Apostasy is worse than murder

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

so I made the post to try and understand what the person making that post was saying and why it was posted in a thread about apostasy.

Teddyaware made two posts in this thread where he was chastising Sam Young for mis representing what the unpardonable sin was and he used "altogether" with the phrase " total apostasy".  Given that context, it seems relatively clear he is not thinking of the typical exmember who leaves because of disagreement with some of the teachings or policies of the Church.

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If scriptures and the prophet are inadequate, what is the authority you are referring to? How does one learn about it?

The ever changing policies/doctrines makes my head spin. One prophet says something and it turns out it is a wrong teaching after all. And you know the scripture about false prophets, if just one prophecy doesn't pan out, then they are considered a false prophet. But you guys on here and elsewhere, say the prophets aren't perfect, they are fallible. So which is it?  I think God is angry at what is said about Him in the Bible and in most religions, honestly. Or those prophets out there that speak for Him, and it's not from Him at all. That's what I mean about taking back authority, I need to go on my own, since a living prophet supersedes a dead one, and a living prophet will be dead as well, so what gives if over and over we need to believe a living prophet but then when they die the next prophet says things that discount what the dead one said. See how this harms so many people that believe in a prophet or a fallible one? We must take that authority and put it on ourselves, to know what is false or not. It's common sense usually, or a moral compass. And never speak for the Lord or say it in His name, when it isn't.

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The ever changing policies/doctrines makes my head spin. One prophet says something and it turns out it is a wrong teaching after all. And you know the scripture about false prophets, if just one prophecy doesn't pan out, then they are considered a false prophet. But you guys on here and elsewhere, say the prophets aren't perfect, they are fallible. So which is it?  I think God is angry at what is said about Him in the Bible and in most religions, honestly. Or those prophets out there that speak for Him, and it's not from Him at all. That's what I mean about taking back authority, I need to go on my own, since a living prophet supersedes a dead one, and a living prophet will be dead as well, so what gives if over and over we need to believe a living prophet but then when they die the next prophet says things that discount what the dead one said. See how this harms so many people that believe in a prophet or a fallible one? We must take that authority and put it on ourselves, to know what is false or not. It's common sense usually, or a moral compass. And never speak for the Lord or say it in His name, when it isn't.

Thanks for sharing your frustrations, but none of this addresses my questions. How do you know when to say it in his name if you can’t rely on scriptures or prophets? If they are false, why worry about it? What authority are you looking for? Perhaps some form of Protestantism or even a non-biblical religion?

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This is rather good for a podcast:

Unless you have taken to hanging out with Satan or Cain after first being best buds with Christ, I think you are fooling yourself thinking you qualify for the title “sons of perdition” by standards of the Restored Gospel. 

The podcast quotes SWK as saying the rank and file of the Church aren’t really eligible for this role. 

Kind of a creepy illustration.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But here's the thing about that so-called "middle man".  Contrary to the Protestant notion of "all we need is Jesus", the Savior authorized his servants to represent him, and he put a lot of weight on accepting or rejecting their authority.

I have reached the conclusion that one of the reasons the Saviour gives us prophets as 'middlemen' is because we learn to follow Christ by following the men He calls as prophets. It's the exact same process in the end, and people who think they want to follow God but who find it hard to follow a prophet are simply deceiving themselves, quite a bit like what John taught about love:

Quote

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kind of a creepy illustration.

 

SoPs are creepy, so appropriate. 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/28/2019 at 3:34 PM, pogi said:

I read the quotes.  I don't see anyone who elevates general apostasy to the level of denying the Holy Ghost.  What are you talking about?  I don't see how an honest person can come to that conclusion given the information provided, the scriptures, and how the prophets have welcomed high up apostates with forgiveness and open arms over and over and over again.

 I am beyond confident that no member of your mother's ward expressed that they thought your brother was a son of perdition and was doomed for outer darkness.  If they actually used the word "lost" (which I doubt), then it is much more likely that they thought that he won't be exalted.  That is very different from not being saved.  I think you understand that deep down, but don't want to believe it about us Latter-day Saints.

I prefer the second one too, but I am confident that the first example didn't even happen and was misinterpreted.  What member/s would say to a grieving mother that her dead son is a son of perdition, bound for outer darkness, and has no hope of salvation to any degree of glory because he denied the Holy Ghost - nope, didn't happen.  And you claim there were multiple members who did that?  No way!  That is beyond uncharacteristic of Latter-day Saint belief and character.   Just to be clear, I am not calling you a liar, I am saying you misunderstood the situation.

 

First, it was not my brother, but my friend's brother as I said.  And I am not saying the members considered him a Son of Perdition. The opinion shared was painful for my friend's parents and family, they had raised their children including that son in that ward, the members knew their son. My point is that genuine believers can think diametrically opposed things, even about judgment of the Lord. And for this family, and for all families, do you think parents want to believe their child is separated from the Celestial kingdom forever? Of course not. That is a loss!  They legitimately struggled with the belief that he was lost to them. My friend struggled with it, and I struggled with it and wrestled with it for years.

There are two main gospel principles that create this opposition. The scriptures allocate him to something less than Celestial glory. Yet the scriptures also claimed God is just, and judges based on the knowledge we each personally have. Most of all, I believed God loves us and is merciful, and that was the rub. I could not accept the idea that a loving God would allocate this young man to a place away from his family for all eternity, just because he was inactive and living with his girlfriend. I went with the broad principle. Others stayed with the direction in D&C 76.

So think about that diametric opposition, but just shift the topic to apostasy. As is accepted here, according to the church, perdition is worse than murder. I think then that it is reasonable, then, for people to believe that the apostasy of an endowed believer then opposing the church is worse than murder.

I used to follow Sam Young on social media and I have watched others who have left the church interact on social media with current members of the church. Understandably, people can become rather upset when a person they admired and whose testimony they used as a model for their own then leaves the church, and then especially opposes it openly. They will say bold things. I openly support gay marriage and oppose the church's position on gays, on social media. For that, an old friend who attended my temple wedding (another BYU roommate) compared me to Korihor. For openly opposing the church, my own brother has claimed this means I hate him and his family. Both conclusions are nonsense, but both come from extremely intelligent, informed members. And so it would not surprise me at all if a former stake president or bishop, etc..., has compared Sam's open opposition to the church as worse than murder. 

Hopefully this makes what I am saying a bit more clear to you, even if we still disagree.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/28/2019 at 3:07 PM, smac97 said:

That would be an interesting play on words, if you were to actually substantiate it.  But that's a pretty big "if."  Please go ahead and substantiate it.  I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.  

The concept of apostasy is shot through the Bible.  Consider the Children of Israel after they left Egypt.  How would you characterize their worship of the Golden Calf?  Wouldn't "apostasy" be an appropriate descriptor?  If not, why not?  Consider these passages from Exodus 32 (emphases added):

This sounds like an instance of "apostasy."  Do you disagree?  And how did "ignorance and distortion" come into play in Moses' reaction?  I'm not seeing it.

Consider Elijah's ministry to Israel during the reign of Ahab.  What do you think he meant when he told the masses on Mount Carmel "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him"?  Doesn't that story include the concept of apostasy?  And how does "ignorance and distortion" come in to play vis-à-vis Elijah's actions?  I just don't see it.

Apostasy is a very significant theme in the New Testament.  See, e.g., here:

Is Oropeza substantively incorrect in this summary?  If so, how?

More (same link):

I really don't understand your position here.

Again, I don't understand.  "{T}he teaching of apostasy itself" is "the source of misunderstanding"?  What "misunderstanding"?  Of what?  By whom?  It what context?

Are you rejecting the concept ("apostasy itself") altogether?  What are you saying here?

I am talking about the church's own teachings about apostasy. Apostasy in the LDS church is more than breaking the 10 Commandments and it is more than rejecting Christ. Apostasy in the LDS Church takes it further to included rejection of church leadership, or rejection of LDS teachings. A person can still preach of Christ and believe in Christ and obey the 10 Commandments and yet, according to the LDS Church, be an apostate.

On 12/28/2019 at 3:07 PM, smac97 said:

Hmm.  Sounds like you are describing Romans 10:

Was Paul wrong to say this?

I think it is wrong for people to claim to speak for God. They are essentially trying to stand between a person and God.

On 12/28/2019 at 3:07 PM, smac97 said:

Also, what are your thoughts about this article from the "Gospel Topics" section of the Church's website?  I'm thinking specifically of this part:

Quote

 

During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances.

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

What are your thoughts about D&C 138:44 and Daniel 2:44?

 

I think that's the kind of thing a person says when they want to give themselves legitimacy as a spiritual leader and spokesman for the divine. Claiming that the LDS church has God's authority and that it will never lose it is predictable hubris of people who want to believe they have it and want others to believe they have it. But it's not humble.

 

On 12/28/2019 at 3:07 PM, smac97 said:

With respect, I think you are taking an extreme position.  You seem to be rejecting the concept of apostasy in its entirety.  I don't think that works. 

And you are apparently rejecting it by suggesting that it is a false concept used by leaders of the Church to manipulate and control the members.  I don't think that works. 

By making apostasy more than just rejection of principles or rejection of Christ, the church has created its own concept of apostasy, separate from Old and New testament constructs. 

I'd like to believe in the good faith of most LDS prophets and that they are trying to remain faithful to what they believe is God's word. However, I think it's entirely possible that the church has created a conundrum for them, and that conundrum is in the roots of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's teachings equating apostasy to disloyalty to the church. The church was a contentious proposition in many ways in its early days and I think a natural result of that contention was the loyalty tests that are ingrained in LDS thought and teachings

On 12/28/2019 at 3:07 PM, smac97 said:

To be sure, most godly precepts can be misused or distorted.  Paul's reference to "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" in Romans 10 is a good example.  Another would be the concept of "blind" obedience to the leaders of the Church.  That isn't appropriate, either.  Consider these wise words from Elder L. Tom Perry:

  Quote

There is great strength and power in the fact that millions throughout the world share the same testimony of God, the Savior, and the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.

Brigham Young is reported to have said that the greatest fear he had was that members of the Church would take what he said as the mind and will of God without first praying and obtaining a witness of the same for themselves.

Yep.

Brigham Young insists that we should have our own witness, and Elder Perry affirms this, and yet it has to be in line with the church to be valid. A person can bear testimony of all manner of things supportive of the church and not be an apostate. But once they oppose the church, even in sincere testimony, they are wrong according to the church.

This is a fundamental struggle that the church has created and still manufactures in the spiritual lives of people. People today are struggling between their convictions about Christ and their testimony of the church and being expected to choose between them.

On 12/28/2019 at 3:07 PM, smac97 said:

 

I don't think you can have it both ways, Meadowchik.  

I will close with this note about apostates from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding apostates (which rather goes against Sam Young's specious claim about what we believe re: apostasy):

Thanks,

-Smac

What "both ways" exactly?

The church is claiming to be for Christ, but then makes apostasy about things other than Christ, namely about loyalty to itself. That is the use of ignorance and distortion. 

[Meadowchik]

On 12/28/2019 at 3:31 PM, JLHPROF said:

Well they are in a way.  But as Calm pointed out they can repent.  It's not unpardonable and they aren't beyond God's reach.

The whole challenge of the apostasy discussion is in scriptures like:

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins

So the discussion then shifts to whether the person leaving actually has a knowledge of truth and then leaves.  Most who leave don't.

That's a very vague standard, though. How do you know how much truth a person has known? You don't.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/28/2019 at 5:38 PM, JAHS said:

As far as this life is concerned, they aren't necessarily leaving God altogether, but they are leaving the chance for eternal life with God. Some members leave the church and join another religion that very much believes in and worships God. That has got to count for something in the eyes of God. I suppose the Terrestrial kingdom will have many of these people "who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father." (D&C 76: 77). Last I heard the Son is also God.

And yet their progression is limited and they lose their families. That's a big punishment for loyalty to Christ but disloyalty to the LDS Church.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have reached the conclusion that one of the reasons the Saviour gives us prophets as 'middlemen' is because we learn to follow Christ by following the men He calls as prophets. It's the exact same process in the end, and people who think they want to follow God but who find it hard to follow a prophet are simply deceiving themselves, quite a bit like what John taught about love:

 

There's a difference between following a flawed prophet and a wicked prophet. Some people believed that Joseph Smith was advocating wickedness, or that other prophets are advocating wickedness. What is their duty to God then? Some leaders seem to suggest that they should obey anyway, even if the command is wrong. Some seem to suggest that the "wrong road" ends up teaching the right lesson. So should people do what's right or what's loyal? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Some people believed that Joseph Smith was advocating wickedness, or that other prophets are advocating wickedness.

And many people believed that Jesus was advocating wickedness. Some of them were so certain in their beliefs that they successfully sought to have Him killed. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And many people believed that Jesus was advocating wickedness. Some of them were so certain in their beliefs that they successfully sought to have Him killed. 

Yes and Abraham was commanded to kill Isaac in a test. And Nephi was commanded to kill Laban.

Do you wish you were as obedient as Abraham and Nephi in those instances? Or do you think you would have halted and questioned and drawn a line, turning away, questioning your own perceptions before raising a blade to kill a person?

Who gets to tell a person to second-guess everything they know to be right? Who gets to judge them in their sincere attempt to do right, even if it means going against the Sanhedrin, or against Joseph Smith, or against Russell M. Nelson?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who gets to tell a person to second-guess everything they know to be right? Who gets to judge them in their sincere attempt to do right,

God. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it is wrong for people to claim to speak for God. They are essentially trying to stand between a person and God.

What if they actually were asked to do so by God?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

How do you know how much truth a person has known? You don't

Which is why God is the one who judges who has committed the unpardonable sin. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

What if they actually were asked to do so by God?

How can a person be sure enough that God told them to be God's spokesman, that they risk eternal consequences for other human beings?

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How can a person be sure enough that God told them to be God's spokesman, that they risk eternal consequences for other human beings?

I suspect this varies for each individual as those who are full of self doubt in whether or not they communicate well, for example, would need something different to convince them than someone who saw themselves as someone who understood reality, understood others, etc. 

IOW, you need to ask those who are sure enough.  However, if you believed you have never experienced that communication with God, seems less likely you would trust that someone else has, so I am not sure how useful asking would be if you think they are just fooling themselves or even delusional. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The ever changing policies/doctrines makes my head spin. One prophet says something and it turns out it is a wrong teaching after all. And you know the scripture about false prophets, if just one prophecy doesn't pan out, then they are considered a false prophet. But you guys on here and elsewhere, say the prophets aren't perfect, they are fallible. So which is it?  I think God is angry at what is said about Him in the Bible and in most religions, honestly. Or those prophets out there that speak for Him, and it's not from Him at all. That's what I mean about taking back authority, I need to go on my own, since a living prophet supersedes a dead one, and a living prophet will be dead as well, so what gives if over and over we need to believe a living prophet but then when they die the next prophet says things that discount what the dead one said. See how this harms so many people that believe in a prophet or a fallible one? We must take that authority and put it on ourselves, to know what is false or not. It's common sense usually, or a moral compass. And never speak for the Lord or say it in His name, when it isn't.

The Bible is a prime exemplar of the wide diversity among prophetic claims and of a wide variety of theologies.  It is not true that the Bible exhibits only one theology, and it is not even true of the Book of Mormon.  Scholars know this.  The general public does not.

For example, Noah as a prophet is preaching in a particular time and place.  His words are for his time and place only.  No one else is called to build an ark.  And this is generally true of all prophets.  They speak to a particular situation and a particular people.

Prophets are also very human.  One must not confuse their personal flaws with God's efforts to reach out and guide people.  Nor is transitory policy the same as doctrine.  One is changeable, the other is not.

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Or do you think you would have halted and questioned and drawn a line, turning away, questioning your own perceptions ... ?

I question my own perceptions and thoughts and assumptions and prejudices all the time. I also question God. I argue with Him and even wrestle with Him. I've found that He seems to just enjoy the interaction, but maybe that's because He knows my heart and that, therefore, He's always going to win?

Quote

Who gets to tell a person to second-guess everything they know to be right?

That's pretty much what God has been doing with His children since the beginning. It's basic good parenting.

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How can a person be sure enough that God told them to be God's spokesman, that they risk eternal consequences for other human beings?

I think your experience with revelation must have been very different to my experience with revelation.

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect this varies for each individual as those who are full of self doubt in whether or not they communicate well, for example, would need something different to convince them than someone who saw themselves as someone who understood reality, understood others, etc. 

IOW, you need to ask those who are sure enough.  However, if you believed you have never experienced that communication with God, seems less likely you would trust that someone else has, so I am not sure how useful asking would be if you think they are just fooling themselves or even delusional. 

How do you know if someone is "sure enough?" There are plenty of confident fools in the world and in history, right? Certainty, then, cannot be the standard.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

How do you know if someone is "sure enough?"

The exact same way that one knows that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's pretty much what God has been doing with His children since the beginning. It's basic good parenting.

Do you mean that you know what God has been doing from the beginning because of what others have said God has been doing?

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think your experience with revelation must have been very different to my experience with revelation.

Why do you think that? In what ways do you think our experiences have differed?

 

 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The exact same way that one knows that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

And so there are people who know Joseph Smith was a prophet. And there are people who know he was not. Both know in exactly the same way they know Jesus is the promised Messiah.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

BTW, here's a longer excerpt from the OP article if anyone would like more context:

Quote

 

Whistleblowing is rare within the LDS Church, which champions values such as obedience and loyalty, and teaches that the church president is the mouthpiece of God himself. But fear of retaliation can also be a factor. To question God or the actions of church leaders may be considered apostasy—in Mormonism, a concept similar to heresy—and is grounds for excommunication from the church.

Apostasy, former member Sam Young explains, "is the worst possible sin you can commit. Apostasy is considered worse than murder." Young, the most high-profile LDS whistleblower prior to the EPA revelations, was excommunicated from the LDS Church in September 2018 after he collected and released hundreds of accounts of child molestation and other sexually inappropriate behaviors by members of the church's all-volunteer clergy. According to a letter regarding the decision, Young was excommunicated for "deliberately attacking and publicly opposing the Church and its leaders."

"I didn't feel that I was agitating against the church," Young said. "But that's what they saw. I was speaking out against something in the church."

Young launched an aggressive campaign to end one-on-one meetings between church members and volunteer leaders after learning that a local bishop—similar to the pastor of a single congregation—had asked sexually explicit questions of his then 12-year-old daughter. He later learned that another daughter, who had left the church for unstated reasons in college, had been subjected to similarly explicit questioning by a bishop at church-owned Brigham Young University.

Those excommunicated from the LDS Church are barred from participating in religious rites such as communion. They may not enter the temple, nor may they attend LDS weddings, which take place in the temple. Their own religious status and rituals—baptism, their marriage and any priesthood ordination—are canceled and removed from church records.

Young, who himself served as an LDS bishop prior to his excommunication, doesn't believe the EPA whistleblowers will be subject to excommunication unless they continue to agitate. It was the length of his advocacy—and the publicity that it attracted—that ultimately raised the ire of the regional authorities who removed him from the church.