LDS Freedom Forum

Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

It is possible to be a heretic from apostasy, is it not?

Ohhh I like this discussion.

Penstress wrote:Ohhh I like this discussion.

I'm curious why you wrote this. Why did you write this?

Daryl wrote:Apostasy as defined on lds.org:

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

According to this, turning from the gospel is apostasy. Nothing to do with the institution.

I realize that for many steeped in the tradition church and gospel are the same, but it simply is not so. Two different things.

Thanks Daryl. I think it is good to understand accurate definitions of words. Too often we have incorrect ideas regarding the definitions of many words pertaining to the gospel. Nothing in this definition has anything to do with an institution.

Thank you.

BrentL wrote:
see, the question is in your quote box, the answer is in mine. last time I play ping pong.

I didn't see any answers from you at all. No one did but you. I would really like to know the specifics of what the LDS church today teaches that is in opposition to what is said in LOF. Just because they were put into their separate book, doesn't make it less doctrine. What makes you think that it does? Plenty of church leaders since still use it as a reference. Is that all you have? That it was put into a separate book? Not because there's anything in there that is contrary to what we know as Mormon doctrine today?

Frederick wrote:

Daryl wrote:Apostasy as defined on lds.org:

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

According to this, turning from the gospel is apostasy. Nothing to do with the institution.

I realize that for many steeped in the tradition church and gospel are the same, but it simply is not so. Two different things.

Thanks Daryl. I think it is good to understand accurate definitions of words. Too often we have incorrect ideas regarding the definitions of many words pertaining to the gospel. Nothing in this definition has anything to do with an institution.

Thank you.

But the rest of Christianity believes the Mormon church is in apostasy. The "gospel" is relative to each sect. So... looks like it does have to do with an institution. The Lord's institution. There is only one true church. If you fell away from Judaism/Islam, would that be considered apostasy?

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

BrentL wrote:
see, the question is in your quote box, the answer is in mine. last time I play ping pong.

I didn't see any answers from you at all. No one did but you. I would really like to know the specifics of what the LDS church today teaches that is in opposition to what is said in LOF. Just because they were put into their separate book, doesn't make it less doctrine. What makes you think that it does? Plenty of church leaders since still use it as a reference. Is that all you have? That it was put into a separate book? Not because there's anything in there that is contrary to what we know as Mormon doctrine today?

Stop it Infowarrior. You are making to much sense. You need to get on the LDS Church corruption conspiracy party boat. I hear they are giving out free Lectures on Faith pamphlets being hidden from all members at happy hour while serving 69 favorite brew ski's. Ajax is in hog heaven. Get with the program Bro.

Frederick wrote:

Daryl wrote:Apostasy as defined on lds.org:

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.

According to this, turning from the gospel is apostasy. Nothing to do with the institution.

I realize that for many steeped in the tradition church and gospel are the same, but it simply is not so. Two different things.

Thanks Daryl. I think it is good to understand accurate definitions of words. Too often we have incorrect ideas regarding the definitions of many words pertaining to the gospel. Nothing in this definition has anything to do with an institution.

Thank you.

I think that if you are going to understand the issue, you are going to need to look at definitions outside of the accepted church ones, don't you think?

From wikipedia:

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία (apostasia), 'a defection or revolt') is the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. One who commits apostasy (or who apostatises) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

So according to this, you have to actually be disaffiliated with your former religion to be apostate. There is no distinction made, however, about whether the original religion had moved from its original beliefs or not.

Given this definition, it is a bit odd that a person would be excommunicated for apostasy. They are basically saying that you have already removed yourself from the church and so they are going to kick you out.

So what do they call people who believe their religion has been corrupted and yet still wish to remain in the religion?

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Ball is in your court. Go.

God is a spirit, Lectures on Faith.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

I didn't see any answers from you at all. No one did but you. I would really like to know the specifics of what the LDS church today teaches that is in opposition to what is said in LOF. Just because they were put into their separate book, doesn't make it less doctrine. What makes you think that it does? Plenty of church leaders since still use it as a reference. Is that all you have? That it was put into a separate book? Not because there's anything in there that is contrary to what we know as Mormon doctrine today?

this question:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:


What doesn't the church do now/teach now that it should?

is not the same as this question:

I would really like to know the specifics of what the LDS church today teaches that is in opposition to what is said in LOF

I answered the first question many times, to phrase it in simple language using the question as the structure for the answer: the Church does not teach The Lectures on Faith now like it should.

for the second question, well, the answers are easy but I am afraid they wont matter much to you or mark. you wont jump on the church conspiracy bandwagon and drink beer. I thought for a moment you might want dialog concerning truth and facts.

Fredrick's post contains much good information on how the Lectures were brought into the Doctrine and Covenants. they quite simply and unavoidably are the "doctrine" portion of that book.


according to my copy of the 1835 edition of the D&C as contained in the Joseph Smith Papers, the preface calls them important doctrine of salvation, and Joseph says he will "answer to EVERY PRINCIPLE ADVANCED. and the lectures are put forth as the "Doctrine of the Church" on the title page of section one.

they are, flat out, the doctrine. the doctrine was removed. or the battery was taken out.

there are some big names associated with the removal of the lectures. if you really think we cannot be led astray, you must find some crazy answer for the next part.

According to Joseph Fielding Smith one of the reasons they were removed is:

they are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

so, you have to figure this out. according to Joseph Smith, they were the doctrine of the church that he expected to be held accountable to
God for. According to Joseph Fielding Smith, they are not. only one can be right.

you say : that does not make it less doctrine, well, that does not square with the truth. you say is that all you have, well of course not. but why continue if you cannot accept simple facts such as these and discuss them as adults not as if this is some attack on the church. its just our history. its facts.

what happens next with the vacuum left by the taking away of our doctrine is very telling but requires an open mind.

have a good day, I have to go sacrifice a goat and read its entrails.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

BrentL wrote:
see, the question is in your quote box, the answer is in mine. last time I play ping pong.

I didn't see any answers from you at all. No one did but you. I would really like to know the specifics of what the LDS church today teaches that is in opposition to what is said in LOF. Just because they were put into their separate book, doesn't make it less doctrine. What makes you think that it does? Plenty of church leaders since still use it as a reference. Is that all you have? That it was put into a separate book? Not because there's anything in there that is contrary to what we know as Mormon doctrine today?

The church put it into a separate book, that's all?

When is the last time a leader encouraged you to read it?

Is this book available in the ward library, just in case I forget it?

When is the last time a instructor asked the class to pull out his/her LoF?

When is the last time you have read from it in class?

Gospel Essentials book - the topic of faith is 4 pages which quotes 1 sentence from the Lectures, no further references.

The Lectures are 80+ pages. You tell me what is missing.

The church does not consider it doctrine per JFS quote above.

JS said doctrine, JFS said not doctrine.

ajax wrote:
The church put it into a separate book, that's all?

When is the last time a leader encouraged you to read it?

Is this book available in the ward library, just in case I forget it?

When is the last time a instructor asked the class to pull out his/her LoF?

When is the last time you have read from it in class?

Gospel Essentials book - the topic of faith is 4 pages which quotes 1 sentence from the Lectures, no further references.

The Lectures are 80+ pages. You tell me what is missing.

The church does not consider it doctrine per JFS quote above.

JS said doctrine, JFS said not doctrine.

it is not on the approved missionary book list. so it cannot be taught from by missionaries. James E. Talmage was on the committee that thought they knew more than Joseph on the subject and removed it. Jesus the Christ is approved for missionaries.

AGStacker wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Ball is in your court. Go.

God is a spirit, Lectures on Faith.

Wow. Do you really want to go there?

D&C 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

keep the faith wrote:

AGStacker wrote:
God is a spirit, Lectures on Faith.

Wow. Do you really want to go there?

D&C 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Careful.... ;)

AGStacker wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Ball is in your court. Go.

God is a spirit, Lectures on Faith.

Actually the full passage is,

2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fulness of the Father, or the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name. He is called the Son because of the flesh.

Interesting to ponder.

D&C 131:7 - There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

Bruce R made this comment: "Resurrected bodies, as contrasted with mortal bodies, are in fact spiritual bodies (A New Witness, 72–73)

We can go one of two ways.
1) Joseph's understanding was incomplete as of 1834-35.
2) Joseph, who had the heavens opened to him many times beforehand, knew what he spoke of. What is Joseph saying here that I need to ponder and understand?

I prefer option 2.

I was hoping to learn more about what the scriptures would answer to these questions. FWIW, I consider LOF canon.

Is it possible to be in a state of apostasy, as defined by scriptures, from apostate doctrines? Can doctrines or teachines be apostate? Or is it only people who go apostate from true doctrine? Who is authorized by God to cull the members from apostate beliefs. Who is the judge of apostasy?

Is it possible to be in a state of apostasy, as defined by scriptures, from apostate doctrines?

coachmarc wrote:

keep the faith wrote:

AGStacker wrote:
God is a spirit, Lectures on Faith.

Wow. Do you really want to go there?

D&C 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Careful.... ;)

What is there to be careful of here coachmarc? I would love AGStacker to explain why he or she picked out this part of the lectures to show this as an example of how the church today has changed the pure doctrines of Joseph as taught in the Lectures on Faith. Looking at the entire quote that Ajax was kind enough to display it is clear that Joseph did not intend on trying to make the case that apostate Christian doctrine tries to do in saying that God was a Spirit without a Physical body. This doctrine of Gods resurrected physical nature is as fundamental of an LDS doctrine that you can find which is a foundational point on the Lectures showing the nature and disposition of God. I seriously doubt that AGStacker was referencing the Holy Ghost in this example.

This reminds me of many discussions I have had with non members concerning John 4:24 about God and his nature. Never mind that the scripture is a mistranslation and has been clarified through Josephs inspired translation. Context is everything and it is abundantly clear that Josephs thoughts on the nature and disposition of God have not been changed by the church over time. This example sure does not show that to be the case.

BrentL wrote:According to Joseph Fielding Smith one of the reasons they were removed is:

they are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

so, you have to figure this out. according to Joseph Smith, they were the doctrine of the church that he expected to be held accountable to God for. According to Joseph Fielding Smith, they are not. only one can be right.

I'm not surprised to see this was not commented on yet. Instead we have moved on to discuss whether God is a Spirit or not, something we could debate forever and only understand by the Spirit. The above example, however, is easy to understand.

Joseph said they were doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith said they were not doctrine, and as part of a committee removed them from the standard works.

The only way I could see this explained away by normal arguments why the church changes doctrine is because of continuing revelation. But with something so fundamental as the LoF, this just can't be the case.

The church has distanced itself from doctrine taught by Joseph Smith and other presidents of the church. What's more is: You guys know it. All of us here are members of the church, why not just admit it?

Sariel wrote:

BrentL wrote:According to Joseph Fielding Smith one of the reasons they were removed is:

they are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

so, you have to figure this out. according to Joseph Smith, they were the doctrine of the church that he expected to be held accountable to God for. According to Joseph Fielding Smith, they are not. only one can be right.

I'm not surprised to see this was not commented on yet. Instead we have moved on to discuss whether God is a Spirit or not, something we could debate forever and only understand by the Spirit. The above example, however, is easy to understand.

Joseph said they were doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith said they were not doctrine, and as part of a committee removed them from the standard works.

The only way I could see this explained away by normal arguments why the church changes doctrine is because of continuing revelation. But with something so fundamental as the LoF, this just can't be the case.

The church has distanced itself from doctrine taught by Joseph Smith and other presidents of the church. What's more is: You guys know it. All of us here are members of the church, why not just admit it?

What the church has done is reject "the important doctrine of salvation"(1835 preface). The church may not disagree with anything in the LoF, but she has essentially rejected and reduced a very meaty and fulfilling seven course meal which is to be savored and mulled over into to drive by fast food lessons of little substance.

A few weeks ago I brought the LoF to church as a supplement to the lesson I was teaching. A institute instructor was in the class. After the class, he took the book and browsed through it as if he had never heard of or seen it before. Sadly, I wouldn't doubt it.

BrentL wrote:

ajax wrote:
The church put it into a separate book, that's all?

When is the last time a leader encouraged you to read it?

Is this book available in the ward library, just in case I forget it?

When is the last time a instructor asked the class to pull out his/her LoF?

When is the last time you have read from it in class?

Gospel Essentials book - the topic of faith is 4 pages which quotes 1 sentence from the Lectures, no further references.

The Lectures are 80+ pages. You tell me what is missing.

The church does not consider it doctrine per JFS quote above.

JS said doctrine, JFS said not doctrine.

it is not on the approved missionary book list. so it cannot be taught from by missionaries. James E. Talmage was on the committee that thought they knew more than Joseph on the subject and removed it. Jesus the Christ is approved for missionaries.

Maybe a case of "line upon line, defect upon defect"

[quote="ajax]Seriously, the lectures on faith.[/quote]


Ball is in your court. Go.[/quote]

God is a spirit, Lectures on Faith.[/quote]

Actually the full passage is,

2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fulness of the Father, or the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name. He is called the Son because of the flesh.

Interesting to ponder.

D&C 131:7 - There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

Bruce R made this comment: "Resurrected bodies, as contrasted with mortal bodies, are in fact spiritual bodies (A New Witness, 72–73)

We can go one of two ways.
1) Joseph's understanding was incomplete as of 1834-35.
2) Joseph, who had the heavens opened to him many times beforehand, knew what he spoke of. What is Joseph saying here that I need to ponder and understand?

I prefer option 2.[/quote]


Option 3...remember, there are 3 versions of the first vision, and none taught before 1835 IIRC.
Gos appearing only came in the 1838 version?

Daryl wrote:I was hoping to learn more about what the scriptures would answer to these questions. FWIW, I consider LOF canon.

Is it possible to be in a state of apostasy, as defined by scriptures, from apostate doctrines? Can doctrines or teachines be apostate? Or is it only people who go apostate from true doctrine? Who is authorized by God to cull the members from apostate beliefs. Who is the judge of apostasy?

Is it possible to be in a state of apostasy, as defined by scriptures, from apostate doctrines?

Just wondering if anyone had any insights. What do the scriptures say about apostasy and these questions?

AussieOi wrote: Option 3...remember, there are 3 versions of the first vision, and none taught before 1835 IIRC.
Gos appearing only came in the 1838 version?

I actually have no problem with the first vision. The amalgamated version is best:

http://www.kevinhinckley.com/uploads/Co ... Vision.doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;‎

Daryl wrote:

Daryl wrote:I was hoping to learn more about what the scriptures would answer to these questions. FWIW, I consider LOF canon.

Is it possible to be in a state of apostasy, as defined by scriptures, from apostate doctrines? Can doctrines or teachines be apostate? Or is it only people who go apostate from true doctrine? Who is authorized by God to cull the members from apostate beliefs. Who is the judge of apostasy?

Is it possible to be in a state of apostasy, as defined by scriptures, from apostate doctrines?

Just wondering if anyone had any insights. What do the scriptures say about apostasy and these questions?

Daryl, consider this thread the test tube for your thesis.

Wow thesis. Cool. Wait, I have a thesis? Awesome!

OK, I will be interested to read more stuff about this. Thanks.