Apostasy and could it ever apply to us?

[spamlds]

Most of the comments here have dealt with personal apostasy. I think the original question had more to to with a general apostasy, as occurred in the primitive Church. As was mentioned, we have the promise that this is the last dispensation and that the Church will survive to fulfill its prophetic role.

There have been apostasies from the Church. The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ) was one of them. Essentially the Church fractured into two factions, one that considered themselves believers in the doctrines revealed prior to the Nauvoo period, who called themselves "Josephites" and those that accepted the Nauvoo period doctrines, i.e., temple ceremonies, the endowment, celestial marriage, baptism for the dead, etc.

The ironically self-proclaimed "Josephites" actually believed that Joseph Smith began as a prophet, but lost his prophetic mantle. Thirty years or so elapsed before they prevailed upon Joseph Smith, III to take on the job as their spiritual leader.

The "Brighamites" (as they were called by the dissenters who claimed Joseph lost his prophetic calling) believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet until his death and accepted all the doctrines he taught. The believed that Joseph transmitted the keys of the kingdom to the Twelve and they went West to the Valley.

There were other schisms that occurred along the way. I don't think we're immune from that tendency today. There are patriotic saints who build their lives around the words of Ezra Taft Benson's anti-communist rhetoric who accuse the living prophet and church leaders of leading us astray. There is a growing cadre of members who feel that the Church's teachings about gay marriage are not modern enough and they're leaving. Perhaps there will come other schisms over the law of consecration when it is implemented and a large number of people can't qualify to enter it because they don't pay tithing, they're too deep in debt, and they are enslaved to various behavior that keep them out of the temple.

As I have studied the period during the years between Joseph Smith's death and the reorganization of the First Presidency, I am amazed at the sifting that took place among the members of the Church. The only real way to tell who to follow was by the Spirit of God, because the precedents had not been set at the time. There was ambiguity. The ambiguity was a test. The Lord wanted to identify those who had taken the Holy Spirit to be their guide and have them build up his kingdom. Today we are fortunate that we have precedent, along with the same Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, I'd have to say that large-scale apostasy is always a possibility, but so long as we remember three points that the prophets and apostles in our day have taught, we'll be safe.

1. The President of the Church will not be permitted to lead us astray. Follow the Prophet.

2. Follow the majority of the 12 Apostles.

3. Stay where the records of the Church are maintained. The Lord will never permit the records of the Church to fall into the hands of another people.

[pam]

No my OP was concerning personal apostasy and how even criticizing church leaders and finding fault with the church/leaders/members can lead to a personal apostasy.

[Mute]

Many of the people I have observed on this site, who have expressed discontent in the lds faith are usually just venting. Some of them have talked about wanting to give up because of a personal experience or expressing discontent in a church policy but a lot of people who simply express discontent go inactive or go to another ward. They don't usually leave the lds faith over it.

I've talked with hundreds of former lds in the past. In talking with them, I found that they never listed just one reason for why they ultimately chose to leave the lds faith. It was almost always a variety of reasons including any reasons they may not have shared with me. Everyone's experiences were different but I did notice similarities. People often expressed experiences that caused them doubt or disbelief as well as experiences that simply made them unhappy in the lds faith.

Usually, people described their lack of belief being the key factor leading to their ultimate decision to leave. For some of these people, it is possible that their discontent did originate from a past experience with a member but I do not believe that their discontent with a member is the ultimate reason for why the vast majority of people left the lds faith. I believe it is because they lost belief in it.

In many of these situations, the person often did express hurt feelings or feelings of mistrust but ultimately they said they left because they didn't believe in it. Usually it wasn't that they had a problem with doctrine. That doesn't mean they didn't have problems with doctrine but that it usually was not the ultimate reason for leaving but rather a lack of belief. Unless a person joins another Christian faith or religion, I can't see doctrine often being the ultimate reason for leaving. I might not have a problem with a doctrine that said I will turn into a transformer when I die. It might even be appealing to me to believe that but ultimately a lack of belief is what would cause me to stray from that.

How can I say this person left for reasons they don't state but instead state they left for other reasons? Is that not what those who seek to attack the lds faith do? They say things such as "the lds are not going to teach you what they really believe so let me tell you what they really believe". If you were to tell someone considering removing their name that they weren't leaving for the reasons they say, you would possibly ruin any chance of further relationship with them. I'm not saying anyone in this thread has said that those who left do not leave for the reasons they express but I have heard statements commonly used such as people really leave to sin or for various other reasons that I've never heard expressed by those who left. So I thought I'd answer that statement before it was brought up.

I'm not ever going to judge these people's reasons for leaving the same as I wouldn't criticize someone's reasons for believing but I do know that very few had their name removed solely because they were unhappy with a member or had a bad experience in the church. Many people who simply have a bad experience in the church just go inactive. Most of the people I've met who had their name removed disbelieve in the doctrine. Some join other religions/faiths because they believe the lds doctrines are incorrect. Others simply lose belief in all religious books. Ultimately, they no longer believe in the doctrine.

If someone still believed in the doctrine, why would they go through the trouble of leaving when they could just go inactive or go to another ward?

Edited April 14, 2011 by Mute

[Traveler]

No my OP was concerning personal apostasy and how even criticizing church leaders and finding fault with the church/leaders/members can lead to a personal apostasy.

Pam, I agree - I believe finding fault is described in the Book of Mormon as murmuring. But I think it goes a little more than finding fault to ascribing blame. Perhaps to you they are the same - regardless I still agree.

One of the things I find interesting is whenever I have observed anyone “draw” a line between the good people and the bad people it seems that the one drawing the line always does so to insure they are on the side of the line with the good people and someone they intend to criticize is on the side with the bad people. With this in mind and a reference to Jesus when he drew a line between his good apostles and the bad apostle - the good apostles all asked, concerning who was the bad apostle, “L-rd is it I?”

The Traveler

[Guest mormonmusic]

I've heard the maxim "The Church is Perfect but the people aren't" many times.

Frankly, it can sound like an institutional license to do ANYTHING TO ANYONE at any time, and still expect the person to show up bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and ready for service the next day. It can seem grossly unfair to the person who is hurting and has been wronged.

Although leaders are inspired, and are to be listened to and respected, this doesn't absolve them of apologizing or trying to make amends for their mistakes - for their own sake. To apologize and make right clear errors is the Christlike response to making a mistake, and one that I think testifies of the divine commission our Church broadcasts to its members. AS leaders, we have to act consistent with our priniples or natural laws say people will not trust us or follow us.

Remember, testimonies can be fragile things. There is no objective evidence of what we believe -- it all starts with faith -- and as a leader, I never want to be responsible for hurting the faith of others due to unrestituted, clear mistakes I may make.

When leaders feel absolved of this responsibility due to the perfection argument, they jeopardize their own Christlike character. I've seen this from both sides -- the offending leader, and the hurting follower perspective.

Edited April 16, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Suzie]

I believe some members have a very narrow concept about what apostasy is and they see any questioning of a past or present leader's view on a particular topic and any disagreement with such view as "the person going towards the road of apostasy".

To be honest, and this is just my opinion, it scares me when I see people reacting like that. It scares me because I believe that even though leaders may be inspired (not always, not every time, not at every minute, not everywhere) it is OUR responsibility to know if the things we are taught come from the Lord and they are His will. Hence, prayer is such an important tool to receive confirmation of these things and this step should never, ever be skipped.

IMO.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Suzie

[Elphaba]

I have not talked to hundreds of former LDS as Mute has, but I have talked to dozens, and I agree with him that there are often a number of reasons someone leaves, but ultimately, for the majority of these people, it all boiled down to a profound inability to gain a testimony, despite desperate attempts to do so. With these people, what other members did had little or nothing to do with it.

When they did complain about other members it was usually after the fact in that those particular people were ostracized by them, including beloved family members, which was extremely painful to them. Some of them saw their marriages fail because of it, and were extremely critical of their spouse's decisions to end them.

I'm not saying criticizing the leaders never leads to apostacy, as I think I've seen it. I say "I think" because I don't know all the details, but when I was active I knew one member who left who was extremely critical of the leadership (this was in the '70s and his criticism was about the racial ban), and later another who constantly criticized our bishop (which shocked me because no one criticized the bishop out loud, but more so because it was unwarranted. In fact, in retrospect I've often wondered if this person weren't mentally ill because much of what he said was so bizarre, but I really don't know.)

I met every single person who left the Church for disbelief on the internet, so obviously, it's possible some of them lied; however, given it was also the only reason I left, I believe most of them told the truth.

In the same venues I also met some people who it wouldn't surprise me had started on the road to apostasy by being critical of the leadership. A few of them could not write one word without bitterness dripping from it. I found it extremely off-putting and eventually I just ignored them.

So, while I believe that criticizing the leaders can lead to apostasy, I also think more people leave from disbelief than most members recognize; however, it's been two decades since I've been in the pews, so maybe more members realize it than I think.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Over at The Book of Mormon Musical Response thread, in this post MOE linked to an article at SLATE about the musical. I was reading the comments to that article, and found the following, written, ironically, by someone who called himself "John Doe":

As someone who was raised in the church (and left) my main beef with Mormonism has to do with the leadership of the church . . . .

The commenter's main criticism is about how the leadership portrays the Church's history, (something about which I disagree with him), and I was struck by how timely it was to this thread.

I won't link to it as I'm concerned it would violate the forum's rules; however, if you want to read it for yourself it's not too far down on the first page of comments.

Elphaba

[Backroads]

I believe some members have a very narrow concept about what apostasy is and they see any questioning of a past or present leader's view on a particular topic and any disagreement with such view as "the person going towards the road of apostasy".

To be honest, and this is just my opinion, it scares me when I see people reacting like that. It scares me because I believe that even though leaders may be inspired (not always, not every time, not at every minute, not everywhere) it is OUR responsibility to know if the things we are taught come from the Lord and they are His will. Hence, prayer is such an important tool to receive confirmation of these things and this step should never, ever be skipped.

IMO.

I would say that leaving the church for disbelief is a perfectly good reason (and I don't know if I consider disbelief apostasy. To me, apostasy just sounds so... bad. But "I just don't believe this, sorry folks" and peacefully leaving is about as gentle and kind as it gets).

But I wonder if this is where some of the bad blood ugly leaving comes from where church leaders are criticized. Sally doesn't really have a testimony for herself, so she clings to the church leaders in desperation, not willing/unable to take her own spirituality into her own hands. Church leader does something she doesn't like. Last thread is broken, and Sally leaves the church, very upset.

Maybe some of you former Mormons could explain this idea? I've seen former/doubtful Mormons who are very critical of the common statements that our leaders are not always inspired, are imperfect, just people, etc. They say that we're making excuses for them. I get the impression that we are supposed to have 24/7/365 inspired leaders or no inspiration at all. What's the mindset behind that criticism?

As for the whole "getting offended" idea, I love reading these statements that many people don't leave the church because they're offended (and I think I've seen a few talks to that effect). I think it's a lot more respectful of people to assume they're not being petty and bitter.

[Suzie]

I would say that leaving the church for disbelief is a perfectly good reason (and I don't know if I consider disbelief apostasy. To me, apostasy just sounds so... bad. But "I just don't believe this, sorry folks" and peacefully leaving is about as gentle and kind as it gets).

It depends on your definition of apostasy. From the dictionary:

Apostasy: The abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

So based on this definition, if a person doesn't believe in what the Church teaches they are apostatizing. However, the definition the Church uses could be different from this one.

But I wonder if this is where some of the bad blood ugly leaving comes from where church leaders are criticized. Sally doesn't really have a testimony for herself, so she clings to the church leaders in desperation, not willing/unable to take her own spirituality into her own hands. Church leader does something she doesn't like. Last thread is broken, and Sally leaves the church, very upset.

People tend to put others (specially those in authority) in pedestals and when they realize these people are just humans like anyone else, the disappointment is huge. Sometimes when I see members getting all hyper and rushing to shake the hands of a GA in a meeting, I wonder what is happening. Are we somewhat, somehow, sometimes indirectly seeing our leaders as Mormon celebrities (and with that, we imagine them to be in a certain way, etc without really knowing them personally?)

I think that's one of the reasons we're asked not to take pictures with GA. Members tend to put them way on top and I know because one of my associates (member of the Church) dealt in businesses with a couple of them before they became GA and he is so upset that they can be GA and doing business he personally considers controversial or dishonest. Now, don't take me wrong....I think is good to look up to someone (who better than Christ?) however it doesn't have to become an obsession or have the unrealistic expectation that leaders don't commit mistakes. They do commit mistakes just like anyone else (I do notice though some members have a problem with some members saying this). It's strange to me. Stating that they are imperfect, doesn't change the fact of who they are or what they have been called to do. We have enough examples with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

We need to be careful that in our desire to respect and admire our leaders, we don't become somewhat worshipers of men. President Hinckley once said that adulation was something hard to deal with and his wife always kept him grounded, with the feet on the earth.

Maybe some of you former Mormons could explain this idea? I've seen former/doubtful Mormons who are very critical of the common statements that our leaders are not always inspired, are imperfect, just people, etc. They say that we're making excuses for them. I get the impression that we are supposed to have 24/7/365 inspired leaders or no inspiration at all. What's the mindset behind that criticism?

Well, I am not a former Mormon. However, the mindset behind the statement (I don't believe it to be a criticism) is the wrong idea (that many members have) that every word that comes out from a church leader is inspired or doctrinal. This is false. Even the Church, when they made a press release about what is considered Church doctrine, they were sure to state that sometimes General Authorities give statements that represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. So yes, not every word or every time a leader speaks has to be inspired or a commandment for us to follow. This fact (the fact that leaders aren't necessarily inspired 24/7 or speak doctrine every time they talk) does not diminish their calling.

Personally, because of my career background I believe in well-intentioned questioning. I think is healthy and I think is important for me to seek the answers for the things I may not understand or agree. I understand also that not everyone is the same. Most of all, I believe there is only one person who can never disappoint me and that's why He is the only one I put my trust to...and that's Christ, no men. The rest, I listen, respect, analyze...but Christ is who I look up to and try (in my very, very, very imperfect way) follow his footsteps.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Suzie

[Backroads]

It depends on your definition of apostasy. From the dictionary:

So based on this definition, if a person doesn't believe in what the Church teaches they are apostatizing. However, the definition the Church uses could be different from this one.

People tend to put others (specially those in authority) in pedestals and when they realize these people are just humans like anyone else, the disappointment is huge. Sometimes when I see members getting all hyper and rushing to shake the hands of a GA in a meeting, I wonder what is happening. Are we somewhat, somehow, sometimes indirectly seeing our leaders as Mormon celebrities (and with that, we imagine them to be in a certain way, etc without really knowing them personally?)

I think that's one of the reasons we're asked not to take pictures with GA. Members tend to put them way on top and I know because one of my associates (member of the Church) dealt in businesses with a couple of them before they became GA and he is so upset that they can be GA and doing business he personally considers controversial or dishonest. Now, don't take me wrong....I think is good to look up to someone (who better than Christ?) however it doesn't have to become an obsession or have the unrealistic expectation that leaders don't commit mistakes. They do commit mistakes just like anyone else (I do notice though some members have a problem with some members saying this). It's strange to me. Stating that they are imperfect, doesn't change the fact of who they are or what they have been called to do. We have enough examples with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

We need to be careful that in our desire to respect and admire our leaders, we don't become somewhat worshipers of men. President Hinckley once said that adulation was something hard to deal with and his wife always kept him grounded, with the feet on the earth.

Well, I am not a former Mormon. However, the mindset behind the statement (I don't believe it to be a criticism) is the wrong idea (that many members have) that every word that comes out from a church leader is inspired or doctrinal. This is false. Even the Church, when they made a press release about what is considered Church doctrine, they were sure to state that sometimes General Authorities give statements that represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. So yes, not every word or every time a leader speaks has to be inspired or a commandment for us to follow. This fact (the fact that leaders aren't necessarily inspired 24/7 or speak doctrine every time they talk) does not diminish their calling.

Personally, because of my career background I believe in well-intentioned questioning. I think is healthy and I think is important for me to seek the answers for the things I may not understand or agree. I understand also that not everyone is the same. Most of all, I believe there is only one person who can never disappoint me and that's why He is the only one I put my trust to...and that's Christ, no men. The rest, I listen, respect, analyze...but Christ is who I look up to and try (in my very, very, very imperfect way) follow his footsteps.

I too believe in well-intentioned questioning. I don't believe in blind, thoughtless following. And I really liked your earlier statement (I think it was you) about being responsible for our own spirituality. The Church is a wonderful thing, but in the end it's going to be about us and what we believe.

I just don't know what to think when those unhappy with the Church complain about such-n-such common LDS belief and then say "Well, the Mormons are just going to say it was just the GA's own personal thoughts." So even outside of the church there is this erronous belief that they're either always inspired or not.

[Suzie]

I just don't know what to think when those unhappy with the Church complain about such-n-such common LDS belief and then say "Well, the Mormons are just going to say it was just the GA's own personal thoughts." So even outside of the church there is this erronous belief that they're either always inspired or not.

The problem is consistency IMO. As an example, we tend to say the Journal of Discourses isn't considered doctrine, yet a lot of our manuals quote from it. We quote when the statements correspond/agree with present Church doctrine but when the quotes are controversial (and there are many in the JOD) we tend to say it was "their opinion". In all fairness, it IS funny and perceived by others as "quite convenient".

[Backroads]

The problem is consistency IMO. As an example, we tend to say the Journal of Discourses isn't considered doctrine, yet a lot of our manuals quote from it. We quote when the statements correspond/agree with present Church doctrine but when the quotes are controversial (and there are many in the JOD) we tend to say it was "their opinion". In all fairness, it IS funny and perceived by others as "quite convenient".

Indeed it is!

[Mute]

I would say that leaving the church for disbelief is a perfectly good reason (and I don't know if I consider disbelief apostasy. To me, apostasy just sounds so... bad. But "I just don't believe this, sorry folks" and peacefully leaving is about as gentle and kind as it gets).

I agree with you about not liking the sound of apostasy. I usually tend to associate apostasy with former members that make a habbit of going after the lds faith. However, the technical term on dictionary.com is "a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.".

But I wonder if this is where some of the bad blood ugly leaving comes from where church leaders are criticized. Sally doesn't really have a testimony for herself, so she clings to the church leaders in desperation, not willing/unable to take her own spirituality into her own hands. Church leader does something she doesn't like. Last thread is broken, and Sally leaves the church, very upset.

I'm sure it's very possible this could happen. I wouldn't judge someone even if that did happen but that's not the usual story I hear.

Maybe some of you former Mormons could explain this idea? I've seen former/doubtful Mormons who are very critical of the common statements that our leaders are not always inspired, are imperfect, just people, etc. They say that we're making excuses for them. I get the impression that we are supposed to have 24/7/365 inspired leaders or no inspiration at all. What's the mindset behind that criticism?

I'm assuming you rely on the spirit to tell you if something is inspired? If someone is supposed to be inspired during a speech, should not the whole speech be inspired and not just the good parts?

I had a bishop once give me a blessing and start talking about McDonalds. At first I thought wait a minute God said that? Then I realized it was fast sunday. How could I possibly think the rest of the blessing was inspired? If someone believes a talk, blessing etc. is inspired, I'm not going to tell them it's not. I might not believe as they do that it is inspired but I'm not going to go out of my way to tell them they're wrong simply because I don't believe as they do.

As for the whole "getting offended" idea, I love reading these statements that many people don't leave the church because they're offended (and I think I've seen a few talks to that effect). I think it's a lot more respectful of people to assume they're not being petty and bitter.

I would agree. A lot of people come to lds with preconseptions that often are not true. No one likes hearing "You guys worship John Smith right?" So it is only right to treat former lds how you want to be treated.

[Backroads]

I'm assuming you rely on the spirit to tell you if something is inspired? If someone is supposed to be inspired during a speech, should not the whole speech be inspired and not just the good parts?

In my opinion, no, I do not believe EVERYTHING has to be inspired even in a single speech. But I can see why some would see it that way.

If someone believes a talk, blessing etc. is inspired, I'm not going to tell them it's not. I might not believe as they do that it is inspired but I'm not going to go out of my way to tell them they're wrong simply because I don't believe as they do.

That's an excellent attitude.

I would agree. A lot of people come to lds with preconseptions that often are not true. No one likes hearing "You guys worship John Smith right?" So it is only right to treat former lds how you want to be treated.

Very true, though I must admit its hard when ex-LDS members who are extremely bitter treat me like dirt because of my beliefs. Though what can I do?

[Soulsearcher]

Very true, though I must admit its hard when ex-LDS members who are extremely bitter treat me like dirt because of my beliefs. Though what can I do?

You can remember they are probably bitter because someone in the church treated them like dirt over their beliefs

[Backroads]

You can remember they are probably bitter because someone in the church treated them like dirt over their beliefs

Yeah, it's just hard having to deal with the effects of someone else. Nobody in pain wants to hear "Yeah, but I'm a nice person".

[Elphaba]

Maybe some of you former Mormons could explain this idea? I've seen former/doubtful Mormons who are very critical of the common statements that our leaders are not always inspired, are imperfect, just people, etc. They say that we're making excuses for them. I get the impression that we are supposed to have 24/7/365 inspired leaders or no inspiration at all. What's the mindset behind that criticism?

I can only speculate based on my own experiences. The Church I grew up in, from the '60s to mid-'80s strongly emphasized that church authorities were inspired by God, and thus we must always obey their counsel, because to not do so was to directly defy God.

If the concept that sometimes these men are speaking from personal opinion, and not via inspiration from God, was ever mentioned it wasn't often enough for me to remember it. In fact, it wasn't until I started visiting LDS websites that I came to understand it, and yes, I was shocked by it at first.

My mother still believes this, and I suspect numerous other Saints do as well, though certainly not all. In fact, based completely on anecdotal evidence, I think members who don't spend much time visiting LDS websites tend to think of these things in a very black and white manner, while those who do have a more expansive point of view. But if someone were to tell me I'm wrong, I'd believe him/her, as it's been almost two decades since I was a member.

My point is, when you've been brought up to believe that God always inspires these men in authority as to how to counsel you, and then discover that that's not always the case, it can be a blow, particularly if you've followed the counsel of one of these authorities and things turned out badly. In fact, now that I think about it, when I look back at the people I've talked to who have left the Church, and are bitter, this is the reason most-often cited.

Elphaba

[gruden]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is perfect. The people in it, including the leaders, are not.

Correction: The Church of the Lamb of God is perfect. We (at least most of us) are not members of that Church, but a different one, the one that we've been given in mortality. Is a church without the fullness of Celestial law perfect? That may be for you to decide.

Dogma and over-zealousness are things to be avoided just the same as criticism and bitterness. All of them stop personal progress.

[bert10]

One who rises up and condemns others....That is being an accuser and judger at the same time and it is being devilish. Judas used to do this and the Lord called Him a Devil.

As for finding fault with the Church?

The Lord said he is satisfied with the Church collectively not individually. So who are we to find fault with the Church?

The way I get around this...Is that I know that the Lord has allowed it. Right or wrong in my sight ...the Church today is what it is and God is allowing it for His own reasons. Sometimes we forget ourselves and think that what "Ought to be" is not what God thinks.

As for Apostasy, did not the Lord say by President Benson that we ought to live the BOM and receive the "Blessing Hitherto Unknown". And the LDS have not obeyed and before Dying President Benson no longer spoke of it anymore as though the Lord commanded him to cease speaking on this subject.

IF you guys remember, Israel could not enter into the rest of the Lord until they ceased to harden their heart and obey the Holy Ghost who said:

The LDS people have been removed from their land of promise and were sent to the wilderness to Utah where they remain to this day. And only a few returned from the wilderness such as Joshua for example. The rest died in the wilderness having not entered into the rest of the Lord.

Hebrews 3:7 - Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

Hebrews 3:8 - Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Hebrews 3:9 - When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

Hebrews 3:10 - Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in [their] heart; and they have not known my ways.

Hebrews 3:11 - So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

We all have a choice to die in the wilderness as Israel of old except for a few...or to repent until God sees fit to allow us to enter into His rest. Until we are led by the Holy Ghost we will not know the ways of God and will forever be walking by our own knowledge of good and evil.

bert10

I was researching some quotes to update my website and came across two quotes that jumped out at me concerning apostasy.

"I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all Eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in the high road to apostasy and if he does not repent will apostatize as God lives."

— Joseph Smith, "The Words of Joseph Smith," p. 413

"Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom directed against the doctrine at first, but more often against the leaders."

— "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball", p. 462

I've been with this site since 1999 and have seen lots of comments made by hundreds of people. Many are bitter because of personal experience with the Church and with Church leadership yet few state that they find fault with the doctrines of the Church.

We focus so much on the apostasy of the early church but how is apostasy thought of now in modern times?

We have been promised that there will never be another apostasy of The Church of Jesus Christ. However, that does not apply to individual members.

Elder Claudio D. Zivic says this concerning apostasy:

Conflicts between Church members can also lead to apostasy. Some individuals begin to think the Church is not true when they feel that a leader did not treat them well. They become offended and, without considering what they are losing, they stray from the Church.

Faultfinding can be another source of personal apostasy. When we look for faults in others or begin to think we could make better decisions than our leaders, we should remember the experience of Oliver Cowdery, the second elder of the Church.

Avoiding Personal Apostasy - Ensign June 2009

From the Teachings of the Presidents:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young Chapter 12: Preventing Personal Apostasy

To use the old cliche..The gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect but man is not. I just find it disconcerting that people will give up on so many of the blessings of heaven because of triflings and often misguided feelings of hurt and betrayal.

This also goes with our comments of our own local leaders. Bishops, Stake Presidents, Elders Quorum Presidents, etc. We raise our hand to sustain them but do we really do that? As in the quotes I mentioned above, this is where the first steps to apostasy are taken.

And before anyone thinks this would NEVER happen to them..think again.

Edited April 20, 2011 by bert10

[jennvan]

Luke 11:9

9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Matthew 7:7

7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Doctrine and Covenants 14:5

5 Therefore, if you will ask of me you shall receive; if you will knock it shall be opened unto you.

3 Nephi 14:7

7 Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

I think it is important for us to ask or question God. I think where people get messed up is that they ask others their opinions instead of seeking answers from Heavenly Father. I believe that Heavenly Father wants us to ask Him, Hey I don't understand this, help me to understand this. So many times instead it is easier to just ask others what they think or what they should know or even criticize someone else instead of seeing for further light and knowledge for themselves. I can't believe how many people just want someone else's answer instead of God's answer for them.

[jennvan]

Dogma and over-zealousness are things to be avoided just the same as criticism and bitterness. All of them stop personal progress.

Thank you for this comment, I think we forget about that sometimes. Even Christ performed miracles on Sunday when it was against the Mosaic law to do such.

[Bumperpants]

I dont know if anyone posted this yet but check it out:

And Nothing Shall Offend Them

David A Bednar - October 2006 General Conference

[rufuswhitman]

Part of the issue may not be whether or not the LDS leaders are perfect, but whether they are treated as such by themselves and the members.

If one leader says something that directly contradicts something said by another leader, the two ideas don't live together very well.

On the one hand, there are very definitive pronouncements of doctrine. On the other hand, there are pronouncements of non-doctrine that become adopted as doctrine. On a third hand are pronouncements of non-doctrine that are never officially adopted as doctrine and yet treated as such.

Unfortunately, there is no definitive way to know which is which, within the LDS framework.

I'll use an example I don't care about, but which may illustrate the point. A young woman faces the choice of wanting to wear two pairs of earrings, but having been told to wear one set. Does she have an authoritative source to determine whether this is appropriate? Should she follow the leaders without answering the question herself? Should she pray about it and, if she reaches a different conclusion, repent? Should she pray about it and, if she feels it is appropriate for her to wear two pairs of earrings, trust that no one in the Church will second guess her personal inspiration? Should she question why one pair of earrings is even allowed? Is this a Celestial principle or a PR move? Is it doctrine or one leader's opinion? Should she ignore answering the question and do what she likes?

Within the Church, she has no answer. She could spend years studying this question alone and not have answers. It seems the most LDS-accepted response to her (in practice if not officially) is "go ahead and study and pray about it until you reach the same conclusion and follow it, even though we may later look back and decide that it was probably one leader's opinion." This answer will likely be unpopular, but there is much evidence to support it.

I have heard that Church leaders would not be permitted to let the Church stray so far as to keep us from the Celestial Kingdom. In other words, we could safely follow whatever the leaders say, even if it is wrong.

The ramifications of that are beyond the scope of easy discourse.

[spamlds]

On the subject of personal apostasy, I have spent a lot of time examining it. I'm not talking here about people who simply drift into inactivity or even those who just become ambivalent about Church, God and all that's associated with it. When I refer to apostasy, I mean those who turn back to fight against the Church. There is a pattern I have come to observe over the past few years from my work with the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism. I don't hang out at anti-Mormon sites, but the anti-Mormons and exMormons often come looking for me. Here is an article about one of those examples. It is an analysis of a very common pattern by which latter-day saint men fall into apostasy.

Ishmael's monologue - The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism - "Truth is not a tactic"