Apostate: The Worst Word in Mormonism?

On this site I’ve seen a lot of conversations about apostasy and apostates and what justifies excommunication. It got me thinking…I truly despise the word “apostate” or “apostasy.” It makes me uncomfortable when people use it to refer to others/the actions of others and is especially worse when a general authority (example, Elder Oaks) uses it to refer to individuals, even in the hypothetical. It’s as if they’re evoking their authority and power to assign the worst identity to someone…Why is it that even when I read that someone has been labeled an apostate does it make me flinch?…Growing up, I was essentially taught via home, church, and seminary, that an apostate is pretty much the worst thing you can be. You are on Satan’s side and you are leading others astray…Anyway, my question to you is, what is apostasy in the Mormon Culture? What’s its role in our church? What power does the word carry?…I feel like the “apostate” label in our day is fairly particular to Mormonism, although I could be wrong…

I have heard the term “apostate” used by Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses in a similar way to how it is currently used in the LDS Church. Personally I think it is mostly just another example of the cultish us-versus-them thinking that is so prevalent in the Church. Basically the Church will tolerate members that believe something significantly different from the orthodox LDS doctrines as long as they keep quiet about it but as soon as anyone openly disagrees with the Church it is typically not going to be received very well in the Church. That’s what I think this apostasy label is mostly about, trying to enforce strict boundaries around what the official doctrines are supposed to be and expecting members to go along with what they are told without resistance.

I have a few thoughts on this subject.

First “the great apostasy”. I read a few books on the great apostasy and the compromises that were made as the early Christian church grew. Funny thing was that when I began to study our own history more deeply I began to realize that we too had made compromises and adjustments. It gave me more empathy with the early christians. When JS instituted the temple endowment was he introducing a corrupted apostate form of Mason worship? Was he restoring an anchient early christian or pre-christian rite? Or was he receiving inspiration/revelation from his environment and innovating? How is that so different than the changes made by Christendom over the centuries? Was it apostasy for Peter to allow the uncircumcised to join the church (remember that Jesus never authorized this)? Paul sure seemed to be blazing his own trail across Europe and making his personal opinions and viewpoints into religious doctrine. He was not an apostle in the “witness” sense and he was quite a maverick – even challenging and chastising Peter. Could Paul have been excommunicated for apostasy for teaching his opinions as doctrine and for pushing church reforms faster than it was comfortable making them?

I have heard the term “apostate” used by Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses in a similar way to how it is currently used in the LDS Church.

Yes, these are churches that are very similar to ours in that they are fairly rigid lifestyle “heritage” churches. I remember Brian Johnson saying that he had been to some recovering from JW websites and it was just like what you see on the Mormon side.

It’s a title that carries a lot of weight. This was drilled into me. More than a description of actions, it’s a shame-trigger word. The title alone can bury a person’s identity, views, reasoning, and even humanity to the eyes of their community. Once someone is an apostate, it is as if they are stripped of their humanity. They’re dehumanized. They’re no longer a person. They’re a danger.

I agree. Use of that word changes the game. And when it is leveled there are not very many defenses against it. In a way it is declaring the person to be dead to the community.

In one sense, I recognise and support an organizations need to determine its own boundaries. “Doing [such and such] crosses our community line.”

On the other hand, when we are dealing with real people with lives of service in the church and loving families – are we not doing spiritual violence to them severing them so?

My big sister had a Women’s Studies professor in college that helped her reconcile some of the contradictions in church. She told her that the imperfect church structures/leaders are as earthen vessels that nevertheless carry living water. This woman was later excommunicated as part of the September 6 for compiling essays about women’s history in the church into a book and publishing it. Truly interesting that what she was exed for doing such a small thing – seemingly a far cry from the more active church oppostition that is the standard for excommunication today. I remember that one of the essays was about how RS sisters used to bless and annoint a woman during child birth and that function was gradually restricted and then ceased all together…fascinating stuff. Anyway, that is not terribly different than Claudia Bushman advising women to perform blessings of faith in their own homes … blasphemy? apostasy? diminishing and ussurping the role of the priesthood?

When this mentor college professor was excommunicated it crushed my sisters spirit of faith in the church.

Anyway, I am thankful that it seems that excommunication for apostasy is used much more sparingly and with more consistent criteria than it has been in times past.

If you remember Chad Hardy, he was asked by his SP “If Pres. Monson asked you to take down your site (he was the one selling shirtless missionary calendars), would you?” He said no (although his reasons weren’t that bad – he said he kept his much worse business partner in check), and he was ex’d for essentially disloyalty, theoretical unwillingness to do what he was told by church leaders if they told him to do that, which they hadn’t. Many of the excommunications in the last year have been that same “loyalty” test: would you remove your web site, take down you post, cancel your speaking engagements, stop publishing your book? So, on the one hand, you can say that apostasy is doing something that’s bad PR for the church, but it’s also refusing to blindly obey church leaders (many of whom are lower level folks who don’t even know what they are talking about) which is seen as disloyalty, and disloyalty = apostasy in the de facto definition today.

I think this loyalty test thing has been used more than we think, and the term “apostasy” has been used as a kindof whipping post to discourage others from questioning the status quo. It is disturbing to me when the Q15 initiate the disciplinary action, but make it appear the action started at the local level. This seems dishonest to me. It is appropriate for the Q15 to mislead and hide, even lie, for the sake of PR and the “image” of the church? Can anyone address this better for me here?

I have read several things Elder Oaks said about the purposes of the church, the doctrines, and loyalty to the brethren. It is a general teaching (in my neck of the woods) to hear it said: “If you follow the brethren, even if they are wrong, you will be blessed for it.” This is an ALARMING doctrine to me, because it mirrors what cults do. Can anyone address this better for me as well?

With regards to the original post: yes,…the term apostasy has been stigmatized into a horrible word, and its use, IMHO, has been smeared to include all kinds of things, including but not limited to disloyalty.

It is disturbing to me when the Q15 initiate the disciplinary action, but make it appear the action started at the local level. This seems dishonest to me. It is appropriate for the Q15 to mislead and hide, even lie, for the sake of PR and the “image” of the church? Can anyone address this better for me here?

I’m not convinced that the Q15 are directly behind disciplinary actions as people often think they are. I’ve only arrived at that conclusion after watching some of these actions very closely. Here’s why:

1) they don’t have to get involved. There are plenty of lower leaders who see it as their patriotic duty to root out heretics.

2) in all cases I’ve seen, the person who is ex’d has a lack of relationship with the local leader in charge of the DC. This often happens when leadership changes and now the new person doesn’t know them or feels differently about them.

3) because of this patriotic tendency, dog whistle politics are very effective and often the only thing needed (no direct involvement) to whip up an aspiring local leader to action. On the downside of this one, it’s my opinion that the Q15 are divided on what constitutes an excommunicable offense, and unfortunately, they all have access to dog whistles and can get their own personal hobby horse messages out to those who are listening for the signal. Leadership roulette ensues. Good leadership is doing the littlest possible to achieve the outcome you desire. That’s also good engineering. Don’t get involved if someone lower down the chain will do it for you.

2) in all cases I’ve seen, the person who is ex’d has a lack of relationship with the local leader in charge of the DC. This often happens when leadership changes and now the new person doesn’t know them or feels differently about them.

Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

There’s nothing new under the sun.

Apostate is a stage 3 word. There is utility for those in that stage. It is how stage 3 works.

Good post, LH.

You don’t hear Heretic in our church much, do you? I don’t. It’s believer or apostate or jack. (actually I don’t hear jack-mormon much anymore).