Page 1 of 4

Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:36 pm
by Daryl
I was pondering the other day, "Is it possible to apostacize from apostasy?" I mean, if a church is in a state of apostasy, is it possible to apostacize from that church? Was Martin Luther really an apostate from an apostate church? Which is worse the apostate church or the person who has been excommunicated for apostasy from the apostate church?

Just some random thoughts floating around the grey matter. But I would appreciate any insights into this hypothetical musing.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:41 pm
by InfoWarrior82
Apostasy is simply no longer following your religion's doctrine.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:43 pm
by BrentL
InfoWarrior82 wrote:Apostasy is simply no longer following your religion's doctrine.

well, in that case the LDS church is in apostasy. I was thinking more along the lines of KTF, how would you apostasy from the TLC for example?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:44 pm
by InfoWarrior82
BrentL wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:Apostasy is simply no longer following your religion's doctrine.

well, in that case the LDS church is in apostasy. I was thinking more along the lines of KTF, how would you apostasy from the TLC for example?

Are you talking about polygamy?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:45 pm
by BrentL
no, lectures on faith, the doctrine of our church.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:45 pm
by InfoWarrior82
BrentL wrote:no, lectures on faith, the doctrine of our church.

Which is?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:46 pm
by BrentL
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
BrentL wrote:no, lectures on faith, the doctrine of our church.

Which is?
lost me.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:47 pm
by InfoWarrior82
BrentL wrote:
lost me.

Seriously, what is this doctrine the LDS church is not following which it is supposed to be?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:49 pm
by BrentL
Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:49 pm
by InfoWarrior82
BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Ball is in your court. Go.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:53 pm
by BrentL
thats the "doctrine" portion of the "Doctrine and Covenants" that was taken out by fiat.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 5:56 pm
by InfoWarrior82
BrentL wrote:thats the "doctrine" portion of the "Doctrine and Covenants" that was taken out by fiat.

Lectures on Faith was received through revelation? Who wrote it? What doesn't the church do now/teach now that it should?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:01 pm
by LDX
this subject always reminds me to Alma (From Noah's King times) and the fact that he belonged
to a corrputed priesthood and then he started to baptize...

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:03 pm
by InfoWarrior82
LDX wrote:this subject always reminds me to Alma (From Noah's King times) and the fact that he belonged
to a corrputed priesthood and then he started to baptize...

Did this corrupted priesthood during Alma's time expand the kingdom of God on the earth by leaps and bounds? Or did it bring forth rotten fruit instead?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:08 pm
by BrentL
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
BrentL wrote:thats the "doctrine" portion of the "Doctrine and Covenants" that was taken out by fiat.

Lectures on Faith was received through revelation? Who wrote it? What doesn't the church do now/teach now that it should?
Frederick wrote:I have been thinking about the Lectures on Faith recently. In the preface it states:
We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced...
The Lectures on Faith were included as the "Doctrine" portion of the D&C beginning in 1835 until they were removed by a committee in 1921.

According to Joseph Fielding Smith, some of the reasons given for their removal are as follows.
They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Can we reconcile these statements with what Joseph stated about the Lectures?


For the first point, Joseph Fielding Smith states that they are instructions only and not doctrine. However, in the preface it clearly states:
The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work.
So, right at the outset, Joseph Smith clearly states that these Lectures embrace the important doctrine of salvation. How Joseph Fielding Smith and others on that committee saw otherwise is baffling. Perhaps they never read the preface themselves?

On page one of the lectures we find this title.
THEOLOGY
LECTURE FIRST
On the Doctrine of the Church of the
Latter Day Saints
Notice the title says that these Lectures comprise the "doctrine" of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

At a general assembly of the Church of the Latter Day Saints held on the 17th of August, 1835, the church by unanimous vote sustained the Lectures and Covenants and Commandments as the "doctrine" and covenants of our faith.

I can only conclude that Joseph Fielding Smith and the committee that removed these Lectures were wrong in their assessment that the LoF are not doctrine.

As for the second point I highlighted by Joseph Fielding Smith, are these Lectures incomplete on their view of the Godhead?

To answer I would again cite Joseph's statement in the preface that he stood by every principle advanced in the book. These lectures were published in 1835. Joseph and Sidney both were carried away in the vision recorded in D&C 76 in February of 1832. In that vision they saw both the Father and the Son. They saw Satan and all of the kingdoms of glory. Joseph has also stated that if one could gaze into heaven for five minutes, that person would know more on the subject than has ever been written.

Did the committee who removed the LoF see into heaven the same as Joseph? Had they seen more than Joseph? If Joseph had gazed into heaven, does it stand to reason that he knew what he was talking about when he presented the Lectures on Faith?

In the third Lecture, we read that there are three things necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, The idea that he actually exists.
Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.
Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.

Notice that correct is italicized. This is italicized in the original. Joseph knew God. He had multiple experiences of being in His presence. He knew what it is to have a "correct" idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

Joseph stood by every principle set forth in the Lectures on Faith. He never thought to remove or change them throughout his life. The Lectures were presented to the church, and by a unanimous vote, sustained as the "doctrine" and covenants of our faith.

So, why were they removed? I have seen no evidence that the committee who removed them had greater knowledge than Joseph Smith. I do not know if they themselves had gazed into heaven and saw greater things even than Joseph. But I can say that the reasons they put forth are simply without merit. Furthermore, it seems more likely that they removed them because they did not understand the doctrine contained therein. They certainly seemed to have been unaware of what was written in the preface and the title page, or at best they ignored what was written there. In any case, it is hard to see how they used any inspiration in their decision.

I know that the doctrine presented in the Lectures on Faith is true. I know that the teachings on the Godhead as presented in the Lectures are complete and true. I also know that D&C 130 is true.

If we study the scriptures given to us with a prayerful and humble attitude, God can and will open our eyes of understanding that we may behold all that Joseph beheld. We can as soon as we are able to bear it will be given all that God can offer His children.

The Lectures on Faith present to us a pathway of returning back to the Lord. They are in fact a "how to" manual on piercing the veil and returning to the presence of the Father and the Son. Let us not reject the teachings of Joseph Smith, but embrace them in their fullness. Our salvation literally hangs in the balance of how we treat what we have been given through God's servant.

Do we read these Lectures as the doctrine of our faith? Do we read them as scripture? If we do not, have we rejected the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith?

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:10 pm
by InfoWarrior82
InfoWarrior82 wrote:

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

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:17 pm
by Daryl
Still not sure if the question was answered.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:21 pm
by InfoWarrior82
Daryl wrote:Still not sure if the question was answered.
InfoWarrior82 wrote:Apostasy is simply no longer following your religion's doctrine.

^

This is regardless of the validity of that religion. But yes... technically you can fall away from false teachings. Many in the LDS church feel they have apostacised from an apostacising church... and that it is a good thing. Where your heart is, your reward will be also.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:29 pm
by BrentL
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:

What doesn't the church do now/teach now that it should?
BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:30 pm
by Daryl
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.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:32 pm
by InfoWarrior82
BrentL wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:

What doesn't the church do now/teach now that it should?
BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Still haven't answered the question. Specifics please.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:33 pm
by InfoWarrior82
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.

The gospel is relative to the church.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:34 pm
by AussieOi
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.

Ball is in your court. Go.

get off the grass.

you've been here long enough and read enough threads to know what has changed.

now you just sound stupid.

a really pathetic apologist for the church.

see those thousands of people walking out and away from the church. Out the door, those ones?

Well yeah, see they don't buy your feigned pretense of "hey, you Show me".

We know, that you know, what we believe those changes are.

Yeah, its in my briefcase, but you wouldn't believe me if I showed you. But its impertinent of you to ask.

good try info, but you are only a warrior for Eurasia, and your (and your friends) Baghdad Ali there are no tanks routine just doesn't work anymore.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:35 pm
by Daryl
Here is the whole lds.org definition:
When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.

Re: Is it possible to apostasize from apostacy?

Posted: October 18th, 2013, 6:36 pm
by BrentL
BrentL wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:

What doesn't the church do now/teach now that it should?
BrentL wrote:Seriously, the lectures on faith.
InfoWarrior82 wrote:Still haven't answered the question. Specifics please.
see, the question is in your quote box, the answer is in mine. last time I play ping pong.