A Good Statement of What Constitutes Apostasy

[Anonymous]

This article from the Deseret News gives a good statement and definition of what constitutes apostasy. As well as what constitutes “acceptable questioning” [that’s my term, on the fly].

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605988/Priesthood-blessings-equally-available-to-all-LDS-leaders-say-in-new-statement.html

Here is the definition:

Quote:

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

Therefore, I would argue that bloggers could get disciplined in some way if the opposition is unmistakeable, publicly readable, and repetitive. Those three are the damning qualities of a blogger if my interpretation holds any merit. And of course, if you’re asked to stop, and you don’t, then you are also apostate.

Interesting, they qualify leaders as the “faithful leaders” which indicates you can speak out in deliberate public opposition to unfaithful leaders. However, I would guess its risky to to do that, as who is to say if a person is faithful, unfaithful, or in the middle somewhere.

[Anonymous]

and the fact that “unfaithful leaders” (or those someone sees as unfaithful) are the very people who can initiate the disciplinary actions for opposition to them

I really like the idea of taking disciplinary action out of the hands of Bishops and Branch Presidents and having all counsels for adults occur at the stake level, with a full council of men and women – but that would take a reconsideration of what it means to be a Judge in Israel, which would be a MAJOR change. At the very least, if someone is facing action for objecting to a local leader, I believe any council should occur at the next level above that leader.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article. I am trying to understand how “agitating for change” fits in to this definition of apostasy. I suppose advocating that the church has flaws and needs to change would be considered public opposition?

I like your term “acceptable questioning.” It seems to me that “acceptable questioning” in the church is quite limited. This goes hand in hand with accepting the answers given. Acceptable questions can quickly become unacceptable when they are asked repeatedly in the face of inadequate answers.

[Anonymous]

Leap wrote:

Acceptable questions can quickly become unacceptable when they are asked repeatedly in the face of inadequate answers.

Great point!

[Author]

Posts