An Understanding Of Apostates

[Ray]

To give due credit, this article was written by Davis Bitton for FAIR and then circulated by FAIR with this introduction:

President George Q. Cannon lived during some of the most intense

anti-Mormon activity in Church history. His perspective on apostasy

and apostates is still highly relevant for our time. In this paper,

Bitton looks briefly at some of the anti-Mormon events witnessed by

Cannon, and Bitton gives Cannon's four causes of apostasy. Bitton

gives examples of statements by Cannon on apostates and demonstrates

that Cannon spoke boldly and uncompromisingly about the dangers and

tactics of apostates.

"We have here analyzed George Q. Cannon's different pronouncements on

individual apostasy. But he did not stand alone. On all the essential

points other Church leaders from Joseph Smith to Lorenzo Snow

expressed similar views."

Read the article: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2005BitD.html

And btw, I’m starting a thread on this topic because I think the topic deserves some attention.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Regarding #4 on his list of reasons for apostacy...

First, here is what he said (abridged):

4. Criticizing the presiding authorities of the Church

Those who left the Church seldom rejected faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, he said in 1869. It was seldom doctrinal differences that caused apostasy. The main issue was always the authority of Church leaders. "This is the point that the adversary always aims at.…there is no doubt but what the rock upon which they split was the question of the right and authority of those presiding over them...

...Admittedly Church leaders were "fallible." Only Christ was perfect. "Nevertheless, God has chosen these men." God will judge them. He "does not give the authority to judge and condemn to man, only in the regularly constituted councils of the Church; and those who lift their voices and their heels against the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I tell you today, as a servant of God…will go down to hell, unless they repent..."

...and FAIR's response...

Was he not denying his people freedom of thought, speech, and association, and trying to impose thought control by discouraging reading?

I think the answer is a qualified no. He knew that people could think what they wished and that in the street, over the back fence, and after meetings they would talk about everything under the sun. They could read whatever they wished. Furthermore, they could smoke and drink, violate the Sabbath day, and indulge in premarital or extramarital sexual activity. He could not by fiat stop any of this. What he could do was to warn.

However...what about this statement by Dallin H. Oaks, which seems to support the idea that ideas SHOULD be censored if they are not faith promoting?

"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. . . . Evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As President George F. Richards of the Council of the Twelve said in a conference address in April 1947: 'When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' (CR April 1947, p. 24)" (Dallin H. Oaks, Reading Church History, Ninth Annual Church Educational System religious Educators' Symposium, August 16, 1985, Brigham Young University.)

It is wrong to criticize a leader for something, even if the accusation is true, in order to ensure they do not lose any influence?

[Guest Unorthodox]

Something else he said caught my attention...

Those who left the Church seldom rejected faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, he said in 1869. It was seldom doctrinal differences that caused apostasy.

Of course he follows this up with his #3 reason for apostacy...

3. Breaking the commandments of God

"We know that it is as strict a law of heaven as any other that has been given," he said in 1866, "that the man who enters into this Church, and practices impurity, will lose the Spirit of God, and sooner or later will be opposed to this work." In 1875, he noted

I have heard…that there is a disposition on the part of some to yield to the temptations that surround us, young men and young women falling away and being guilty of unchastity, young men going to billiard saloons, gambling saloons, drinking saloons, indulging in the habits of smoking and swearing; and not only young persons but men of mature years. I am surprised at it. I am surprised that Latter-day Saints should have so little strength of character, and so easily yield to these wicked influences."...

And here is FAIR's response:

Was he fair to charge the apostates with adultery or other sins? Was he guilty of character assassination?

Let's be clear. He was not claiming that each and every apostate was sexually promiscuous. And certainly he knew that infractions of the moral code occurred among the membership of the Church. Yet those who bridle at the allegation, assuming that it could not possibly be true, may be overreacting, for undoubtedly there were instances of immorality among the apostates. Cannon knew them better than modern historians.

But his underlying message was not so much an accusation as a warning. Lower the bars on personal behavior and you are flirting with a loss of faith. Violating the commandments has consequences on the mind and spirit. Those who flout the standards of the Church are very likely to criticize and reject the faith. Familiar with many individual disciplinary cases, Cannon knew the syndrome. He also knew there was an alternate choice called repentance. Modern critics who describe the allegation as a "myth" want to be fair, but they go too far if they deny a chain of cause and effect that often proceeds from certain behaviors to a denial of the faith.

So he appears to be saying that people rarely leave the church for doctrinal reasons...but they leave because of the temptation to sin.

One thing to think about is that in 1875, there were many things about the Church doctrine that were not even questioned because many alleged problems with Church doctrine had not yet surfaced. For example, no one was questioning the ancestry of Native Americans. I am not sure if anyone had started questioning the existence of horses in America before Columbus' arrival...but I am pretty sure that archaelogists had not yet searched for evidence of Nephite civilization and found little or nothing to back up the BoM.

No one was questioning the authenticity of the book of Abraham, because the original scrolls had not yet been found and examined by Egyptologists. No one was questioning the literal interpretation of Genesis, because Darwinism was not yet a popular theory. On that note, other scientific discoveries/theories had not yet put into question many other LDS (and even mainstream Christian) claims. Literacy rates were lower, so less people were actually reading the Bible and comparing it to the Church scriptures to find inconsistencies, while today there are some possible inconsistencies...again they are "alleged" inconsistencies, as FAIR and FARMs are finding ways to explain the Bible in a way that is consistent with LDS doctrine.

Polygamy had not yet been banned by the Church, so those in the Church accepted it. Today some people who learn more about it find it hard to deal with that controversial past.

So...of course there were less people leaving the Church for doctrinal reasons in 1875...most of the alleged problems with Church doctrine (and even mainstream Christianity) had not yet surfaced.

But now they have surfaced.

It is probably true that MANY people left the Church in order to sin back then. It is probably still common today, as most people are not amateur religious scholars like those of us that visit sites such as FAIR...most people don't research their religion so deeply.

But today, I would argue that there is a larger number of people who actually do leave for doctrinal reasons...which is basically the reason that FAIR and FARMS exist...they are attempting to provide us with explanations for these alleged problems. And that number is growing because the Internet is making such research easier to find and easier to read...people don't need to dig up historical archives and make sense of complex documents anymore, as websites (many of which are considered anti-mormon) provide the information in plain english...and alot of that information is true, though it often needs to be read critically and in the correct context (but as Dallin Oaks said, it does not matter if it is true...we should avoid reading it).

I know many ex-Mormons or inactive Mormons who do not "sin" any more than the average Mormon.

Many avoid alcohol, drugs and even coffee. Mainly because they never aquired a taste for it. Its funny to read some ex-mormon message boards where people talk about how awful beer and coffee taste, and how they don't drink it.

Many stay married. Many stay members of the Church to keep their believing spouses (or parents) happy, and some even continue to pretend believing in the Church and remain active to avoid conflict.

I encourage you to learn more about this phenomenon, and here is a good place to read about it:

The Paradox of the Faithful Unbeliever

Some even consider their pursuit of truth to be more moral than simply accepting Church claims at face value.

I admit that some are "victims" of anti-mormon literature, which can contain false or exaggerated information. But many of them soon learn that these "Ed Decker" style anti-mormons are nut cases, and after checking the facts realize that while the anti-mormons were decieving them, there was SOME truth in their claims...which leads the "victim" to investigate more moderate sources...or even to visit FAIR to get both sides of the story where they can make an informed decision to stay or leave. And many decide to leave. Actually, in my opinion, I think the existence of FAIR helps create more skepticism in LDS claims, leading to more ex-Mormons or at least more "New Order Mormons", because the anti-mormon claims are posted on their website, and often the responses to them from FAIR (or FARMS) are not enough to silence people's doubts (that is just my personal opinion...it is possible FAIR is saving souls).

It would be interesting to have numbers of apostates, with their reasons for leaving...but that is not really possible considering most apostates, such as inactives, never took their names off Church records and cannot be identified.

[Ray]

Regarding #4 on his list of reasons for apostacy...

First, here is what he said (abridged):

4. Criticizing the presiding authorities of the Church

Those who left the Church seldom rejected faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, he said in 1869. It was seldom doctrinal differences that caused apostasy. The main issue was always the authority of Church leaders. "This is the point that the adversary always aims at.…there is no doubt but what the rock upon which they split was the question of the right and authority of those presiding over them...

...Admittedly Church leaders were "fallible." Only Christ was perfect. "Nevertheless, God has chosen these men." God will judge them. He "does not give the authority to judge and condemn to man, only in the regularly constituted councils of the Church; and those who lift their voices and their heels against the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I tell you today, as a servant of God…will go down to hell, unless they repent..."

...and FAIR's response...

Was he not denying his people freedom of thought, speech, and association, and trying to impose thought control by discouraging reading?

I think the answer is a qualified no. He knew that people could think what they wished and that in the street, over the back fence, and after meetings they would talk about everything under the sun. They could read whatever they wished. Furthermore, they could smoke and drink, violate the Sabbath day, and indulge in premarital or extramarital sexual activity. He could not by fiat stop any of this. What he could do was to warn.

However...what about this statement by Dallin H. Oaks, which seems to support the idea that ideas SHOULD be censored if they are not faith promoting?

"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. . . . Evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As President George F. Richards of the Council of the Twelve said in a conference address in April 1947: 'When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' (CR April 1947, p. 24)" (Dallin H. Oaks, Reading Church History, Ninth Annual Church Educational System religious Educators' Symposium, August 16, 1985, Brigham Young University.)

It is wrong to criticize a leader for something, even if the accusation is true, in order to ensure they do not lose any influence?

If you’ll go back and read the comments in your first quote, from point #4, you should be able to see that President Cannon was basically saying that we should not look for faults in people, because if that is our focus we will find them, because none of us are perfect and all of us have some faults.

Instead, we should look at others, even our priesthood leaders, as fallible people who are prone to making some mistakes, while trying to love and support them.

And btw, point #4 also addresses the idea of what will happen to all people found to be guilty of serious offenses, unless we [and they] repent.

[Guest Unorthodox]

If you’ll go back and read the comments in your first quote, from point #4, you should be able to see that President Cannon was basically saying that we should not look for faults in people, because if that is our focus we will find them, because none of us are perfect and all of us have some faults.

Instead, we should look at others, even our priesthood leaders, as fallible people who are prone to making some mistakes, while trying to love and support them.

And btw, point #4 also addresses the idea of what will happen to all people found to be guilty of serious offenses, unless we [and they] repent.

Of course Church leaders are answerable only to God for their imperfections, just as we all are.

An I agree that we should not look for minor faults in Church leaders.

My point is that if the criticism is true, it should not be ignored if the fault is significant enough to make you question your beliefs. I think it is healthy to hold your beliefs up to scrutiny...we should not just have blind faith.

For example, if particular belief can be traced back to what a Prophet said, which can then be traced to a character flaw in the Prophet (as opposed to true revelation)...then one should feel free to criticize that belief...and if it leads to apostacy, at least he or she was honest to himself/herself.

3. Breaking the commandments of God

"We know that it is as strict a law of heaven as any other that has been given," he said in 1866, "that the man who enters into this Church, and practices impurity, will lose the Spirit of God, and sooner or later will be opposed to this work." In 1875, he noted

I have heard…that there is a disposition on the part of some to yield to the temptations that surround us, young men and young women falling away and being guilty of unchastity, young men going to billiard saloons, gambling saloons, drinking saloons, indulging in the habits of smoking and swearing; and not only young persons but men of mature years. I am surprised at it. I am surprised that Latter-day Saints should have so little strength of character, and so easily yield to these wicked influences."...

Something else I find interesting.

In the early days of the Church, many people refused to follow Brigham Young (such as those that joined the RLDS). Many of those people did not agree with Polygamy (I wonder why Emma Smith never went to Utah?).

So, ironically, some of the first "apostates" were people who left the Church because they considered Polygamy immoral.

That is, from their point of view, they left the Church so they could STOP sinning.

(Now...think about that in relation to the possibility that Celestial Polygamy...at least in the case of widowers remarrying in the temple...still exists today. Can you see why someone who considers polygamy to be a sin might leave a Church that still appears to be practicing Celestial Polygamy?)

[Ray]

I know many ex-Mormons or inactive Mormons who do not "sin" any more than the average Mormon.

I think it would help you to re-read this:

…his [President Cannon’s] underlying message was not so much an accusation as a warning. Lower the bars on personal behavior and you are flirting with a loss of faith. Violating the commandments has consequences on the mind and spirit. Those who flout the standards of the Church are very likely to criticize and reject the faith. Familiar with many individual disciplinary cases, Cannon knew the syndrome. He also knew there was an alternate choice called repentance. Modern critics who describe the allegation as a "myth" want to be fair, but they go too far if they deny a chain of cause and effect that often proceeds from certain behaviors to a denial of the faith.

One thing to think about is that in 1875, there were many things about the Church doctrine that were not even questioned because many alleged problems with Church doctrine had not yet surfaced.

Why did you start with 1875, as if there weren’t any questions or problems before then?

Don’t you realize there were problems from the day Joseph Smith began to share the stories of his visions? Perhaps you need to read some more about the history of President Cannon, to see what he saw in his life and understood.

…today, I would argue that there is a larger number of people who actually do leave for doctrinal reasons…

I admit that some are "victims" of anti-mormon literature, which can contain false or exaggerated information… but many of them soon learn… after checking the facts… that while the anti-mormons were deceiving them, there was SOME truth in their claims...which leads the "victim" to investigate more moderate sources...or even to visit FAIR to get both sides of the story where they can make an informed decision to stay or leave. And many decide to leave.

Would it really surprise you to know that many people have seen all of the anti-“Mormon” information you have seen while also finding a way to see that the Church is still true and get stronger?

I think that’s the thing I really have trouble understanding about apostates. They think they have found some information which compels them to leave the Church, while other people learn the same things and get stronger… which is why I try to recommend that people read more information from our Lord’s prophets and apostles, who certainly understand all the problems.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Why did you start with 1875, as if there weren’t any questions or problems before then?

Don’t you realize there were problems from the day Joseph Smith began to share the stories of his visions? Perhaps you need to read some more about the history of President Cannon, to see what he saw in his life and how he understood what he saw.

I mentioned 1875, because that was the date the document by Cannon had been written. Of course there were problems before that date, and from his writing we know how he interpreted those things. I am just questioning whether or not his interpretation if valid today, even if it was valid in the 19th Century.

Would it really surprise you to know that many people have seen all of the anti-“Mormon” information you have seen while finding a way to see the truth.

I think that’s the thing I really have trouble understanding about apostates. They think they have found some information which compels them to leave the Church, while other people learn the same things and get stronger… which is why I try to always recommend that people read more information from our Lord’s prophets and apostles, to see how they got through those problems in their lives and how they understood what they saw.

As I mentioned above:

I admit that some are "victims" of anti-mormon literature, which can contain false or exaggerated information. But many of them soon learn that these "Ed Decker" style anti-mormons are nut cases, and after checking the facts realize that while the anti-mormons were decieving them, there was SOME truth in their claims...which leads the "victim" to investigate more moderate sources...or even to visit FAIR to get both sides of the story where they can make an informed decision to stay or leave. And many decide to leave.

I should also add that many decide to stay.

Some people read these anti-mormon claims, then read the FAIR reply, and believe it...either because it makes sense or because they so desperately WANT to believe.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I think alot of people decide to leave (or go inactive) because the apologetics are not adequate to explain the alleged doctrinal or historical problem...which is why I am not sure if FAIR's research is doing more to help Mormons or Anti-Mormons.

[Ray]

Some people read these anti-mormon claims, then read the FAIR reply, and believe it...either because it makes sense or because they so desperately WANT to believe.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I think alot of people decide to leave (or go inactive) because the apologetics are not adequate to explain the alleged doctrinal or historical problem...which is why I am not sure if FAIR's research is doing more to help Mormons or Anti-Mormons.

Do you even realize that you are NOT making faith promoting statements, and showing so little faith in God?

And btw, the plans of God will not be frustrated, and His plan was to test us by Faith.

[Guest Unorthodox]

<div class='quotemain'>

Some people read these anti-mormon claims, then read the FAIR reply, and believe it...either because it makes sense or because they so desperately WANT to believe.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I think alot of people decide to leave (or go inactive) because the apologetics are not adequate to explain the alleged doctrinal or historical problem...which is why I am not sure if FAIR's research is doing more to help Mormons or Anti-Mormons.

Do you even realize that you are NOT making faith promoting statements, and showing so little faith in God?

I am not trying to be faith promoting. Nor do I believe in the Judeo-Christian God. So I am not sure why you asked me that

I have been trying to help people understand apostates, which is the title of this thread.

I consider Cannon's explanation for apostacy to be incomplete, so I was adding my own comments.

And btw, the plans of God will not be frustrated, and His plan was to test us by Faith.

That certainly is the orthodox LDS point of view concerning the meaning of life.

[Jason]

Unorthodox has pretty well spelled out everything I would say.

But I'd like to throw in a couple of thoughts as well:

#1. Associating with anti-Mormons or disloyal Mormons.

Yeah, wouldn't want to see if they've actually got a real reason for being bitter. Better to judge them without asking them.

#2. Reading anti-Mormon publications.

The best way to know one's adversary is to understand how they think. Reading anti material was not responsible for me leaving. In fact, it solidified my beliefs for quite some time.

I left due to official Church publications, not anti garbage.

#3. Breaking the Commandments of God.

Never was a problem. I always found following the Mormon Moral Code to be pretty easy. When you're raised that way, there is no other way, ya know?

#4. Criticizing the presiding authorities of the Church.

Wasn't a factor for a long time. It wasn't until I actually met some of the GA's that I began to realize that these guys weren't very inspired. Just nice guys (generally) who had a good business sense about them.

I'd also like to mention this from the article:

In early 1866, Cannon noted the tendency of apostates to lash back at the Church: "Men may belong to any of the so-called Christian sects of the day," he said, "and they may renounce their belief or dissolve their connection with the religious bodies of which they are members, and we do not see that virulence, that spirit and disposition to seek for the blood of those with whom they were formerly connected, manifested on their part, which are manifested by those who have been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and have apostatized therefrom."

Now, I've seen ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-Seventh Day Advents and ex-Catholics who were just as bitter, just as violent towards their former faiths as I have among the ex-mormons.

I think it's a tendency among the once faithful to feel cheated by their former faith. It's not unique to Mormonism by any means.

[Ray]

"If we had the power to count all those who have started out to achieve this great salvation and glory," said President George Q. Cannon in 1895, "we would be astonished at the number that have fallen away. … Many men whom I knew in boyhood in the Church have gone into oblivion. Whole families have disappeared, and their names are no longer numbered among the saints of God. Instead of having a posterity that shall be numbered with the righteous, their children are unknown among us." Cannon knew what he was talking about. Since his conversion to Mormonism more than a half century earlier, he had accumulated many experiences with apostates from the faith.

And yet, despite all the apostates that President Cannon saw, and knew, and understood, he still remained a faithful and strong member of the Church.

Amazing. Isn’t it.

Heh, oh, but as Unorthodox would say to explain it all away, he “desperately WANTED” to believe it... inferring that that is one of the reasons we do.

Please, people. Give it some more thought.

[Aristotle]

There are some who are active in the Church who are not active in the gospel; some are active in the gospel, but not active in the Church. I think some members use the term "apostate" too quickly, to condemn those who are not on "the same page". Members of the Church are on a different level of activity in the gospel and in the Church. Apostates who are in "open rebellion" is a different matter.

As far as criticizing our leaders...this presents a conflict. The contradiction is between confessing a grievance and being silenced.

[Guest Unorthodox]

"If we had the power to count all those who have started out to achieve this great salvation and glory," said President George Q. Cannon in 1895, "we would be astonished at the number that have fallen away. … Many men whom I knew in boyhood in the Church have gone into oblivion. Whole families have disappeared, and their names are no longer numbered among the saints of God. Instead of having a posterity that shall be numbered with the righteous, their children are unknown among us." Cannon knew what he was talking about. Since his conversion to Mormonism more than a half century earlier, he had accumulated many experiences with apostates from the faith.

And yet, despite all the apostates that President Cannon saw, and knew, and understood, he still remained a faithful and strong member of the Church.

Amazing. Isn’t it.

He is an example of someone who encountered anti-mormons and it strengthened his testimony, which I already agreed is something that commonly happened. That is why persecuting people's religions is a very ineffective way of opposing them. Persecution only serves to strengthen the beliefs of the victim.

Heh, oh, but as Unorthodox would say to explain it all away, he “desperately WANTED” to believe it... inferring that all of us must too.

I didn't say that Cannon desperately wanted to believe it. I don't know why Cannon was able to maintain his faith. He might have had that "persecution complex" which strenghtens faith...or it might just be that scientific theories (such as Darwinism) and anti-mormon claims had not been as strong or popular as they are today, allowing him to easily dismiss them.

When I made that comment about people desperately wanting to believe, it was in reference to people who read apologetics.

I said:

Some people read these anti-mormon claims, then read the FAIR reply, and believe it...either because it makes sense or because they so desperately WANT to believe.

I was not saying that most apologetics make sense, nor was I saying that most people accept weak apologetics because they are desperate to maintain their faith.

If I was asked which reason is more common, I wouldn't be able to tell you, because I don't know.

And I did not mean "desperately" to sound pathetic.

I think that people who have alot of emotional investment in something like the LDS Church will try to hold on to that faith...desperately...In the same way that I desperately will try to protect the things that I value.

[Ray]

There are some who are active in the Church who are not active in the gospel; some are active in the gospel, but not active in the Church. I think some members use the term "apostate" too quickly, to condemn those who are not on "the same page". Members of the Church are on a different level of activity in the gospel and in the Church. Apostates who are in "open rebellion" is a different matter.

I believe the article gives a good description of what an apostate really is, and it is not simply someone who is "inactive".

As far as criticizing our leaders...this presents a conflict. The contradiction is between confessing a grievance and being silenced.

There is a difference between "criticizing our leaders" and "reporting problems with a leader to the proper authorities."

[Guest Unorthodox]

There are some who are active in the Church who are not active in the gospel; some are active in the gospel, but not active in the Church. I think some members use the term "apostate" too quickly, to condemn those who are not on "the same page".

Good point.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

"If we had the power to count all those who have started out to achieve this great salvation and glory," said President George Q. Cannon in 1895, "we would be astonished at the number that have fallen away. … Many men whom I knew in boyhood in the Church have gone into oblivion. Whole families have disappeared, and their names are no longer numbered among the saints of God. Instead of having a posterity that shall be numbered with the righteous, their children are unknown among us." Cannon knew what he was talking about. Since his conversion to Mormonism more than a half century earlier, he had accumulated many experiences with apostates from the faith.

And yet, despite all the apostates that President Cannon saw, and knew, and understood, he still remained a faithful and strong member of the Church.

Amazing. Isn’t it.

He is an example of someone who encountered anti-mormons and it strengthened his testimony, which I already agreed is something that commonly happened. That is why persecuting people's religions is a very ineffective way of opposing them. Persecution only serves to strengthen the beliefs of the victim.

Heh, oh, but as Unorthodox would say to explain it all away, he “desperately WANTED” to believe it... inferring that all of us must too.

I didn't say that Cannon desperately wanted to believe it. I don't know why Cannon was able to maintain his faith. He might have had that "persecution complex" which strenghtens faith...or it might just be that scientific theories (such as Darwinism) and anti-mormon claims had not been as strong or popular as they are today, allowing him to easily dismiss them.

When I made that comment about people desperately wanting to believe, it was in reference to people who read apologetics.

I said:

Some people read these anti-mormon claims, then read the FAIR reply, and believe it...either because it makes sense or because they so desperately WANT to believe.

I was not saying that most apologetics make sense, nor was I saying that most people accept weak apologetics because they are desperate to maintain their faith.

If I was asked which reason is more common, I wouldn't be able to tell you, because I don't know.

And I did not mean "desperately" to sound pathetic.

I think that people who have alot of emotional investment in something like the LDS Church will try to hold on to that faith...desperately...In the same way that I desperately will try to protect the things that I value.

You still don't seem to be allowing for the fact that many of us remain in the Church because we know for ourselves it is true... despite what other people have or have had to say about it.

And until YOU know who to listen to, you will never know who to believe.

[Jason]

"If we had the power to count all those who have started out to achieve this great salvation and glory," said President George Q. Cannon in 1895, "we would be astonished at the number that have fallen away. … Many men whom I knew in boyhood in the Church have gone into oblivion. Whole families have disappeared, and their names are no longer numbered among the saints of God. Instead of having a posterity that shall be numbered with the righteous, their children are unknown among us." Cannon knew what he was talking about. Since his conversion to Mormonism more than a half century earlier, he had accumulated many experiences with apostates from the faith.

And yet, despite all the apostates that President Cannon saw, and knew, and understood, he still remained a faithful and strong member of the Church.

Amazing. Isn’t it.

Heh, oh, but as Unorthodox would say to explain it all away, he “desperately WANTED” to believe it... inferring that all of us must too.

Please, people. Give it some more thought.

But Ray, when you objectively look at the facts, you choose to believe in spite of the facts. There is zero evidence that the Book of Mormon is real history. FARMS and FAIR pretend like there's stuff, but they're grasping at air trying to placate the thinkers. The evidence is only present to those who want to see it.

Emperor's Clothes.

[Guest Unorthodox]

I believe the article gives a good description of what an apostate really is, and it is not simply someone who is "inactive".

I think it is clear that Cannon is referring to Ex-Mormons, not true Apostates (Sons of Perdition).

In my opinion, LDS doctrine seems to indicate that a Son of Perdition must have a full knowledge of the truth and actively reject it...basically rebel against God and Christ. The problem is that many Ex-Mormons never had such full knowledge. If they had full knowledge, it would not have been in their interests to leave the Church. With full knowledge, they would have KNOWN they would go to Outer Darkness if they left the Church. Therefore, they would have had to be insane or masochistic to leave the Church while having full knowledge of its truth.

And if they were insane, it is always possible that God would pardon them for reasons of insanity. Which tells me that there will be no true Sons of Perdition except the original ones that allied with Satan in the pre-existence. Just my liberal interpretation of doctrine B)

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

"If we had the power to count all those who have started out to achieve this great salvation and glory," said President George Q. Cannon in 1895, "we would be astonished at the number that have fallen away. … Many men whom I knew in boyhood in the Church have gone into oblivion. Whole families have disappeared, and their names are no longer numbered among the saints of God. Instead of having a posterity that shall be numbered with the righteous, their children are unknown among us." Cannon knew what he was talking about. Since his conversion to Mormonism more than a half century earlier, he had accumulated many experiences with apostates from the faith.

And yet, despite all the apostates that President Cannon saw, and knew, and understood, he still remained a faithful and strong member of the Church.

Amazing. Isn’t it.

Heh, oh, but as Unorthodox would say to explain it all away, he “desperately WANTED” to believe it... inferring that all of us must too.

Please, people. Give it some more thought.

But Ray, when you objectively look at the facts, you choose to believe in spite of the facts. There is zero evidence that the Book of Mormon is real history. FARMS and FAIR pretend like there's stuff, but they're grasping at air trying to placate the thinkers. The evidence is only present to those who want to see it.

Emperor's Clothes.

Hogwash. I know the Book of Mormon is true because I have read it and received a testimony about it from God. Yet you try to tell me that God has not told me what He has told me, while suggesting that I should listen to other people... which simply shows that you have no faith in God.

[BenRaines]

I have really enjoyed the postings in this forum. Shows that people can share how they feel and what they believe without all the name calling we have seen recently. Great forum.

[Guest Unorthodox]

You still don't seem to be allowing for the fact that many of us remain in the Church because we know for ourselves it is true... despite what other people have or have had to say about it.

And until YOU know who to listen to, you will never know who to believe.

I already said that some LDS people (and I am even willing to say that might be most LDS people) who encounter anti-mormon claims can be persuaded by FAIR's apologetics because they honestly think that the apologetics make logical sense.

By the way, in many cases, they do make sense, especially when arguing against the Christian anti-Mormons who say the LDS Church is in conflict with the Bible. I personally don't think the LDS Church is in conflict with the Bible, because the Bible can be interpreted in many ways to support almost any position.

Now, I never said a person NEEDED apologetics to overcome anti-Mormon claims. Of course there are people (perhaps yourself) who have had spiritual experiences that tell them that no matter how logical an anti-mormon claim might sound, the Church is true because they do not rely on logic, but their spiritual experience.

But on the opposite side of the coin, I can use a slight variation of your own words to support apostacy as a legitimate position:

You still don't seem to be allowing for the fact that many of us remain in the Church because we know for ourselves it is true... despite what other people have or have had to say about it.

And until YOU know who to listen to, you will never know who to believe.

You still don't seem to be allowing for the fact that many of us leave in the Church because we honestly believe that it is not true...despite what other people have or have had to say about it.

And until YOU are honest with yourself, you will never know what to believe.

[Aristotle]

Although this is more the exception to the rule, how would one handle a criminal act committed by a priesthood leader?

Are we required to support a leader who exercises unrighteous dominion? Or is it "amen" to the priesthood of that leader?

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

I believe the article gives a good description of what an apostate really is, and it is not simply someone who is "inactive".

I think it is clear that Cannon is referring to Ex-Mormons, not true Apostates (Sons of Perdition).

In my opinion, LDS doctrine seems to indicate that a Son of Perdition must have a full knowledge of the truth and actively reject it...basically rebel against God and Christ. The problem is that many Ex-Mormons never had such full knowledge. If they had full knowledge, it would not have been in their interests to leave the Church. With full knowledge, they would have KNOWN they would go to Outer Darkness if they left the Church. Therefore, they would have had to be insane or masochistic to leave the Church while having full knowledge of its truth.

And if they were insane, it is always possible that God would pardon them for reasons of insanity. Which tells me that there will be no true Sons of Perdition except the original ones that allied with Satan in the pre-existence. Just my liberal interpretation of doctrine B)

There is a difference between an "apostate" and a "son of Perdition".

An apostate is someone who has simply abandoned or "fallen away" from something, while a "son of Perdition" has actually received all knowledge of the truth, at least pertaining to the gospel, and then chosen to work against it.

Or in other words, there will be many apostates in the Terrestrial kingdom simply because they were misled by the teachings of men, while all the sons of Perdition actually knew they were working against God.

You still don't seem to be allowing for the fact that many of us leave in the Church because we honestly believe that it is not true...despite what other people have or have had to say about it.

And until YOU are honest with yourself, you will never know what to believe.

There you go again, inspiring doubt and confusion about God.

And btw, I know that you are wrong on at least some issues because I thoroughly understand those issues and have received testimony from God concerning them, which is the only way I know Who to believe.

Although this is more the exception to the rule, how would one handle a criminal act committed by a priesthood leader?

Are we required to support a leader who exercises unrighteous dominion? Or is it "amen" to the priesthood of that leader?

We should report any seriously inappropriate conduct to the proper authorities, until we are satisfied with the solution.

For instance, if you have a problem with your Bishop, talk to your Bishop about that problem.

If your Bishop doesn't solve that problem, to your mutual satisfaction, then report that problem to the Stake President, to report and discuss the problem.

And then if your Stake President doesn't solve the problem, to your mutual satisfaction, report that problem and the problem with your Bishop to your Area Authority.

Heh, and if the Area Authority doesn't solve the problem, to your mutual satisfaction, then report that problem and the problem with your Stake President and Bishop to the Presidency over the Seventies.

Getting my drift, here?

And btw, if you have to go all the way to the Prophet to solve the problem, and the Prophet doesn't solve the problem, to your mutual satisfaction, look out, cause his Leader will be coming soon!!!

Or in other words, don't resort to murmuring or backstabbing. Just report the problem.

And btw, criminal acts should also be reported to the police, no matter who has broken the law.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Although this is more the exception to the rule, how would one handle a criminal act committed by a priesthood leader?

Are we required to support a leader who exercises unrighteous dominion? Or is it "amen" to the priesthood of that leader?

Of course Priesthood leaders should be criticized if they are committing crimes. It would be silly for anyone to apostacize because their bishop robbed a bank.

Now, if the Church wants to make it an excommunicable offense for us to question a priesthood leader, especially a General Authority, who has NOT committed a crime, or who has not done anything that is against Church policy, then that is fine...a Church can make its own rules.

I am simply saying that Cannon's analysis of apostacy is incomplete and misleading, because it assumes that apostates have done wrong actions...that apostates are not just lacking faith, but that they are immoral.

1. Associating with anti-Mormons or disloyal Mormons - this is not even necessarily wrong if you think of it as "know your enemy" or "keeping an open mind". Ths is not immoral.

2. Reading anti-Mormon publications - again, I see nothing morally wrong in this, for the same reasons as #1, as long as the reading is done critically. This is not immoral.

3. Breaking the commandments of God - I assume Cannon is referring more to moral issues, like adultry, alcoholism, etc. In that case...yes...the apostate is immoral.

However, if the apostate is guilty of breaking the commandment to believe in Yahweh as the one and only God, then it is misleading to portray this apostate as immoral. This apostate is not necessarily immoral, but a skeptic.

4. Criticizing the presiding authorities of the Church - again, if someone loses faith, why not criticize someone who is trying to convince them of something that they belive to be a lie? I would not call that immoral.

Therefore, I think Cannon gave in incomplete picture.

If the apostate is leaving so he can become a murderer, adulterer, thief, alcoholic, etc...then he is indeed immoral.

On the other hand, Cannon fails to state that apostacy is a legitimate life choice for someone who has simply lost faith for intellectual reasons.

[Aristotle]

And btw, if you have to go all the way to the Prophet to solve the problem, and the Prophet doesn't solve the problem, look out, cause his Leader will be coming soon!!!

Haha

Of course Priesthood leaders should be criticized if they are committing crimes. It would be silly for anyone to apostacize because their bishop robbed a bank.

Thanks, Unorthodox.