Apostasy is worse than murder

[Metis_LDS]

Yeah okay everybody,  I have a bad feeling about this thread.  But carry on regardless.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

From my observation, the longer it goes on, the further they distance themselves from Sam's comments.  In really long threads I might read the first few pages and the last few pages to see how it has evolved.  If people do that, they will see that no one is really defending Sam's comment anymore. 

If so, it was time well-spent.

Daniel Peterson put it well (emphasis added):

Quote

The scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clearly advise Christian disciples to avoid the intemperate rhetoric that too often characterizes current religious and political discussions. The words of the resurrected Savior himself to the ancient Nephites will serve to illustrate this counsel:

“He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of mento contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:29).  to contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:29).

But while they caution us about the manner in which we do so, such passages scarcely require that we not defend or advocate our religious and political positions. (I’ll confine my attention from here on to discussions regarding religious matters.)

Sometimes, failure to respond to a criticism, claim or attack lends it unearned credibility even when it’s completely without any merit, and allows it to spread widely and to take firm root as if it were true. That is why the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, advised Latter-day Saints to allow no more “uncontested slam dunks” from critics. Falsehoods should not go uncontradicted into the public record.

“Be ready always,” says the King James translation of 1 Peter 3:15, “to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”

Just so.

I am far from a perfect in my faith.  But I'm not going to let falsehoods about that faith be perpetuated without comment and rebuttal.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 7, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

There are plenty of discussion topics where belief and doctrine is less clear than in this case, imo.  I think it important to be open to when there is some ambiguity, but in cases where there is little and what little is there is from long ago, it is important to make this clear for emotional subjects, especially those being used to encourage false and negative ideas towards the Church and its members. 

[InCognitus]

On 1/6/2020 at 4:09 PM, 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. 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.

 

First, let me just say thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view about this topic.  It is helpful, and I appreciate it. 

I can understand that some people may misunderstand or be confused on some of the teachings on this topic and question whether or not they have crossed the line and gone too far and are incapable of receiving forgiveness.  But creating a sense of despair and hopelessness is one of the tools of the adversary, and I'm certain that if a person is worried about such things then that is proof they haven't gone too far.  It shows they still care and can come back. 

But let me ask you this question:  Given the fact there are publicly available examples of members of the church who have been excommunicated for apostasy that have returned to the church and been re-baptized and accepted back in full fellowship, do you really think a reasonable believer should ever conclude that "apostasy" in general is worse than murder and equal to the unpardonable sin?