- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
How does the church define apostate anyway?
RagDollSally asked the question above in another thread, so I am copying it here to focus a discussion and not have it buried in a thread with an irrelevant title – but there is one important caveat:
Our approach is about solutions and coping mechanisms, so I don’t want this thread to be limited only to the question itself. As is our modus operandi, I would like to talk about various definitions and how understanding them can help us stay LDS in a meaningful, productive way.
Have at it.
From the Guide to the Scriptures:
Quote:Apostasy. A turning away from the truth by individuals, the Church, or entire nations.
From “Apostasy,” True to the Faith, (2004),13–14:
Quote:When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy….Periods of general apostasy have occurred throughout the history of the world….We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44). Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy.
The 2010 CHI operationalizes (defines for application) apostasy as:
1. Repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders
2. Repeatedly teaching for church doctrine that which is not church doctrine, after being corrected by bishop of higher authority
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected
4. Formally joining another church and advocating its teachings
In my mind, apostasy is a continuum–nearly everyone is an has turned their back on one truth or another, and does so on a regular basis. The key question then is: where do I have to be on that continuum before the warning bells start going off for my priesthood leaders whose job it is to protect the flock? I think I am with a lot of folks on the edges of mormondom who feel a great loyalty to truth. What do we do when our leaders teach things that are not true? (e.g., I know very well that masturbation does not cause homosexuality) Do we just “shut up”? That seems to be the most wise thing to do if we want to Stay LDS. Although it can cause moral dilemmas at times!
I think the post above operationalizes it the best. I also think the four items above are “Or”‘s and not “Ands” — meaning any one of them in isolation would be considered apostasy in our church. What is a “sect” in the context of this definition? Is StayLDS a sect as used in the list above?
1) “The Church” defines apostate much more loosely than “the (local) church” does in many situations – and I think “The Church” defines it much more loosely now than it did 20-40 years ago. 2) A “sect” is a group that has broken away from the main group and formed its own independent group, with its own separate leadership structure. StayLDS absolutely isn’t a sect – and it isn’t anywhere close to a sect. We are a support group, at most, and a relatively unorganized group at that. There is no organized challenge to “The Church” or any intent to separate in any way. Our intent is exactly the opposite of a sect, since our hope is that we help members remain within the main group and not leave. Some will leave, and we aren’t interested in trying to make them act in opposition to their own consciences, but we do hope as many as possible stay and find peace and joy in staying.
I think the only surefire way of being labeled an apostate by “The Church” is to come out in open defiance and actively fight “The Church” in a way that encourages others to stop attending and/or resign their membership. Just ceasing to attend or even leaving doesn’t earn that designation; just holding differing opinions doesn’t do it; just sharing different perspectives in the flow of normal lessons and talks doesn’t do it; just refusing to do anything at all doesn’t do it.
At the local level? It’s a crap shoot, since different leaders define it differently, and some of them are much more extremist in their definitions.
How the world at large defines these terms. Apostasy: disassociating from, renouncing or abandoning a your religion. It comes from a greek work meaning to stand apart or separate, to defect from or revolt.
Heresy: to believe in or hold a theory that is strongly at variance with established community beliefs or customs.
from wikipedia
Quote:The word heresy comes from haeresis, a Latin transliteration of the Greek word originally meaning choosing, choice, course of action, or in an extended sense school of thought
For some reason in LDS language, we almost never hear the word heresy, or call people heretics. We always seem to call people apostates if they step out of line. The two words exist as different labels for a VERY important reason — there are many who are heretics who are not apostates!
I would certainly admit to being an LDS heretic. But I am
notan apostate! I am not an apostate because I support the goals of the LDS Church. I want the church to be successful in its purposes. I just have different views as to what that means. I want to remain a member if that is possible. I consider myself to be Mormon, and consider myself a member. I do not renounce my religion. I am just a very different kind of Mormon
😆 I fully acknowledge that some of my personal beliefs and practices are radically different than what most insiders perceive as “orthodox.” I’m fine with that label, perhaps even proud to call myself a heretic. I think we, as an LDS people, need to improve on many many things. So I don’t feel bad at all if I am out of step with some elements of our culture. I’m a proud heretic.Apostate (as defined within the church) – One who intentionally trying to counter the effort/teachings of the brethren or the doctrine of the Church. I would extend this definition further by saying one is trying to cause others to have less belief in the restored gospel or this church. Personally I have been apostate a time or two in my life though tryng to minimize those outbursts. One could say the entire church has been in apostasy since 1834, Kirtland, when the saints rejected the commandment to live in the United Order–or when they simply couldn’t do it, or refused to do it. Once in Utah Brigham Young tried and failed repeatedly to revive the order, and eventually it was given up for good. But still the scripture says, “And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself,” (D&C 105: 5). After reading “Approaching Zion” by Hugh Nibley, I get the feeling that on some level this is what he thought, i.e., that the church was in a state of at least partial apostasy since rejecting, time and again, the command to live after the “principles of the law of the celestial kingdom,” i.e., the United Order, and that this is what “generates those crippling contradictions that mark our present condition.” (H. Nibley)
As for individual apostasy…. I think the church today is in a growth phase, a PR phase, a phase where the wheat is allowed to grow with the tares until the time when there “will be a separation among the people” (D&C 1, I think); and so best, for the time being, to keep a big tent, lest we inadvertently cast out wheat that has been mistaken for tares. In my opinion this is what happened with the September six”…just my opinion. I think it is almost always a mistake to excommunicate members for doctrinal heterodoxy. Does anybody even remember what, exactly these “September six” were x-d for? Take Avraham Gileadi, for example. I think he said something, wrote something that offended Elder Packer…I’m not even sure what it was, and it would be hard to find someone who could say, exactly, what he did to merit getting x-d. A short time later he was re-instated…but the damage had already been done, to him personally. I do not know Bro. Gileadi, maybe someone on this board does, but I believe he lost (1) his livelihood (i.e., job at BYU, and (2) his marriage. And why? Because an overzealous SP who was a CEX employee believed that his heterodoxy merited it. Crazy–in my humble opinion.
I don’t think I’ve ever been called an apostate before, but I certainly have been treated like one–as I am sure many of you on this board have also. Once in priesthood meeting, when I was teaching the lesson, I had someone rise and bear testimony against me. A kind of funny experience, as I look back on it now, but at the time it wasn’t very funny. benlin wrote:Once in priesthood meeting, when I was teaching the lesson, I had someone rise and bear testimony against me.
Wow!
😯 I get called apostate in a certain discussion board all the time. Also I had a leader in our stake sit down with me once and tell me I was teaching false Doctrine (my view of Grace). I still hold and teach that view because I am spiritually inclined to do so. I respect that, DB. Something tells me if you never step out of line, you are only following the crowd. And sometimes it is not you that is out of line…I’d like to hear your thoughts on Grace sometime. I’ll start a thread here on my view of Grace and see where it goes. DBMormon wrote:I get called apostate in a certain discussion board all the time. …
“Apostate Bishop” to be exact.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.