Apostasy is worse than murder

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

It would be an honor to attend one of your events.  Let me know when and where in SLC and I will be sure and be there.   

I have been called a lot of things, but "Calvinist" is not one of them.  We obviously interpret that passage different.  

That actually disappoints me 

Actually I was just joking about the Calvinist part and not wearing my cowboy hat!

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Actually I was just joking about the Calvinist part and not wearing my cowboy hat!

That makes me happy  🤠

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think you missed the point completely.

And I think you revealed more about yourself, and what you think you're up to, than you realise.

[Meadowchik]

 

On 1/4/2020 at 8:29 PM, InCognitus said:

But as you well know, there are different degrees of apostasy just as there are different degrees of sin.   Lying to a kid on a schoolyard playground is a sin, stealing a candy bar from a convenience store is a sin.  But would we say that such sins are the same as murder?   No, of course not.   People can repent and come back from the lesser sins, but some greater sins result in a “greater damnation” (Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47), and in the case of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost there is no possibility of repentance.   These are not the same by any stretch of the terms.

So when Sam Young is quoted as saying that apostasy, "is the worst possible sin you can commit. Apostasy is considered worse than murder”, why try to justify that as a true statement?  Why the need to defend such a false statement?

I won’t name names because I don't want to drag their names into this, but I know, and I know that you know, of several people who were excommunicated for apostasy and have returned to the church (two people in the so called “September Six” come to mind).  Why don’t you ask any of those who have returned if the church teaches that apostasy is worse than murder, or the same as blasphemy of the Holy Ghost? Just ask them. 

You are committing the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy by appealing to what people believe to try to justify what Sam Young has said.  But the fact remains that what Sam Young said is absolutely false, it’s a lie, and people need to stop trying to defend his actions.

I don't care to defend his actions per se, my point is that I think reasonable believers can come to the conclusion that apostasy is worse than murder. The nature of Mormonism's authoritarianism and theology means that there are varied and even opposing viewpoints on different topics that individuals can focus on. There's also some  theological concepts which create confusion and produce very unfortunate conclusions in believer's minds.

Perdition is an example. On the one hand, it is described as rebellion against the Holy Ghost. On the other, especially in LDS descriptions, it is described as a conscience rebellion against an extremely developed knowledge (not mere faith in Him, but) of God, like claiming the Sun is not shining under a shining Sun.

Yet the latter, that one can possibly possess such knowledge of God, is an assumption imo creates confusion. Decades ago, as a believing youth who understood faith to be an eternal principle governing the universe, it occurred to me that we take for granted how much we might "know" in God's presence. It would be one thing if the litmus test for identifying God was something well-defined and demonstrated, but how does God objectively prove His attributes? At a Millennium or Judgment Seat, is unprecedented power a proof of divinity? Are miraculous events evidence of a Perfect Being? They could be persuasive, of course! But proof? I don't think so.

My teen mind realised that an incredible impression in such displays might be knowledge of an impressive being, but not necessarily a divine Being. A thousand centuries with God and creating worlds might prove that much power and competence, but not infinity nor perfection. We'd never objectively know God is God.

Hence the need for faith, even after eons.

That precedent conclusion, that we can never objectively know God is God, precludes the possibility of perdition, or in other words it precludes the ability to rebel against a knowledge of God. We cannot knowingly rebel against that which we cannot know.

And yet, in Mormon culture and speech, the usage of "I know" is used repetitively to the point of being hackneyed. We've created this idea that belief and faith with spiritually-rewarding experiences represent knowledge. We teach children and investigators that the good and warm feelings they feel when having LDS experiences are the Holy Ghost conveying knowledge.  A misguided believer might even say "you know" X, Y, or Z to someone who is expressing doubts after previously having a testimony.

I was molested twice as a child, and as an older teen, I felt like I needed to confess to the bishopric member during a worthiness interview. I was familiar with teachings about virtue and fleeing evil, and I was not sure if I was at fault in those experiences of lost childlike innocence. In retrospect, I am very grateful that the counselor, after hearing me recount the events, quickly put a stop to my concerns. But the way he said it was, "You know..." as if there was no faithful reason to wonder if being victimised made me unworthy. Yet there were faithful reasons to not be sure. According to some teachings, I was worthy, but according to others, I might have been guilty of being in the wrong place or not fighting hard enough. So according to him, I "knew" one thing, even though I knew reasons, through faithful readings of the teachings, why I couldn't know it. "Knowledge" in the church is, therefore, in some ways, an ambiguous and confusing concept.

Furthermore, although the prophets and apostles are called as special witnesses of Christ, that witness is also available to regular members. And yet maybe it's not quite as strong, and yet we have the privilege of having their testimonies confirmed to us through the Holy Ghost. They are given to reveal God's words to the church membership, but we also have the right to all manner of revelation, too, according to our faith, just not in an authoritative way for the church.

And so regular members can "know" through the Spirit all things of which the apostles testify and more. Yet some authorities say we can never know enough to rebel on a level of Perdition. These teachings, I think, can represent contradictions for some. A faithful person can easily feel the obligation to choose one possibility as a way to vanquish ambiguity and move forward with faith. But both are faithful positions, conclusions which can be reasonably drawn from church teachings.

Thus it is possible for a believer to conclude that an apostate's rebellion can be very, very serious indeed, somewhere close to perdition.

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And I think you revealed more about yourself, and what you think you're up to, than you realise.

I'm not going to play a guessing game with you Hamba. Imo it is arrogance to assume that those who have power are the right choice. My testimony is that if God lives, God is good.  If the being I am supposed to believe is God is not by their fruits good, that tells me something.

 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Perdition is an example. On the one hand, it is described as rebellion against the Holy Ghost. On the other, especially in LDS descriptions, it is described as a conscience rebellion against an extremely developed knowledge (not mere faith in Him, but) of God, like claiming the Sun is not shining under a shining Sun.

How does one come to such extremely developed knowledge?  Receiving the Holly Ghost.  Baptism of Fire (2 Nephi 31:14).  You are describing the same hand.

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We cannot knowingly rebel against that which we cannot know.

Forgive me if I reject your conclusion that we cannot know God enough to knowingly rebel against Him to perdition.

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thus it is possible for a believer to conclude that an apostate's rebellion can be very, very serious indeed, somewhere close to perdition.

"Somewhere close to perdition"?  Where would that be?  No such place.  You are trying to water down what he actually said to make it somewhat palatable, but it isn't working.  That's not what he said.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

How does one come to such extremely developed knowledge?  Receiving the Holly Ghost.  Baptism of Fire (2 Nephi 31:14).  You are describing the same hand.

Forgive me if I reject your conclusion that we cannot know God enough to knowingly rebel against Him to perdition.

"Somewhere close to perdition"?  Where would that be?  No such place.  You are trying to water down what he actually said to make it somewhat palatable, but it isn't working.  That's not what he said.

Again, I am trying to help you (or anyone else interested) understand how this can be a reasonable conclusion of a faithful believer. I am not saying this is the only conclusion or even a prevailing conclusion. 

As a believing member, it was important to me to communicate well and one thing I did was use "I know" very, very sparingly in terms of spiritual testimony. I normally used "I believe" with reasons why, when bearing testimony. I think there will always be steps that members and teachers can make to communicate better. I think this can help peoples' overall experiences in the church and help to make the church better.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That precedent conclusion, that we can never objectively know God is God, precludes the possibility of perdition, or in other words it precludes the ability to rebel against a knowledge of God. We cannot knowingly rebel against that which we cannot know.

When much less was known about how the Sun came to be, how it works, etc....were those who could see it in the sky incapable of denying its existence?

Assuming Perdition exists assumes there are those who are truly prophets, who can know God in highly personal ways (Cain had an ongoing conversation with him, for example).  

If you start from the assumption there is no way to know God on any significant level, then sure, no way to have Perdition.  If you start from the assumptions there are actual prophets, then there can be those who were prophets and then rebelled completely to become full out enemies of God....thus Perdition.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am not saying this is the only conclusion or even a prevailing conclusion. 

Sam is.  In other words, you disagree with Sam.   So why are you defending him?

Edited January 7, 2020 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My testimony is that if God lives, God is good.  If the being I am supposed to believe is God is not by their fruits good, that tells me something.

And yet your personal definition of good clearly differs from mine, and mine definitely differs from that of the people working upstairs here in our parliament. Why does God's existence depend on His exactly matching your definition of good? And what happens if your definition of good 'matures' over time?

Quote

Imo it is arrogance to assume that those who have power are the right choice.

And in my opinion, it is arrogance to assume that you're a more accurate judge of good fruits than I and others are ... or than God is.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

At a Millennium or Judgment Seat, is unprecedented power a proof of divinity? Are miraculous events evidence of a Perfect Being? They could be persuasive, of course! But proof? I don't think so.

I think you have, in your insight above, inadvertently hit upon why the 'unpardonable sin' has to involve the Holy Ghost.

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As a believing member, it was important to me to communicate well and one thing I did was use "I know" very, very sparingly in terms of spiritual testimony. I normally used "I believe" with reasons why, when bearing testimony.

I like to be precise in my speech as well. I only use 'I know' in cases where I know. For example, I know where I am standing right now, and I know what time it is. I also know what I'm going to have for lunch. You don't know any of those things, but that doesn't mean you get to police my speech if I say that I do. And that includes what I might say I know in a testimony meeting or lesson.

[Metis_LDS]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

it occurred to me that we take for granted how much we might "know" in God's presence. It would be one thing if the litmus test for identifying God was something well-defined and demonstrated, but how does God objectively prove His attributes?

Very easily when we regain our memory of who organized us into spirit beings to dwell in the pre-existence.   How much greater proof can there be of our God than that?

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Very easily when we regain our memory of who organized us into spirit beings to dwell in the pre-existence.   How much greater proof can there be of our God than that?

Are recovered memories reliable?

One of the things that I've learnt is that there is always an out for people who want there to be. Always.

[Metis_LDS]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are recovered memories reliable?

One of the things that I've learnt is that there is always an out for people who want there to be. Always.

I was looking at the big picture.  Not many on earth have had this restored.  Maybe Joseph Smith's memory was restored at some point.  Maybe Sons of Perdition also have theirs restored.  What I do not know is how those who have it restored (in this life and the next) will be able to verify it.  There must be a way otherwise any very powerful being could trick us into thinking they are our God by planting false memories like you mentioned.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Metis_LDS
addition for clarity

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

What I do not know is how those who have it restored (in this life and the next) will be able to verify it.  There must be a way ...

Thankfully, there is a way to know things, with surety, both in this life and in the next. Of necessity, it is the same here as it will be there, though no doubt we will grow in capacity as we go forwards, as we already do here.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

When much less was known about how the Sun came to be, how it works, etc....were those who could see it in the sky incapable of denying its existence?

Assuming Perdition exists assumes there are those who are truly prophets, who can know God in highly personal ways (Cain had an ongoing conversation with him, for example).  

If you start from the assumption there is no way to know God on any significant level, then sure, no way to have Perdition.  If you start from the assumptions there are actual prophets, then there can be those who were prophets and then rebelled completely to become full out enemies of God....thus Perdition.

And like I said, if you believe you have access to the spiritual confirmation of prophetic teaching, and believe that through faith you can know, too, then even if you have no authority by it, you can know as much as they know, through the Holy Ghost.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Very easily when we regain our memory of who organized us into spirit beings to dwell in the pre-existence.   How much greater proof can there be of our God than that?

That only has the potential to prove how we came to be. That does not prove it was done by God, a perfect and eternal Being.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

Sam is.  In other words, you disagree with Sam.   So why are you defending him?

Calm started this thread to discuss the topic and I am discussing the topic, regardless of whether Sam Young has anything to do with it.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I like to be precise in my speech as well. I only use 'I know' in cases where I know. For example, I know where I am standing right now, and I know what time it is. I also know what I'm going to have for lunch. You don't know any of those things, but that doesn't mean you get to police my speech if I say that I do. And that includes what I might say I know in a testimony meeting or lesson

You can say what you want, of course, but you cannot choose the consequences of what you say.

 

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And yet your personal definition of good clearly differs from mine, and mine definitely differs from that of the people working upstairs here in our parliament. Why does God's existence depend on His exactly matching your definition of good? And what happens if your definition of good 'matures' over time?

And in my opinion, it is arrogance to assume that you're a more accurate judge of good fruits than I and others are ... or than God is.

I think you have, in your insight above, inadvertently hit upon why the 'unpardonable sin' has to involve the Holy Ghost.

I have tried to describe the Euthyphro dilemma to you, and also epistemological dilemmas of the human condition. I'm not trying to define good for everyone or dictate your speech. It sounds like you agree with me on some points, though.

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the things that I've learnt is that there is always an out for people who want there to be. Always.

I agree. And perhaps the best application of that rule is to see how we use it ourselves.

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That only has the potential to prove how we came to be. That does not prove it was done by God, a perfect and eternal Being.

If as a child you remembered your mothers face right at birth as soon as you could see right after you were born in the room would that not prove who your mother was to you.  If God did not organise our intelligence into a spirit being then who did?

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

If as a child you remembered your mothers face right at birth as soon as you could see right after you were born in the room would that not prove who your mother was to you.  If God did not organise our intelligence into a spirit being then who did?

If a mother can give my body life and not be God, then why not another perhaps more powerful being give my spirit life but not be God?

[Metis_LDS]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If a mother can give my body life and not be God, then why not another perhaps more powerful being give my spirit life but not be God?

I see where you are going with this and I am now out of this thread.  Thanks

Edited January 7, 2020 by Metis_LDS
grammar

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't care to defend his actions per se, my point is that I think reasonable believers can come to the conclusion that apostasy is worse than murder.

No, they can't.  No reasonable, informed member of the Church can come to this conclusion.  This is not what the Church teaches, nor what the members believe (virtually all of them, anyway).

Quote

The nature of Mormonism's authoritarianism and theology means that there are varied and even opposing viewpoints on different topics that individuals can focus on.

Not so.  The teachings of the Church on this point are not esoteric.  As Elder Andersen put it, "{t}rue principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

You persist in misrepresenting what we teach to each other and what we believe.  I will continue to point that out as long as you do it.

Quote

There's also some  theological concepts which create confusion and produce very unfortunate conclusions in believer's minds.

Perdition is an example. On the one hand, it is described as rebellion against the Holy Ghost. On the other, especially in LDS descriptions, it is described as a conscience rebellion against an extremely developed knowledge (not mere faith in Him, but) of God, like claiming the Sun is not shining under a shining Sun.  Yet the latter, that one can possibly possess such knowledge of God, is an assumption imo creates confusion.

I think a much more likely source of confusion is rank falsehoods.  We do not believe the things you are attributing to us.

And I don't see a "on the one hand ... on the other" scenario.  To be a Son of Perdition is to rebel against the "extremely developed knowledge" that can only come through the Holy Ghost.  

Quote

Decades ago, as a believing youth who understood faith to be an eternal principle governing the universe, it occurred to me that we take for granted how much we might "know" in God's presence. It would be one thing if the litmus test for identifying God was something well-defined and demonstrated, but how does God objectively prove His attributes? At a Millennium or Judgment Seat, is unprecedented power a proof of divinity? Are miraculous events evidence of a Perfect Being? They could be persuasive, of course! But proof? I don't think so.

My teen mind realised that an incredible impression in such displays might be knowledge of an impressive being, but not necessarily a divine Being. A thousand centuries with God and creating worlds might prove that much power and competence, but not infinity nor perfection. We'd never objectively know God is God.

Hence the need for faith, even after eons.

That precedent conclusion, that we can never objectively know God is God, precludes the possibility of perdition, or in other words it precludes the ability to rebel against a knowledge of God. We cannot knowingly rebel against that which we cannot know.

These are interesting thoughts.  But you are improperly imputing them into the teachings of the Church.

Quote

And yet, in Mormon culture and speech, the usage of "I know" is used repetitively to the point of being hackneyed.  We've created this idea that belief and faith with spiritually-rewarding experiences represent knowledge. We teach children and investigators that the good and warm feelings they feel when having LDS experiences are the Holy Ghost conveying knowledge.  A misguided believer might even say "you know" X, Y, or Z to someone who is expressing doubts after previously having a testimony.

I pretty much agree with you on this point.  I have said in the past:

Quote

We should ditch {or at least re-visit and reconsider} the "I know" paradigm.  "I'd like to bear my testimony.  I know this church is true..."  Well, actually, no.  Most of us, I think, have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Church is what it claims to be, etc.  "I know" has become an affectation, and an inaccurate one at that.  Just as people use "literally" to mean "figuratively" ("I was so bored yesterday, I was literally climbing the walls..."), I think members of the Church use "I know" to mean "I believe."  And in so doing we've set up an incorrect perception of things.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).  "{I}f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it."  (Alma 32:17-18).  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9).

We are supposed to not have a sure knowledge.  We are supposed to be proceeding in faith.  But we've made it seem like anything short of a pulpit-thumping "I know..." just isn't good enough.  But "I know" seems too rigid.  Too fragile.  Too glass-jawed.  "I believe...", on the other hand, gives us some room.  Some time and some space to absorb challenging/difficult things.  

I'm not sure how this relates to the false notion that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Quote

I was molested twice as a child, and as an older teen, I felt like I needed to confess to the bishopric member during a worthiness interview. I was familiar with teachings about virtue and fleeing evil, and I was not sure if I was at fault in those experiences of lost childlike innocence. In retrospect, I am very grateful that the counselor, after hearing me recount the events, quickly put a stop to my concerns. But the way he said it was, "You know..." as if there was no faithful reason to wonder if being victimised made me unworthy. Yet there were faithful reasons to not be sure. According to some teachings, I was worthy, but according to others, I might have been guilty of being in the wrong place or not fighting hard enough. So according to him, I "knew" one thing, even though I knew reasons, through faithful readings of the teachings, why I couldn't know it. "Knowledge" in the church is, therefore, in some ways, an ambiguous and confusing concept.

Not really.  At least, not in the context of the extremity involved in "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Quote

Furthermore, although the prophets and apostles are called as special witnesses of Christ, that witness is also available to regular members.

Well, no, not really.  See here:

Quote

What Are “Special Witnesses”?

The role of a special witness is, essentially, to testify to the world of Jesus Christ. This is different from a regular witness of Christ, as we are typically only called upon to testify locally.

The term “special witness” comes from D&C 107:23:

“The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witness of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.”

The Twelve (and the First Presidency) are called to testify of Christ — His divinity, His mission, and His gospel — to the entire world. Obviously this comes into play at general conference, which is broadcast throughout the world, but it also applies to the dozens of trips they make every year to various countries.

Talking about the role of a special witness, David A. Bednar said:

“There are endowments of spiritual power that attend the office of the apostleship. So when one is ordained to the office of apostle in the priesthood, and then set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and receives the keys of the kingdom — the rights to direct the work for the priesthood in all the world — there are spiritual powers that attend that.

But that also applies to a twelve-year-old boy who’s called to be the president of the Deacon’s Quorum. Now he has a smaller field in which to work — a quorum — but the principle is the same. Our field is the entire world; for that twelve-year-old boy, it might be six or seven or eight young men in that Deacon’s Quorum.”

Primarily, then, the role of a special witness has to do with testifying and to whom the general authorities preach.

We are all "witnesses," but only the Twelve are "special witnesses."

Quote

And yet maybe it's not quite as strong, and yet we have the privilege of having their testimonies confirmed to us through the Holy Ghost. They are given to reveal God's words to the church membership, but we also have the right to all manner of revelation, too, according to our faith, just not in an authoritative way for the church.

Not sure what you mean here.

In any event, I don't think "all manner of revelation" will include contradictions to revelation previously given.  

And I still don't see what this has to do with the false assertion that Latter-day Saints believe that "apostasy" is "worse than murder."  This is simply not so.

Quote

And so regular members can "know" through the Spirit all things of which the apostles testify and more.

Yes, I think that's possible.

Quote

Yet some authorities say we can never know enough to rebel on a level of Perdition.

No, they haven't said that.  Quoting from the gospel topic titled 'Salvation':

Quote

Salvation from the Second Death. The scriptures sometimes speak of salvation from the second death. The second death is the final spiritual death—being cut off from righteousness and denied a place in any kingdom of glory (see Alma 12:32; Doctrine and Covenants 88:24). This second death will not come until the Final Judgment, and it will come to only a few (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:31–37). Almost every person who has ever lived on the earth is assured salvation from the second death (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:40–45).

Virtually every treatment of this topic by leaders of the Church unambiguously characterize "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" as a very rare event.

Quote

These teachings, I think, can represent contradictions for some.

Nope.  Not to a reasonable and informed person.

No reasonable, informed Latter-day Saint believes the things you are attributing to us.  The Church does not teach the things you are attributing to it.

Quote

A faithful person can easily feel the obligation to choose one possibility as a way to vanquish ambiguity and move forward with faith. But both are faithful positions, conclusions which can be reasonably drawn from church teachings.

No.  There is no reasonable, informed approach to the Restored Gospel that yields the result of equating "apostasy" as being equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Quote

Thus it is possible for a believer to conclude that an apostate's rebellion can be very, very serious indeed, somewhere close to perdition.

"It is possible for a believer to conclude" what you are saying, yes.  But that possibility necessarily requires profound ignorance, distortion of the teachings of the Church, bad faith, or some combination of these.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 7, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, they can't.  No reasonable, informed member of the Church can come to this conclusion.  This is not what the Church teaches, nor what the members believe (virtually all of them, anyway).

Not so.  The teachings of the Church on this point are not esoteric.  As Elder Andersen put it, "{t}rue principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

You persist in misrepresenting what we teach to each other and what we believe.  I will continue to point that out as long as you do it.

I think a much more likely source of confusion is rank falsehoods.  We do not believe the things you are attributing to us.

And I don't see a "on the one hand ... on the other" scenario.  To be a Son of Perdition is to rebel against the "extremely developed knowledge" that can only come through the Holy Ghost.  

These are interesting thoughts.  But you are improperly imputing them into the teachings of the Church.

I pretty much agree with you on this point.  I have said in the past:

I'm not sure how this relates to the false notion that "apostasy" is equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Not really.  At least, not in the context of the extremity involved in "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

Well, no, not really.  See here:

We are all "witnesses," but only the Twelve are "special witnesses."

Not sure what you mean here.

In any event, I don't think "all manner of revelation" will include contradictions to revelation previously given.  

And I still don't see what this has to do with the false assertion that Latter-day Saints believe that "apostasy" is "worse than murder."  This is simply not so.

Yes, I think that's possible.

No, they haven't said that.  Quoting from the gospel topic titled 'Salvation':

Virtually every treatment of this topic by leaders of the Church unambiguously characterize "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" as a very rare event.

Nope.  Not to a reasonable and informed person.

No reasonable, informed Latter-day Saint believes the things you are attributing to us.  The Church does not teach the things you are attributing to it.

No.  There is no reasonable, informed approach to the Restored Gospel that yields the result of equating "apostasy" as being equivalent to "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost."

"It is possible for a believer to conclude" what you are saying, yes.  But that possibility necessarily requires profound ignorance, distortion of the teachings of the Church, bad faith, or some combination of these.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, not "virtually every treatment of this topic."

 

"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." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.358)

And John A. Widtsoe warned that there is a level of apostasy close to but not necessarily exactly perdition that in among the worst of sins:

"Little is known of the sons of perdition and their destiny, yet that little known stands as a warning to all men. To deal carelessly with truth, to deny it when once gained, to defy the laws of truth which are the laws of God must be counted among the greatest sins. Those who deal lightly with truth in their lives, though they may not become sons of perdition, must expect a heavy punishment, which often begins in mortality. "(Evidences and Reconciliations, pp.212-214)