Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Speak when NOT moved upon by the Holy Ghost

Recommended Posts

@Just_A_Guy That makes for a nice, succinct dictionary definition, but I think we can all agree that there is more nuance than the dictionary definition suggests. Much of Christianity calls us apostate for renouncing Nicene Trinitarianism, to which we reply that Nicene Trinitarianism should not be one of the religious teachings/doctrines that define what it means to be Christian. It seems to me that there is a range or degree to apostasy. I think we all would agree that there are some "essential" doctrines (the existence of God and the atonement and resurrection of Christ, for example) that, if renounced, clearly make one apostate. I think we would also all agree that there are some obscure doctrines which, if renounced, would not be considered apostate.

Patrick Mason (at least, I think it was Mason) introduced the idea of a truth cart for this kind of discussion, suggesting that there are some things that really do belong in our truth cart and some things that are not as important to put into our truth cart. If rumor has it correctly, he even accuses us (both the Church as a whole and the members individually) of sometimes putting the wrong things in our truth carts (perhaps an extreme example, but this might include all those heartlanders who insist that anyone who renounces their theory is apostate).

So, while I agree with your definition, it seems that this part of the discussion often becomes more about which doctrines can be renounced and which ones cannot. A lot of the discussion and debate can end up being trying to settle disagreements about what teachings are essential and which ones are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Much of Christianity calls us apostate for renouncing Nicene Trinitarianism, to which we reply that Nicene Trinitarianism should not be one of the religious teachings/doctrines that define what it means to be Christian. It seems to me that there is a range or degree to apostasy. I think we all would agree that there are some "essential" doctrines (the existence of God and the atonement and resurrection of Christ, for example) that, if renounced, clearly make one apostate.

Oh, each denomination gets to decide what constitutes apostasy.  It's not like we find the term in scripture.  When moving from one faith to another, whether you need to be baptized in your new faith seems to be related to how adherent your old faith was to what the new faith considers core doctrines. 

And yes, pretty much all of Christianity requires former LDS to be baptized - they think ours isn't a valid baptism.  And it's the same with us - doesn't matter what kind of Christian you were before, if you join the church, we will baptize you.   But an Anglican converting to Roman Catholicism, the Catholics recognize the baptism.   Outside of our church, the different denominations are all vigorously discussing what constitutes heresy, schism, and apostasy.   Not every heretical denomination in schism is apostate.  Or so they tell me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Just_A_Guy That makes for a nice, succinct dictionary definition, but I think we can all agree that there is more nuance than the dictionary definition suggests. Much of Christianity calls us apostate for renouncing Nicene Trinitarianism, to which we reply that Nicene Trinitarianism should not be one of the religious teachings/doctrines that define what it means to be Christian. It seems to me that there is a range or degree to apostasy. I think we all would agree that there are some "essential" doctrines (the existence of God and the atonement and resurrection of Christ, for example) that, if renounced, clearly make one apostate. I think we would also all agree that there are some obscure doctrines which, if renounced, would not be considered apostate.

Patrick Mason (at least, I think it was Mason) introduced the idea of a truth cart for this kind of discussion, suggesting that there are some things that really do belong in our truth cart and some things that are not as important to put into our truth cart. If rumor has it correctly, he even accuses us (both the Church as a whole and the members individually) of sometimes putting the wrong things in our truth carts (perhaps an extreme example, but this might include all those heartlanders who insist that anyone who renounces their theory is apostate).

So, while I agree with your definition, it seems that this part of the discussion often becomes more about which doctrines can be renounced and which ones cannot. A lot of the discussion and debate can end up being trying to settle disagreements about what teachings are essential and which ones are not.

I think you meant to tag @NeuroTypical here. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

A nice binary, but is there more nuance to this? How does someone like Bennett fit into this? It seems like Bennett is not merely asking questions ("Did Pres. Young receive a revelation to implement the priesthood and temple ban? Was the 2015 policy the result of revelation?"). Bennett seems to be stating that he disbelieves that these things were revelation. At the same time, I don't think it fair to claim that he is in full opposition to the Church and its leaders, either.

@Just_A_Guy You list a few currently well known "apostates". I guess the question I would ask back is -- is it inevitable for someone in Bennett's position (disagreeing with some claims to revelation) to end up becoming an apostate, or can one hold and publish these kinds of opinions and remain "not-apostate"? If so, what does that look like?

 

Again, I don’t want to get drawn into some kind of referendum on Bennett or his writings. But as a general principle I would say:

”Honest seeking begets finding (or at least, peace and reconciliation and the ability to put something ‘on the shelf’ for a while).  But in the absence of repentance:  nit-picking begets nit-picking, sloppy research begets sloppy research, lazy thinking begets lazy thinking, dishonesty begets dishonesty, bias begets bias, suspicion begets suspicion, justification of sin begets justification of sin; and the natural end of each of those pathways is apostasy.”

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, each denomination gets to decide what constitutes apostasy.  It's not like we find the term in scripture.  ........

Isaiah gives us a very good and precise definition of apostasy - but he does not call it apostasy.  There are reasons that Isaiah does not specifically call out apostasy - we can talk about the reasons if anyone is interested but Isaiah talks about turning from G-d.  Which is the deadliest result of apostasy.  Isaiah talks about 3 core principles of Apostasy:

1. Transgressing the Law.

2. Changing the Ordinances

3. Breaking the Everlasting Covenant.

I would encourage that we all notice that Isaiah does not mention Doctrine.  Not that false doctrine should not be a concern but in my mind it is more of a distraction or excuse.  Thus unwavering faith in false doctrine is more of a result or side effect of apostasy rather than a cause -- and as someone else has already said - a person can still be imbedded in true doctrine and still be involved with debilitating apostasy.    I would make one other note in my observations in relation to Isaiah.  He does not talk about degrees.  I do not think there is such a thing as a little apostasy as opposed to be big apostasy.  Isaiah indicates that we cannot be faithful with one or two of the principles and in full fellowship of the other.  That an offence with one inevitably leads to the others.  I would also account the words of Isaiah before King Ahaz when Isaiah said in essence, "You do not believe the truth because you are not loyal."  I believe it is obvious what he meant when he said that Ahaz was not loyal.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2021 at 10:16 AM, Vort said:

Who says Abel has no living descendants? I assume that by this point, he is a father of all living people. Or are we to assume that Abel had neither wife nor children, just because such are not explicitly mentioned? I assume the opposite.

This is a little late to this discussion (and maybe a threadjack :) ) But in studying section 84 this week, it goes over the lineage of the priesthood. 

It seems that Abel was at least able ( ;) ) to pass the priesthood to someone before he died.  I think it's likely that it was his own children.

 

15 And from Noah till aEnoch, through the lineage of their fathers;

16 And from Enoch to aAbel, who was slain by the bconspiracy of his brother, who creceived the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father dAdam, who was the first man

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this