Blog creating lots of comments.

[Anonymous]

I can’t say I agree with the title of this, but there are some points that I fully agree with.

http://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-lds-church-in-apostasy/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/is-the-lds-church-in-apostasy/

I put the author in the same class as hawkgrrrl about having some good solid logic, thought, and insight in most every single post he makes.

[Anonymous]

Wow — he makes some interesting points. He IS stating the church is in a state of apostasy, although he poses it as a question. People with savvy do it all the time — they “say it without saying it”.

I would like to know what Ray thinks of his logic. He does draw an interesting parallel between the advent of apostasy in the primitive church where doctrine ceased from the living prophet to a body of individuals.

The only difference I can see, that hurts his argument, is that we still claim to have a prophet that guides the church and can receive revelation for the church — independent of the councils. One could argue that we are not in a state of apostasy because there still is a prophet at our head who communes with God, and who can act as a quality control.

[Anonymous]

The issue that I have is that there’s an assumption that the reasons for the great apostasy are valid. Perhaps they were wrong when they determined that councils can’t decide such things. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Quote:

All historical Christian churches agree that revelation for the direction of the church ceased with the last of the apostles,” one author has written. History shows, in fact, that after the first century, church leaders, in order to decide important issues, could not (and did not) appeal to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom. There were still honorable people on the earth who received personal inspiration for their individual lives. But the church was run largely by men who gathered in councils and held debates, letting their decisions rest on the collected wisdom of mortal beings.

Emphasis added.

Blue – I’m sure there’s at least one church that would beg to differ.

Red – One guy wrote it? I’m convinced.

Green – I think that’s the key (pun) to the point they were trying to make about the apostasy. Not that councils are inherently bad but that councils that don’t have priesthood keys are invalid. Plus it’s presumptuous to assume that councils other than our own don’t appeal to heaven for authoritative direction or that god wouldn’t guide them for whatever imagined reason. In short, imperfect people said this so it’s not a good idea to launch off on an argument assuming that it’s 100% true.

That said, I think it was the author’s intent to show how the church is failing to live up to a standard that they themselves set. We all do it if we’re around long enough. Still I don’t think that there’s much room for concern, an appeal to authority is made in the opening statement and that provides the escape route. The answer will be that our councils do appeal to heaven and do have the keys so there’s nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

I don’t agree with his logic.

He states:

Quote:

In short, the LDS Church announced that church doctrine is established in councils.

But what does the quoted 1995 Ensign article state that Nibbler quoted?

Quote:

History shows, in fact, that after the first century, church leaders, in order to decide important issues, could not (and did not) appeal to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom.

[Emphasis Added]

So…apostasy isn’t because they council, but because the councils don’t hold the keys to revelation for the church. Individual revelation…yes…counciling to get wisdom and best ideas agreed up…yes.

But the issue of apostasy comes from keys. So the rest of his ideas about

Quote:

the LDS Church currently engages in a practice that the LDS Church in former days declared to be a hallmark of apostasy.

…well, that doesn’t apply to the keys the LDS church still claims to have.

Therefore, he can vent his opinions on the LDS church not doing things a certain way or become creedal…but I don’t see how those things equate to apostasy. He would have to address the keys.

He hasn’t.

Joseph Smith didn’t restore the church because councils were the problem. He restored the church because God told him the authority was taken from the earth, which needed to be restored by the angels that still held those keys.

All other stuff, including scripture and doctrine, come out of that point.

[Anonymous]

In order for there to be an ‘apostasy’ there has to be some form of religion that is ‘true’; specifically, there must be “one true Church” that has actual ties to the “one true and unchanging God”. Since I believe that not to be the case, it’s pretty easy for me to dismiss this article on its face.

But, I do believe that the author has one valid concern: that the Proclamation on the Family is treated as doctrine, without ever having been presented as the the “mind and will of God” to the general membership for a sustaining vote. The irony is that in the nineties, it would have gotten near-unanimous approval, but as the timescale shifts to the right, it’s less and less representative of the views of lay members, IMO. It would still pass, but there would likely be a lot of dissent. Ten years from now, there would be more dissent. In another two decades, my view is that it would be hard to get a majority vote.

The author, unfortunately, doesn’t stay focused on the PotF. For example, he spends the majority of his space talking about how the leading councils of the Church work out issues. But this has always been true, for as long as we have record. The author conveniently forgets that all 15 have the title “prophets, seers, and revelators”, and he assumes an awful lot of context that we know nothing about. In addition, he does not distinguish between doctrine and policy. There cannot possibly be any apostasy related to a group of people arguing over the implementation of policy, only the declaration of doctrine. Finally, the author positions the Living Christ document along with the Family Proclamation, which just weakens the argument. The Living Christ doesn’t declare any new doctrine. It doesn’t belong in this discussion. Because of all this meandering, the article loses its one important point in a mishmash of accusations (in the form of questions).

But, yeah, the Proclamation is a problem. It declares several new points of doctrine – that we have “heavenly parents”, that our gender is eternal, that God’s view of proper families is constrained to children physically born to a wedded man and wife who are faithful to each other,and that gender-based roles are divinely appointed. Whether you agree with any or all of these doctrines, it is worrisome that these points are not declared in any of our Standard Works, so far as I know, but put out there as doctrines by issuing a “creed” with no corresponding sanction from God or vote.

[Anonymous]

He uses the exact same method as Denver Snuffer and many other ultra-conservative members (and, to be fair, many who are all over the spectrum): He starts with a view that is extremely narrow and over-simplified (and historically iffy) and cherry picks things to prove that view, then builds an argument around that single point of contention.

Absolutely, all is not well in Zion – but the only solution to his supposed issue is re-institution of rule by one charismatic leader. That not only is HIGHLY problematic and unstable, but it simply is historically inaccurate – even of Joseph and the totality of what he did and taught.

[Anonymous]

Talking about the Great Apostacy…there was an old discussion on the Great Apostasy that was interesting to me. I bumped that thread for those who want to read and comment on it, apart from this blog topic.

[Anonymous]

He points out, which I think is an important point, that the real shift could merely be the way we describe the process of creating doctrine. In David O. McKay & the Rise of Modern Mormonism, we do see a process of debate in council as the norm. We also know there were debates previously. I’m not sure I would hang my hat on the idea that debate or councils equal apostasy or that our concern with Nicea is that doctrine was determined by council (as opposed to the content of the . I think that’s a bit obscure.

When I was at BYU, I was called to repentance by a fellow student for observing that the Q12 had heated disagreements about evolution vs. creationism (like 100 years ago). This student said that I was criticizing the brethren, a sure sign of apostasy. Some people see disagreement as a threat.

[Anonymous]

Ray wrote

Quote:

That not only is HIGHLY problematic and unstable, but it simply is historically inaccurate – even of Joseph and the totality of what he did and taught.

As an added thought of support to Ray’s idea, for some people Joseph was the problem. So do we get to cherry pick Joseph’s teachings, style and practices. I am not even sure I know anymore what apostasy is. That’s why some of the latest excommunications rattled me. I get some of it, but not all of it. I don’t see an easy fix to any of it. Even Joseph couldn’t hold onto his own flock during his tenure.

[Anonymous]

I believe that the LDS church is now changing and has changed since its inception.

If someone believes in a perfect one-time event of restoration this presents a problem. How can the church STILL be perfect and true when it is so different from how it was in the past?

I see this solved in part by believing in an ongoing restoration with God leading us collectively “line upon line.”

However, I believe the author is correct that we have historically been very harsh on the changes made by other churches as apostasy when we essentially do the same thing.

The author of this article seems to suggest that leading the church by council is apostasy …BUUUTTTT… Deciding things – even revelations – in council was around in the earliest days of the church and was implemented by JS. I do not see this as a recent change. If this is apostasy then it started as early as 1831.

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-priesthood-organization?lang=eng

Quote:

The Council System

An 11 November 1831 revelation (now D&C 107: 60-100) helped the Saints understand how to harness the power of shared inspiration while dividing the complex demands of church administration. Certain types of cases were assigned to the Bishop, who in turn could call councilors to assist him in his duties. A President of the High Priesthood would consider more difficult issues, assisted by twelve high priests as councilors. Presidents of the elders, of the priests, of the teachers, and of the deacons would also be called to “sit in council” with their groups.

But supplementing the familiar conference system with an unfamiliar council system proved to be a gradual process. Presidents for each group were not immediately chosen, and clerks were inconsistent in distinguishing between a conference and a council. In July of 1832, Missouri members “resolved that the mode and manner of regulating the Church of Christ” as shown in the November revelation “Take effect from this time,”4 but then didn’t choose a president of the elders until September.5 And though he had been sustained as President of the High Priesthood and chosen two counselors, Joseph Smith had to gather available high priests to serve on a full President’s council each time a need arose.6

…[snip]..He then attempted to “show the order of councils in ancient days as shown to him by vision.” The Prophet’s vision of a Jerusalem council presided over by the apostle Peter and two counselors became a model for the organization of the first regular high council,9 which in turn was to serve as a model for other councils throughout the Church. Minutes showing some of the important features of the council—such as the right of an accused person to have half the council as advocates—were later canonized in D&C 102.10

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/how-the-revelations-in-the-doctrine-and-covenants-were-received-and-compiled?lang=eng

Quote:

Section 88

The account of others assisting Joseph Smith in receiving section 88 [D&C 88] is best related in the minutes kept on that occasion. They are as follows:

“A conference of High Priests assembled in the translating room in Kirtland Ohio on the 27th day of Dec A.D. 1832—Present—Joseph Smith,—Sidney Rigdon—Orson Hyde—Joseph Smith, Jr.—Hyrum Smith—Samuel H. Smith—N. K. Whitney—F. G. Williams—Ezra Thayer—& John Murdock commenced by prayer, Then Bro. Joseph arose and said, to receive revelation and the blessings of heaven it was necessary to have our minds on god and exercise faith and become of one heart and of one mind therefore he recommended all present to pray separately and vocally to the Lord for to receive his will unto us concerning the upbuilding of Zion, & for the benefit of the saints and for the duty and employment of the Elders—Accordingly we all bowed down before the Lord, after which each one arose and spoke in his turn his feelings, and determination to keep the commandments of God, And thus proceded to receive a revelation concerning the [not legible] above stated 9 o clock P.M. the revelation not being finished the conference adjourned till tomorrow morning 9 o clock A.M.—27th meet according adjournment and commenced by Prayer thus proceded to receive the residue of the above revelation and it being finished and there being no further business before the conference closed the meeting by prayer in harmony with the brethren and gratitude to our heavenly Father for the great manifestations of his holy Spirit during the setting of the conference.

F. G. Williams clk of con.”6

The revelation in the above minutes is section 88:1–126. [D&C 88:1–126] Verses 127–137 [D&C 88:127–137] form a separate revelation given to Joseph Smith on 3 January 1833. These two revelations, plus verses 138–141, [D&C 88:138–141] were combined by the Prophet when he prepared them for publication in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Section 102

Section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 102] contains the minutes of the formation of the first high council of the Church. The original manuscript of these minutes is found in the Kirtland Council Minute Book (the manuscript minute book of the Kirtland High Council) and is in the handwriting of Orson Hyde. Immediately following the original is a corrected set of the same minutes followed by this explanation:

“The council assembled pursuant to adjournment. Joseph Smith Jr. opened the council by reading the 3rd Chap. of Joel’s prophecy, and prayer. After which he arose before the council, and said, that he had laboured the day before with all the strength and wisdom that he had given him in making the corrections necessary in the last council minutes, which he would now read before this council. He asked the council for their attention, that they might rightly judge upon the truth and propriety of these minutes, as all were equally interested in them &c. He also urged the necessity of prayer that the Spirit might be given, that the things of the Spirit might be judged thereby; because the carnal mind cannot discern the things of God &c. He then proceeded to read the minutes and afterward, made some remarks, when it was decided by the members of the council present, that it might be read a second time. Sidney Rigdon then proceeded to read the minutes or constitution of the high council the second time, remarking at the time, that it could not be justly urged to be read at this time, as the hour was passed which was appointed for the council to assemble. An impropriety by some was discovered in the commencements of the minutes, as it says, a council of high priests, and afterwards says, that elders, priests and private members acted in said council. Said objections were corrected, and the minutes read the third time by Oliver Cowdery. The questions were then asked, whether the present council acknowledged the same, and receive them for a form, and constitution of the high council of the Church of Christ hereafter. The document was received by the unanimous voice of the council, with this provision, that, if the president should hereafter discover any lack in the same he should be privileged to fill it up.”7

Even though the names of Orson Hyde and Oliver Cowdery are given as the clerks who wrote the minutes, Joseph Smith and the complete council made extensive corrections of the original.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Roy.

I feel the author is being a bit knit picky on one area. What bothers me much more is the lack of anything that I perceive as revelation. I don’t know in my lifetime if the prophet has declared something clearly as revelation. The closest thing is ending the ban on blacks and the priesthood and temple. And now we hear that this was a policy and it does not seem to me that policies need to have revelation to change. Then there is the “get a year a food storage” that seems to be an “oops” now and more driven by political philosophies.

But with the constant chat that it is so great to have a leader guiding us every day, I just am stuck trying to figure out what prophetic guidance we are getting.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I don’t know in my lifetime if the prophet has declared something clearly as revelation. The closest thing is ending the ban on blacks and the priesthood and temple. And now we hear that this was a policy and it does not seem to me that policies need to have revelation to change.

That view is “in retrospect”. In the 70’s I think it’s pretty clear that the the distinction was not as obvious, and that most at the top felt it was doctrine which would require a revelation to change it. My opinion is that that is exactly why it took so long. Good people can be talked into bad things if they think God is behind them. The event in 1978 was seen and published as a revelation, whether one was technically needed or not, one was provided. It was presented in GC as a revelation and voted on to be accepted as a revelation. Here’s the sustaining vote:

Quote:

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative. –Sept 30, 1978

I will note that I was watching the local news where I lived on the day the Church made the announcement and the anchor, who was a black woman, rolled her eyes when she said the word “revelation”, so I remember very clearly, even though I was a young man, that it was a “revelation”.

But, I do agree with your point and it was something that bothered me even back when I was an all-in member; that revelations seemed to be extremely rare in our day. In April, 1976, there was vote to accept two visions as scripture. What are now D&C 137 and 138 were accepted, and placed in the PofGP (later moved to the D&C). These, of course, were visions of long-ago prophets. I remember thinking at the time that the JFS vision was pretty ‘new’, having been received less than 60 years earlier, but it also kind of underscored the rarity of it all.

Parenthetically, in my more skeptical years, I’ve wondered to myself if these changes to scripture in 1976 were an intentional precursor to a vote on a “revelation” that was bound to come soon (OD2). The groundbreaking for the Sao Paulo Temple had just occurred a couple of weeks before the April, ’76 conference, and everyone had to know that by the time it was finished, the priesthood ban would have to be lifted. Accepting new scripture for the first time in memory (even in the form of old visions) was a great way to grease the skids for OD2; whether it was intentionally so is a matter for speculation.

[Anonymous]

The church by it’s own definition is in a state of apostasy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They do form Doctrine by a council which they said was a sure sign of apostasy . What else is their to say about it !!!!! They cannot deny they have contradicted themselves on this one. I am ok with it though after my crisis of faith I decided to stay but I no longer say this is the one and only true church, I am over that. I have come to the conclusion (after months of research) that it doesn’t matter what church one belongs too. Gods greatest commandment is and still is Love . Love him and love each other that’s it, it is asimple as that. I live my life with faith and conviction thinking of god and praying for guidance in all I do . I guess i am a new type Mormon if that is a catagory ? i believe what I believe and the great thing is no one else can change that !!! I still love the church don’t get me wrong but my definition of things has changed .

[Anonymous]

That last sentence is the key.

Everything else is highly subjective, since it deals with how words are defined, but it is how we find our own meaning and redefine or reorient our own feelings that is important. It is finding our own faith and accepting it that is critical.

[Author]

Posts