represents, and have lost the opportunity for repentance will be compounded by their subjection to Lucifer and Cain, who are consumed with like misery and frustration (2 Ne. 2:27; Moses 1:22). Such is the ultimate "damnation of hell" (TPJS, p. 198; see Damnation).
...
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).

Apart from Cain, we don't know about the disposition of anyone (at least re: "Outer Darkness," that is, since we do know the disposition of some others, such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (D&C 132:37) (Celestial Kingdom) and probably David (see here)).

Quote

No one else has merited the title of Son of Perdition? 

I suspect some have.  We just don't know who.

Quote

I wonder what either of them did to merit the notion of blaspheming against the Holy Ghost?  

You could start with Moses 5.  And here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Context, Meadow.  Context.

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

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

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:

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

No, I think you are being profoundly dismissive of the impact of an authoritarian belief structure here. These prophets and leaders said these things perpetuating the framing of apostasy as very, very bad, possibly worse than murder (like for those fighting against the church.) 

It is great that you disagree with that. For that I am glad.  

However, you dismissing the meaningful impact of their statements and claiming that nice words at other times represents the whole and delegitimises the ugly words is inaccurate. That's not how people work.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I think you are being profoundly dismissive of the impact of an authoritarian belief structure here.

Nope.  Examination of that "authoritarian belief structure" is readily doable.  By you.  By me.  By anyone.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

These prophets and leaders said these things perpetuating the framing of apostasy as very, very bad,

Yet again, I note that you aren't quoting what "prophets and leaders {have} said," and are instead resorting to caracitures of them.

No reasonable examination of the teachings of the Church yield the conclusion that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."  Such a conclusion requires either substantial ignorance and decontextualization, or bad faith, or some combination of the two.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

possibly worse than murder (like for those fighting against the church.) 

No, they haven't.  

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is great that you disagree with that. For that I am glad.  

We're not speaking of disparate opinions.  We are speaking about the teachings of the Church.  Sam Young's characterization of those teachings are wildly, flagrantly false.  So are yours.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

However, you dismissing the meaningful impact of their statements and claiming that nice words at other times represents the whole and delegitimises the ugly words is inaccurate. That's not how people work.

I'm not really speaking about "how people work."  I am speaking of the teachings of the Church.

Again, no informed, observant Latter-day Saint believes the piffle you are attributing to us.  We do not believe that "apostasy" is "worse than murder."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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."

Already provided.  

And not that gray.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism does nothing to clarify whether the apostasy its talking about is forgivable or not.  As for other quotes in this thread, I couldn't find any that answers my question.  I'm looking for clarification from modern church leaders, not interpretations of old quotes from early leaders or scriptural interpretations.  I'm looking for modern clarity on the subject.  Can you provide that kind of support or not?  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism does nothing to clarify whether the apostasy its talking about is forgivable or not. 

Yes, it does.  All sins but two are forgivable: murder and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Ipso facto, every manifestation and type of "apostasy" except those two are "foregivable."

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for other quotes in this thread, I couldn't find any that answers my question. 

Well, feel free to do your own research.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm looking for clarification from modern church leaders, not interpretations of old quotes from early leaders or scriptural interpretations. 

Again, this topic isn't discussed much.  

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm looking for modern clarity on the subject.  Can you provide that kind of support or not?  

Is there something preventing you from doing your own research?

You could start here, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

However, you dismissing the meaningful impact of their statements and claiming that nice words at other times represents the whole and delegitimises the ugly words is inaccurate. That's not how people work.

Just to clarify, you truly, truly believe that his comment is a fair and accurate portrayal of our beliefs, and that we (believing members) are the confused ones and blind to the actual institutional doctrines/teachings on the subject?  It is so irritating to hear outsiders tell us what we really believe!  

Lets say a person who knows absolutely nothing about Mormonism reads Sam's comments, you don't think he would get the wrong idea about how we actually perceive apostates?  You don' think that person would view us as some crazy cult who views detractors as more evil than murderers?

Edited January 2, 2020 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism does nothing to clarify whether the apostasy its talking about is forgivable or not. 

Yes, it does.  All sins but two are forgivable: murder and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Ipso facto, every manifestation and type of "apostasy" except those two are "foregivable."

Is there something preventing you from doing your own research?

You could start here, I suppose.

I just re-read the entire entry from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that you linked to and that I copied into the thread earlier, and it says nothing about "All sins but two are forgivable: murder and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" in the apostasy entry.  Perhaps you're referring to a different entry in the Encyclopedia than what you shared with me?

And I'm looking for clarity from modern authorities in the church.  As evidenced by this thread, there are a lot of differing interpretations about the scriptures and quotes from early leaders.  Its also interesting that your FAIR Mormon link continues to provide old quotes from early leaders which don't provide any clarity on the subject.  They must have really had a hard time finding anything authoritative because they even quote a BYU professor named Rodney Turner, who I've never heard of.  

 

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just to clarify, you truly, truly believe that his comment is a fair and accurate portrayal of our beliefs, and that we (believing members) are the confused ones and blind to the actual institutional doctrines/teachings on the subject?  It is so irritating to hear outsiders tell us what we really believe!  

Lets say a person who knows absolutely nothing about Mormonism read Sams comments, you don't think he would get the wrong idea about how we actually perceive apostates?  You don' think that person would view us as some crazy cult who views detractors as more evil than murderers?

At this point, after the mountain of evidence that’s been presented to the contrary, one can’t help but wonder if such dogged persistence amounts to nothing more than an unwillingness to admit defeat?

[pogi]

2 hours 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.  

Here is a good resource on how we treat both plural marriage and excommunicated members/apostates: 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Yes, but you are ignoring the history of persecution, murder, and deprivation the Saints had experienced in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois that forced them to escape across the prairies and mountains at considerable cost in suffering and death, which suffering was most often instigated by “apostates”, and then to find themselves in increasingly similar circumstances in the place they went for refuge. Warnings to and about apostates become more understandable when put in perspective. I recommend this article by Manu Padro for further understanding...if that is what you are seeking.

https://www.quora.com/As-a-member-of-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-what-does-the-phrase-anti-Mormon-literature-mean-to-you

 

Quote

Normally, when Americans settled a region, the United States sent in the military. They removed the Indians to protect the settlers and remained to provide law enforcement, protection from Native Americans who might want to restore their food supply by stealing cattle or take revenge for having their lands stolen, and protection from criminals among the migrants. The fort also provided food security and access to materials, seeds, kitchen ware, farm tools, livestock, and most important, national markets in which to sell your farm goods. They only settled in regions where rainfall was sufficient to provide water for farmers without irrigation.

Mormons had none of that. They had no food security. There was no fort to provide them with rations in the case of crop failure or markets to sell their goods in. They suffered two famines, the more extreme being 1855–1856. During this entire period, crops were so unpredictable and pests so many that most people had to supplement their diet with “famine foods” like wild roots and greens. Also, there was no water. They had to invent the western United State’s and Canada’s irrigation system and laws on the spot in order to plant their crops. On top of that, the Indians were still there. The Mormons mostly got along with them by virtue of Indian farms, which grew food for the people whose lands they were stealing. However, this was a huge stressor for a population that had been accustomed to settling regions where the Indians had always been “pacified” beforehand. Also, there was no law enforcement. This in particular proved a problem: theft and violence became very common, as the Journal of Discourses testifies. There were no police and no prison, among a desperate, hungry, and mentally traumatized population, so the law broke down. They were also surrounded by a highly mobile, highly militarized slave trading industry that was so violent it prevented Mexico from settling its northern half. They suffered extreme isolation with no means of communicating with the world outside. The Mormons themselves were actually various different linguistic and national groups, because the majority of them were economic refugees fleeing the ****insonian slums of Northern Europe who were now fleeing the religious violence of the United States. On top of that, the country they hoped would save them, Mexico, was conquered by the country they were hoping to be saved from, the United States. All at the same time that they were still mourning and grieving over the murder of their leaders, friends and family, as well as grieving over their loss of faith in the United States.

They were having a pretty bad day.

Now at this point, you might be thinking, “Man, I bet these guys were seriously psychologically scarred.” You’d probably be right. The conditions for developing PTSD were certainly there, over the exposure of about two decades. Additionally, in the Old West, there was another mental Illness called “Prairie Madness.” Prairie madness didn’t affect individuals, it affected communities. Basically, entire towns of good God-fearing Christian Americans and Canadians would inexplicably lose their minds and would sometimes end up committing acts of violence. They would begin to not sound like themselves, they would start to not make any sense, their rhetoric would turn violent (even by the standards of the Old West), and they would engage in bizarre acts of violence against each other. Depression, withdrawal, extreme changes of character, and finally violent rhetoric followed by violent action were the symptoms of prairie madness. The conditions for developing prairie madness were isolation, food insecurity, harsh weather and living conditions, settling extremely difficult environments, extreme climatic variations between winter and summer, linguistic isolation among settlers from other countries, and previous exposure to violence. Prairie madness was so common among American and Canadian settlers living in relatively good conditions that it became a popular plot twist in 19th century American literature. By 1893 E.V. Smalley wrote that “an alarming amount of insanity occurs in the new Prairie states among the farmers and their wives.” The Mormons were settling Utah almost a half a century earlier under far worse conditions. All of the criteria for prairie madness were there, as well as all of the criteria for developing PTSD.

After the famine of 1855–1856, there was a two year period of Mormon history called “The Mormon Reformation.” During this period, Brigham Young and the leadership really doubled down on enforcing community values. With an Old Testament mind-set, they blamed the famine on the sinfulness and general lawlessness of the people. There was an extreme change in their character that falls inside the description of prairie madness. They began demanding re-baptism as a sign of willingness to hold true to the gospel, and they became increasingly intolerant of people they saw as traitors in their midst. (The flames of every act of violence they had suffered from had been sparked and fanned by former members.) Their rhetoric turned extremely violent, and in a handful of sermons they taught an idea called blood atonement: that some sins like adultery, rape, murder, and apostasy could only be atoned for by the voluntary shedding of the criminals (or traitor-apostate’s) blood. To their credit, they differentiated between people who left the church and moved on with their lives by leaving or forming other congregations and those who harassed the church and its members. They saw “apostates” as being that latter. In their minds, apostates were responsible for the murders of their leaders, family, and friends, as well as their loss of home and property in three states. They saw former members who persecuted them as the worst people in the world. Even if looking back calmly from our removed and comfortable context of today we can objectively disagree.

One cannot speak about Brigham’s and other leaders’ rhetoric and ignore this context. And then to project it on today’s Church is egregiously misleading.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Elder Faust answered your question.

 

Iirc, it was Spencer W Kimball who said it wasn't possible for the rank and file members to become sons of Perdition.  I can find the quote again it needed, but pretty sure I or someone else posted it already.  I suspect this inability is because there is a type of experience with the Lord that may be a necessary part of certain leadership roles, where one experiences that type of intimate, personal relationship with God that Cain would have had given the description in scripture. 

"Rank and file" may receive great revelation, but I believe God doesn't just hand out revelations because people deserve them, but because there is also a need for them.  Prophets and apostles may at times need the level of revelation that the Brother of Jared experienced for the good of God's people.  Such things are likely unnecessary for leading a ward or family or making individual choices.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

...for further understanding...if that is what you are seeking.

I don’t know if this was intended to be funny, but it made me chuckle.

[Calm]

Here is the SWK quote:

Quote

“The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin”

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/10-three-most-abominable-sins-0

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Here is the SWK quote:

“The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin”

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/10-three-most-abominable-sins-0

So true.  It takes about as much knowledge to make a devil as a God.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism does nothing to clarify whether the apostasy its talking about is forgivable or not.  As for other quotes in this thread, I couldn't find any that answers my question.  I'm looking for clarification from modern church leaders, not interpretations of old quotes from early leaders or scriptural interpretations.  I'm looking for modern clarity on the subject.  Can you provide that kind of support or not?  

From Elder Faust.

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.
 

 

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

From Elder Faust.

 

Seems like quite a stretch since he doesn’t mention the unforgivable sin or apostasy.  Oh well...  

Mormons like to speculate, that’s where we get a lot of our wacky esoteric doctrines from anyway.  Maybe it’s better when the brethren don’t attempt to elucidate things.  

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Seems like quite a stretch since he doesn’t mention the unforgivable sin or apostasy.  Oh well...  

Mormons like to speculate, that’s where we get a lot of our wacky esoteric doctrines from anyway.  Maybe it’s better when the brethren don’t attempt to elucidate things.  

Oh well? I have provided numerous lengthy quotes in context from leaders that clearly elucidate what it means to sin against the Holy Ghost. Rather than respond to what they said, you simply call them speculative, wacky, and esoteric?

It’s not complicated. What could be more accurate to say of Sons of Perdition than that “they have sinned away the power to repent”? That’s a precise description. They cannot repent and cannot be saved.

Perhaps these teachings will clarify what it means “to sin away the power to repent.“ Clearly it refers to those who sin against the Holy Ghost. 

Quote

The only class of human beings who need fear that there is no salvation for them are those who have received the Gospel in its fulness, who have been given every key and passport to eternal glory, the power to be exalted to the highest estate of which intelligence is capable, and then have thrown it all away, trampling it under foot as a thing of naught and denying what they know to be true. All others can be saved, because all others can repent. Men can be forgiven as long as they have the power to repent.
Orson Whitney General Conference Oct. 1908

Quote

Do not count any boy or girl lost. They are not. Brother Talmage stated at our conference, a week ago today, as a servant of the Lord, and I wrote it down, and read it to him after the meeting was over and he said I had it recorded correctly: "I promise the Saints in the Deseret stake of Zion that if their lives are such that they can look their sons and daughters in the face, arid if any of them have gone astray, that the parents are able to say, It is contrary to my instruction and my life's example; it is against every effort of love, long suffering, faith, prayer and devotion that that boy or that girl has gone [against],— I promise you, fathers and mothers, that not one of them shall be lost unless they have sinned away the power to repent." I don't believe any of our boys are in that lamentable condition.
Alonzo Hinckley General Conference October 1919

Quote

It is possible for people to get so far in the dark through rebellion and wickedness that the spirit of repentance leaves them. It is a gift of God, and they get beyond the power of repentance." Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 2

On a more practical level, Mormon’s description of Nephite depravity in their final days suggests that those people had sinned away the power to repent. They sinned against great knowledge. I can’t think of a better description of the mental and spiritual state of those who sin against the Holy Ghost and what they are capable of doing.

Quote

Mormon 2:11 Thus there began to be a mourning and a lamentation in all the land because of these things, and more especially among the people of Nephi.
12 And it came to pass that when I, Mormon, saw their lamentation and their mourning and their sorrow before the Lord, my heart did begin to rejoice within me, knowing the mercies and the long-suffering of the Lord, therefore supposing that he would be merciful unto them that they would again become a righteous people.
13 But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin.
14 And they did not come unto Jesus with broken hearts and contrite spirits, but they did curse God, and wish to die. Nevertheless they would struggle with the sword for their lives.
15 And it came to pass that my sorrow did return unto me again, and I saw that the day of grace was passed with them, both temporally and spiritually; for I saw thousands of them hewn down in open rebellion against their God, and heaped up as dung upon the face of the land.

Those who have been identified as Sons of Perdition appear to have some things in common.... betrayal, cursing God, seeking evil, incapable of repenting, murder. I recall Joseph Smith’s description of the apostates who sought to hunt and kill him. Perhaps this can help identify those who might fall under that condemnation. The typical run-of-the-mill LDS apostate, right? Nope.

In any case, only God will make that judgment. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

changed my mind....

Edited January 3, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Just to clarify, you truly, truly believe that his comment is a fair and accurate portrayal of our beliefs, and that we (believing members) are the confused ones and blind to the actual institutional doctrines/teachings on the subject?  It is so irritating to hear outsiders tell us what we really believe!  

Lets say a person who knows absolutely nothing about Mormonism reads Sam's comments, you don't think he would get the wrong idea about how we actually perceive apostates?  You don' think that person would view us as some crazy cult who views detractors as more evil than murderers?

Well look, you're calling me an outsider.  And that's not the first time here that someone has put me on some "other side"  and tried to delegitimise my thoughts because I no longer believe the claims of the church. 

I think that someone who knows nothing about Mormonism is gonna have trouble no matter who they listen to, especially if they only listen to one person's point of view, be the source believing or not.

The way LDS treat and talk about apostates is varied and has definitely changed in tone over time. I think it is difficult to come to authoritative opinions on apostates and whether the whole church thinks they are "spiritual germs" like Boyd K Packer said about the "bitter" apostate or if they are someone to continually entreat back to the light like Holland. In both of those cases, though, the apostate is not okay as they are. There is a common sentiment that it would be better for a person's soul to never have joined than church than to be an apostate.

Anyways, for one more attempt at helping you understand: let's compare a murderer to an apostate who rejects the LDS Church. A murderer has committed at minimum an act. The act is completed and it is over. Apostasy is a state of being. Add the Mormon version of God's forever to each of them, respectively, and what happens? The murderer suffers for a time, they pay. Yet what of the apostate who does not change their mind, who continues to stand for what they believe to be right in rejecting the LDS Church? The fact is that, according to the LDS view, an apostate today who has their deeply-held convictions rejecting the LDS perspective, no matter how moral they are or how much integrity they have, will have to denounce those convictions in order to find God's favor again. 

We can say that we love apostates as Mormons and we admire them and know they are good people, but our theology says that they are in a state contrary to God which will have to be renounced at some point in eternity. And that state is such even if they are obedient to the ten commandments and even if they do believe in Christ but reject the claims of the LDS church covenants being the path back to God.

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The act is completed and it is over.

No, it is not.  The impact of the murder goes on and on.  It is not something that can be resolved because the presence of the victim required to resolve it is gone.

Once a person has committed a murder, they will always be a murderer.  An apostate can change and choose to stop being an apostate.

Quote

will have to denounce those convictions in order to find God's favor again. 

And that they can renounce them puts them in a much more favorable position than a murderer who can never take back that murder.

Quote

We can say that we love apostates as Mormons and we admire them and know they are good people, but our theology says that they are in a state contrary to God which will have to be renounced at some point in eternity

And how is that different from any other forgivable sin people commit, nonmember or member?

Edited January 3, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet what of the apostate who does not change their mind, who continues to stand for what they believe to be right in rejecting the LDS Church? The fact is that, according to the LDS view, an apostate today who has their deeply-held convictions rejecting the LDS perspective, no matter how moral they are or how much integrity they have, will have to denounce those convictions in order to find God's favor again. 

You literally just described the very process of repentance, which is necessary for every single person to access the saving power of Jesus Christ regardless of the nature of her or his sins. If I hold a conviction, no matter how deeply, that is contrary to God and His righteousness, I will have to let that go to 'find God's favour again'. The same is true for acts that are contrary to His righteousness. This is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- the very purpose of Christianity, the message of Christ and the mission of all whom He has ever called to preach repentance.

And no one escapes it. A person who loves gossiping about his or her neighbour will need to someday denounce that practice, to offer just one example.

I understand that this is an unpopular message is an age of madness where the worst thing ever is to tell someone else that she or he is wrong and might need to change, but for those seeking a higher way, it's genuinely 'good news'.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You literally just described the very process of repentance, which is necessary for every single person to access the saving power of Jesus Christ regardless of the nature of her or his sins. If I hold a conviction, no matter how deeply, that is contrary to God and His righteousness, I will have to let that go to 'find God's favour again'. The same is true for acts that are contrary to His righteousness. This is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- the very purpose of Christianity, the message of Christ and the mission of all whom He has ever called to preach repentance.

And no one escapes it. A person who loves gossiping about his or her neighbour will need to someday denounce that practice, to offer just one example.

I understand that this is an unpopular message is an age of madness where the worst thing ever is to tell someone else that she or he is wrong and might need to change, but for those seeking a higher way, it's genuinely 'good news'.

No, it's not the same as repentence. Repentence is about sin, not for honest convictions, not for moral views, not for trying to have integrity. To say that a person must repent of those things is to call those values wrong.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Repentence is about sin, not for honest convictions...

Being honest in one's convictions is not the same thing as being right in one's convictions. If God Himself tells me I'm wrong about something I thought was right, the only question is whether I'm willing to repent or not. (Remember that the Greek word translated as 'repent' in the New Testament means to change one's mind.) It doesn't matter one whit what that thing is at that point. If I am unwilling to let it go, my sin/weakness/honest mistake turns into open rebellion.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it's not the same as repentence. Repentence is about sin, not for honest convictions, not for moral views, not for trying to have integrity. To say that a person must repent of those things is to call those values wrong.

There is no virtue in being wrong, however adamant or sincere one is in his errant attitude.

I understand that white supremacists, for example, are very earnest and adamant in their attitudes. They might even identify said views as "honest convictions." Would you hesitate in calling such values wrong? Would you hesitate to say they ought to repent of such views?

Edited January 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well look, you're calling me an outsider.  And that's not the first time here that someone has put me on some "other side"  and tried to delegitimise my thoughts because I no longer believe the claims of the church. 

 

If you have renounced the defining beliefs and values of a group, have you not, by definition, placed yourself on the outside of that group?