Apostasy is worse than murder

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're confusing the definition for repentance and apostasy.  Repent can mean to turn away from.  I haven't seen that associated with apostasy. 

"Repent can mean turn away from"?  I think you are the one confusing things.  Apostasy is to turn away as repent is to return or turn towards...

I am not confusing anything.  It is not my quote.  It comes directly from the church study manual. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're confusing the definition for repentance and apostasy. 

I don't think he is.  Apostasy is turning away from God, repentance is turning away from sin and to God.

Quote

Repent can mean to turn away from.  I haven't seen that associated with apostasy.  I have seen "standing apart" in the apostasy definition.  

Check out the etymology of the word: 

Quote

apostasy (n.)

late 14c., "renunciation, abandonment or neglect of established religion," from Late Latin apostasia, from later Greek apostasia for earlier apostasis "revolt, defection," literally "a standing off," from apostanai "to stand away" (see apostate (n.)). General (non-religious) sense "abandonment of what one has professed" is attested from 1570s.

And here:

Quote

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

Hope this helps.

Quote

This is part of why its so problematic, to have a sin out there as worse than murder and unforgivable, and then to associate many apostates with this sin as Joseph Smith does in his quote,

No, he didn't.

Quote

leads a lot of well intentioned members to be very scared about what it might mean to lose their faith in the church. 

Then they need to study more.  No informed, observant member of the Church equates "apostasy" with "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Quote

Fear is a good motivator though. 

It is.  But the Gospel is about much more than "fear."  Hope.  Faith.  Joy.  Obedience.  Salvation.  These are wonderful concepts, and in the Church are emphasized and focused on far more than "fear."  

Quote

Perhaps that’s why current church leaders continue to include these quotes in the curriculum and encourage the members to believe these things without attempting to clarify or soften the interpretations of earlier church leaders. 

There is far more emphasis on hope and faith and joy and other uplifting things.

Quote

In that way this folk doctrine serves the goals of the institution. 

"Folk doctrine" being "ignorant distortions of what the Church actually teaches by people like Sam Young"?

The Church is not interested in "folk doctrine," and in fact actively discourages such things.  Hence we receive fairly regular counsel on such things, such as Elder Andersen stating: "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

"Our doctrine" does not include the damnably false characterization, being promulgated by Sam Young and others, that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."  We don't believe that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2020 by smac97

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is part of why its so problematic, to have a sin out there as worse than murder and unforgivable, and then to associate many apostates with this sin as Joseph Smith does in his quote, leads a lot of well intentioned members to be very scared about what it might mean to lose their faith in the church. 

People are not afraid to leave the church because they think they might be sons of perdition.  That is bologna!  If they are afraid, it is for different reasons - separation from family perhaps.  I am telling you, the institutional view is that it is extremely rare.  Many prophets didn't believe that Judas himself, an apostle of the living Christ!, attained a high enough level to fall so low as to qualify for perdition.  Ask any member about it, they will agree that they don't qualify.  Why?  Because it has been ingrained in our heads over, and over, and over again how exceptionally rare and difficult it is to even qualify to fall so low.

Quote

Lucifer was “an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God.” He had risen high in knowledge, understanding, and power. He was Lucifer, a son of the morning (of light). For his rebellion there was no excuse. He committed the unpardonable sin, in denying that of which he had full and complete knowledge. He became thereby the father of lies (See D. & C. 76:26, 32-48).  It is probable that only personages who have acquired similar full knowledge, who willfully and deliberately deny the truth, when they know it to be the truth, can commit the unpardonable sin and become sons of perdition. They are sons of perdition because, “Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to open shame” (D. & C. 76:35). They must have had a fullness of knowledge; a testimony which cannot be destroyed. One must be on a high eminence to fall so low; and few in world’s history have attained such a height. It is doubtful if even Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was sufficiently enlightened to become a son of perdition (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 545). Cain was called Perdition because of his sin, but it is added “for thou wast also before the world,” implying a reason from out of the pre-existent world, for this heavy punishment (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:24).  Moreover, the expression, sons of perdition, is often used in the scriptures to describe disciples of Satan, all who defy God and teach untruth, and who delight in lies, without necessarily committing the unpardonable sin. The many brethren and sisters who have propounded questions about the sons of perdition may rest secure that with their present knowledge they cannot become sons of perdition.

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”

Quote

In the Doctrine and Covenants, sons of perdition are described as inhabiting "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory." However, according to Mormon faith, since most persons lack a "perfect knowledge" of Jesus, they cannot commit the Eternal sin,[8] and are therefore incapable of becoming sons of perdition.

Quote

There is another class of sons of perdition. This class is composed of all those who have known the power of God in this mortal life and then, having full knowledge of the power and purposes of God, rebel against him, putting Jesus Christ to open shame.

Quote

 

Speculation as to individual sons of perdition is at best unprofitable. Some have consigned Judas Iscariot to this doom, based on certain scriptural passages. (See John 12:6; 6:70; 17:12; Acts 1:20.) President Joseph F. Smith questions this interpretation:

      “To my mind it strongly appears that not one of the disciples possessed sufficient light, knowledge nor wisdom, at the time of the crucifixion, for either exaltation or condemnation; for it was afterward that their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, and that they were endowed with power from on high; without which they were only children in knowledge, in comparison to what they afterwards became under the influence of the Spirit.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp.125-127)
(Spencer Kimball)

Quote

Their sin is comparable to the treason of Lucifer
Talmage

Think about that one!
He continues:

Quote

It is probable that only personages who have acquired similar full knowledge, who willfully and deliberately deny the truth, when they know it to be the truth, can commit the unpardonable sin and become sons of perdition. They are sons of perdition because, “Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to open shame” (D. & C. 76:35). They must have had a fullness of knowledge; a testimony which cannot be destroyed. One must be on a high eminence to fall so low; and few in world’s history have attained such a height. It is doubtful if even Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was sufficiently enlightened to become a son of perdition (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 545). Cain was called Perdition because of his sin, but it is added “for thou wast also before the world,” implying a reason from out of the pre-existent world, for this heavy punishment (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:24).
Moreover, the expression, sons of perdition, is often used in the scriptures to describe disciples of Satan, all who defy God and teach untruth, and who delight in lies, without necessarily committing the unpardonable sin. The many brethren and sisters who have propounded questions about the sons of perdition may rest secure that with their present knowledge they cannot become sons of perdition.

http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/Quotes/Sons of Perdition.htm

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

You use the plural "leaders" in suggesting that "many apostates" are sons of perdition.  I have only seen one quote.  We know what the church has said about taking one quote (which is contrary to the predominate teachings) from one leader, and how it pertains to doctrine.  Can you find me more than one quote that suggests "many" apostates are sons of perdition?  I can show you dozens of quotes to the contrary. 

I provided some other quotes earlier in the thread that talk about similar sentiments around the severity of apostasy.  I don't know that any of them use those exact words.  There are a bunch of BY quotes about apostates that are pretty ugly.  If your argument comes down to who can provide the most quotes, then that kind of proves my point that there isn't a whole lot of clarity on this topic.  Especially by current leaders.  

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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 regard 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?

I'm not talking about white supremacy or just anything at all as if "anything goes" as long as one believes it. Remember I already stipulated that the person keeps the commandments, and believes in Christ, and I'll happily add the Two Great Commandments of the New Testament to that. 

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

I was born into the church, Scott. Raised in it. Believed it and raised my children in it and served in it for forty years. It's part of my heritage and my life. So I am Mormon, whether I still believe the truth claims or not. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You have to admit, it is strange that we don’t see any believing members who supports your claim about our beliefs.  There are very open minded believers on here who call a spade a spade, why can’t anyone see it your way?  That tells me something about your judgment as an outsider.  It is not meant to be offensive, we simply are not members of the same belief system and it is a matter of perspective and bias.  If I want to understand church doctrine/beliefs, I listen to active church members.  You have previously accused me of bias in this thread as an insider, we’ll, if in an insider, what does that make you?  Are you immune to bias yourself?  Apparently not.

To the rest of your post, it has been answered well by others.  I just want to add that the atonement covers every single person on earth, unrepentant, angry, “bitter apostate”, “spiritual germ”, and even a lowly murderer to a degree of glory.  No one can escape its reach - with one exception only.  You know who. That is what we believe. As an outsider you are failing in trying to convince me otherwise. 

FTR I am not telling you what you believe or even, as I have explained at the beginning of my participation, what I believed. But I do understand that believing members of the church can hold disparate viewpoints and I do see that a reasonable believer can draw the conclusion Sam Young claimed.

We've had more than one authority opine that they prefer their missionary child to come home in a pine box rather than not serve faithfully. There are some ugly sentiments in Mormonism and different personalities latch onto different ideas stronger than others and also expose fellow members and apostates to ugly ideas.

 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I was born into the church, Scott. Raised in it. Believed it and raised my children in it and served in it for forty years.

But now you don't.  Instead, you oppose it.  You publicly declare yourself an "enemy" to it.

I hope you return to our community some day.  Honest.  But I've read what you say about us.

Quote

It's part of my heritage and my life.

In the ways that matter most, the Church is a community of faith.  You have openly declared yourself an "enemy" to it.  You have left the community.  I hope you return, I really do.

I previously wrote this about Kate Kelly:

Quote

I have no qualms with people who leave the Church.  While I hope they return, I do not begrudge them their personal choices.

But as the saying goes, some can leave the Church, but they can't leave it alone.  And although some lip service is paid to "mutual respect," this concept is apparently easier said than done.  For example, Kate Kelly has recently made public statements that people who leave the Church should interact with Church members with "mutual respect."  But she then proceeds to accuse the Church of all sorts of horrible things.  She says that the women on the stand during General Conference are "completely sexualized objects which are only for reproduction," and that their appearance during General Conference "is porn{ography}."  She relates a story about how she heard someone once characterize Heavenly Mother as "a jerk" who "totally abandoned all of her children."  And she suggests that if she ever gets married again, she might have a service where there is someone at the door who is checking for people with temple recommends and turning them away and not allowed in because they are not "worthy."  She then said that this behavior would be "sociopathic," and that "all Mormons" do it, so she wants to reciprocate.

These are all statements she has made publicly.  To the world.  About us.

Perhaps you can conceive of why faithful Latter-day Saints might be a bit uncomfortable with someone who publicly says such intentionally profane and offensive things about their sacred beliefs?

Again, I've read the nasty, profane things you have said about us.

Quote

So I am Mormon, whether I still believe the truth claims or not. 

Your post from May 2017:

Quote

I am an ex-mormon in the stage of transition out of belief in Mormonism, was a believer at the year's start. Because my belief in Mormonism is over, I'm trying to hold onto and even recover my beliefs in God and Christ but unattached from Mormonism.

Your post from earlier this in this thread:

Quote

I am an enemy to the work of the church.

Hard to reconcile "I am Mormon" with "I am an ex-Mormon" and "I am an enemy to the work of the Church."

Again, the Church is a community of faith.  As I have said previously (about Kate Kelly and John Dehlin):

Quote

To be clear, I don't begrudge Dehlin/Kelly in their holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism they can. I'm all for it, in fact. But if and when they go beyond that and discount the significance of membership in the Church and of excommunication from the Church, I find that problematic.

Membership in the Church means something.  Keeping covenants means something.  Being in and building up a community of faith means something.

I've read what you say about us.

I hope you find a way back.  The door is open.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2020 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, please stop the gratuitous cheap shots ("make believe Cain").  Common courtesy sure would be nice.  If you keep this up, I'll just blow you off.

Second, you are correct in that I do not presume to know the heart and mind of any other person.  I do not have standing, stewardship, or information sufficient to justify any declaration as to any particular person being a Son of Perdition.  

Again, please stop the gratuitous cheap shots.  I am not "pretending to know" anything.  

It's absurd to say that "all apostates are sons of perdition."  The Church doesn't teach that, or anything close to it.  I dont' believe that, or anything close to it.

Again, please stop the gratuitous cheap shots.

I previously theorized Sherem as a potential candidate.  Then I gave the matter a bit of study and reached the conclusion that this was probably erroneous.

I reject the premise.  We have no information that Nephi "murdered another."

If you are referencing Laban, please see here:

And here: Was Nephi’s Slaying of Laban Legal?

And here: Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban

But to answer your question (apart from Nephi): No, murder is one of the two unforgiveable sins.  David lost his exaltation because he murdered Uriah.

I don't think so.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps other murders, killings or slayings can be justified just as Nephi's was.  Perhaps these are the very types of "murders" (killings and slayings) that are easily forgiven by members through argumentation that puts the person who is the murderer or killer in a better eternal position than an "apostate"--at least in the members' minds.  "it's ok, because..." arguments might have given Sam and many other Mormons the idea that Mormons believe as he describes.  If so, then I see no reason for anyone to get all worked up about his comment, nor condemn him for his comment as has been done.

I'm curious:

Quote

I do not have standing, stewardship, or information sufficient to justify any declaration as to any particular person being a Son of Perdition

Do you feel you have standing, stewardship, or information sufficient to justify a declaration that any particular person is an apostate?  

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

The idea of "God Himself" telling you something is a convenient one. Would you agree if "God" told you that agency was suspended and all would be forced to be "saved?" 

I think many of us here could agree that we'd be willing to fight forever against such a Being.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps other murders, killings or slayings can be justified just as Nephi's was. 

Perhaps I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you about matters that are important and sacred to me.

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I provided some other quotes earlier in the thread that talk about similar sentiments around the severity of apostasy.  I don't know that any of them use those exact words.  There are a bunch of BY quotes about apostates that are pretty ugly.  If your argument comes down to who can provide the most quotes, then that kind of proves my point that there isn't a whole lot of clarity on this topic.  Especially by current leaders.  

No one doubts the severity of apostasy.  That is not in question.  What is in question is if it rises to the level of perdition.  Unforgivable.  No matter what.  I have not seen "a bunch" of quotes that suggest it is common to reach the level of perdition among apostates.  I HAVE seen a bunch that suggest otherwise.   

Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m all for focusing on the positive and that is where I’m naturally inclined.  There is much good to focus on that is inspirational and uplifts.  I don’t think that means we should ignore the harmful elements and doctrines in the church.  There are those who’s suffering can be alleviated as we root out the bad and repent of our cultural and institutionally perpetuated mistakes.  It’s a both/and approach. 

Thanks for the feedback.  

I’d suggest the principle cultural mistake that needs correcting is not focusing solely on the atonement and leaving the judgments and consequences to God, understanding that in limited cases He’s asked His servants to do act as His proxy with respect to Church membership/standing.

I’d also invite you to consider that asking for a hierarchy of apostasy and attendant punishments is more likely to foster misconceptions than clear them up, and that two guiding principles ought to suffice—we can be healed and cleansed through the power of the atonement and that God alone will judge.

 

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But now you don't.  Instead, you oppose it.  You publicly declare yourself an "enemy" to it.

I hope you return to our community some day.  Honest.  But I've read what you say about us.

In the ways that matter most, the Church is a community of faith.  You have openly declared yourself an "enemy" to it.  You have left the community.  I hope you return, I really do.

I previously wrote this about Kate Kelly:

Again, I've read the nasty, profane things you have said about us.

Your post from May 2017:

Your post from earlier this in this thread:

Hard to reconcile "I am Mormon" with "I am an ex-Mormon" and "I am an enemy to the work of the Church."

Again, the Church is a community of faith.  As I have said previously (about Kate Kelly and John Dehlin):

Membership in the Church means something.  Keeping covenants means something.  Being in and building up a community of faith means something.

I've read what you say about us.

I hope you find a way back.  The door is open.

Thanks,

-Smac

I also said I'm an ally to work of the church, but you failed to use that in your summary.

The LDS church is not just a faith community. It is also many other things including a social community. So I am already here, you're stuck with me. 

The church is an extremely powerful force in the lives of those brought up in and participating in it. I think that wrestling with its flaws including its profane flaws is a worthy activity. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I also said I'm an ally to work of the church, but you failed to use that in your summary.

I don't know what that means.  

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

The LDS church is not just a faith community.

It is principally a faith community, though.  And you are a self-described "enemy" to it, an "ex-Mormon."

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

It is also many other things including a social community. So I am already here, you're stuck with me. 

I don't begrudge you in you holding on to whatever vestiges of Mormonism you can. I'm all for it, in fact.

Again, I've read the nasty, profane things you have said about us.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you about matters that are important and sacred to me.

-Smac

Ok.  Until next time.  As I see it once you went all in condemning Sam Young  (then Meadowchik, and then me) for his off the cuff statement there was little chance of having a discussion geared towards civility.  

I do want to make it clear before I head out though.  I am on record pointing out that members typically do not see leaving the Church as something worse than murder.  I'm not so certain this Sam Young fellow had someone who leaves the Church in mind as an apostate.  I think he had more along the lines of those who speak out frequently, aggressively, and perhaps loudly after they leave.  Attitudes against such members or former members get pretty ugly.  

Unfortunately leavers are often poorly treated by family and supposed friends.  Why is that?  Often because members bristle, it seems, that someone deeply in could reasonably find a better sanctuary on the outside.  Or often they lament that the leaver is hurting the family eternally--because for the leaver all is lost, in the member's mind.  Putting aside Sam's comment, which I don't agree with but reasonable understand how a member could be so mistaken, there are problems with a church that teaches such exclusivism--and that is most clearly shown when you find yourself on the outside looking in.  

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I've read the nasty, profane things you have said about us.

Yes, you've already said that. And I have not changed my screen name from before when I believed and posted here, which I then also used in the other board that you mined for my "nasty, profane" quotes. 

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, you've already said that. And I have not changed my screen name from before when I believed and posted here, which I then also used in the other board that you mined for my "nasty, profane" quotes. 

 

In all the years I have admired and followed Meadowchik's comments, I don't know I could find anything near "nasty and profane".  I'm not challenging anyone from going and digging up anything they might find problematic or questionable.  I just wanted to log my impressions.  I"ve always found her reasonable and challenging.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

We've had more than one authority opine that they prefer their missionary child to come home in a pine box rather than not serve faithfully.

More than one?

Where does it mention perdition in these "ugly" quotes about apostasy?  Or are you putting words in their mouths?  Why do you equate all that is ugly with perdition?  That is not fair.  It is not right.  To understand the sentiment expressed, even though I agree it was framed very poorly, you have to understand our doctrine of eternal families.   The father/"authority" was not afraid that his apostate son would be a son of perdition if he returned unfaithful, the father was more afraid of being separated in a different kingdom from his son in eternity.  He was expressing the loving idea that he would rather have less time with his son in this short life if it meant spending eternity with his son in the next.  When looked at in that light, it is a rather beautiful sentiment of love for his son.   I appreciate the sentiment, I really dislike how he framed it. 

You are all equating our fear of the consequences of apostasy with the fear of perdition.  That is just wrong.    

Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  Until next time.  As I see it once you went all in condemning Sam Young  (then Meadowchik, and then me) for his off the cuff statement there was little chance of having a discussion geared towards civility.  

I do want to make it clear before I head out though.  I am on record pointing out that members typically do not see leaving the Church as something worse than murder.  I'm not so certain this Sam Young fellow had someone who leaves the Church in mind as an apostate.  I think he had more along the lines of those who speak out frequently, aggressively, and perhaps loudly after they leave.  Attitudes against such members or former members get pretty ugly.  

Unfortunately leavers are often poorly treated by family and supposed friends.  Why is that?  Often because members bristle, it seems, that someone deeply in could reasonably find a better sanctuary on the outside.  Or often they lament that the leaver is hurting the family eternally--because for the leaver all is lost, in the member's mind.  Putting aside Sam's comment, which I don't agree with but reasonable understand how a member could be so mistaken, there are problems with a church that teaches such exclusivism--and that is most clearly shown when you find yourself on the outside looking in.  

I'm thankful for those believing members who are engaged in changing those attitudes of exclusivism.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In all the years I have admired and followed Meadowchik's comments, I don't know I could find anything near "nasty and profane".  I'm not challenging anyone from going and digging up anything they might find problematic or questionable.  I just wanted to log my impressions.  I"ve always found her reasonable and challenging.  

Thanks.

There are a few from the other board which might be viewed that way. SMAC cited some here several months ago then deleted them when another poster said it was/might be a rule violation. Yet I invited Spencer to begin a new thread with an offending excerpt if he wished to discuss it. He has not done so, to my knowledge.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

More than one?

Where does it mention perdition in these "ugly" quotes about apostasy?  Or are you putting words in their mouths?  Why do you equate all that is ugly with perdition?  That is not fair.  It is not right.  To understand the sentiment expressed, even though I agree it was framed very poorly, you have to understand our doctrine of eternal families.   The father/"authority" was not afraid that his apostate son would be a son of perdition if he returned unfaithful, the father was more afraid of being separated in a different kingdom from his son in eternity.  He was expressing the loving idea that he would rather have less time with his son in this short life if it meant spending eternity with his son in the next.  When looked at in that light, it is a rather beautiful sentiment of love for his son.   

You are all equating our fear of the consequences of apostasy with the fear of perdition.  That is just wrong.    

The good intent is granted. The bad consequences of such sayings remain, however. 

The point is to emphasize how badly that level of disappointment is viewed. If a dead son is better off than one who does not serve a mission faithfully, then how much worse off is a "son" who starts a campaign challenging church policy?

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for the feedback.  

I’d suggest the principle cultural mistake that needs correcting is not focusing solely on the atonement and leaving the judgments and consequences to God, understanding that in limited cases He’s asked His servants to do act as His proxy with respect to Church membership/standing.

I’d also invite you to consider that asking for a hierarchy of apostasy and attendant punishments is more likely to foster misconceptions than clear them up, and that two guiding principles ought to suffice—we can be healed and cleansed through the power of the atonement and that God alone will judge.

 

I would choose clarity over ambiguity on folk doctrines like this.  But better yet, I would hope that we could relegate these ideas to the dumpster and a focus on the great commandments of loving God & neighbor.  That is the heart of the gospel message.  These esoteric punishments and warnings of a petty and vengeful God who cares about tribal affiliation are huge distractions that undermine the gospel and hurt friends and families.  I find them antithetical to the Christian message.  

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The good intent is granted. The bad consequences of such sayings remain, however. 

The quote doesn't insinuate perdition as you imply.  That is my point.  You and others are using these quotes to support your position.  It simply doesn't.  There are a multitude of very clear and direct quotes to the contrary. 

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The point is to emphasize how badly that level of disappointment is viewed. 

I don't think it was said to emphasize disappointment, but rather to highlight love and the desire for eternal family. 

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If a dead son is better off than one who does not serve a mission faithfully, then how much worse off is a "son" who starts a campaign challenging church policy?

How much worse?  Not perdition worse.  Our doctrine doesn't support that judgment. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

apostasy is treated on a level equal to murder

Have you been around very many members interacting on a longterm basis with a murderer?  If not, how do you know this?