Anti-Mormonism: Past and Present

[RBerman]

Is it true that you believe the LDS 'religion' to be apostate?

Religions cannot be apostate. Only people can. For instance, Joseph Smith was an apostate, since he came out of the visible church and thus qualifies for the warning in 2 Peter. He then founded a heretical, schismatic cult around his personality and claims of magic powers. Those who abandoned true churches to join him were apostates. But those today who grew up in Mormonism are not apostates, never having been members of a true church. They may or may not be heretics, depending on whether they endorse the heretical doctrines of their false church.

[Cow Poke]

Let's see if we can get a straightforward, non-evasive, non-Milletized answer from you, CP:

Ah, you're seeing the light about Millet's diversion, eh? What you don't understand, though, is that a direct response to a question, even if you don't like the answer, is NOT "Milletized" unless it goes off on a total different direction.

Is it true that you believe the LDS 'religion' to be apostate?

No. Heretical, would be much more accurate. False prophet, extra-biblical revelation in a work of fiction.

[Sparko]

Then, by your logic, Joseph Smith CANNOT be the fulfillment of Bible prophecies about "false teachers" who will come "from among yourselves" ?

...there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:1

derp. I said the LDS church cannot be apostate. That it was heretical. Please note the highlighted red text above. Smith coud easily be a false teacher and a heretic. and he did start "among" the church. Remember him going to the various churches and then rejecting them? He could be apostate, but the church he started can't be, because it was never part of the real church. It was made up by Smith. Who was a false teacher and a false prophet and a wolf in sheep's clothing and a con man and a liar, and a drunk, and an egomaniac.

[Cow Poke]

derp. I said the LDS church cannot be apostate. That it was heretical. Please note the highlighted red text above. Smith coud easily be a false teacher and a heretic. and he did start "among" the church. Remember him going to the various churches and then rejecting them? He could be apostate, but the church he started can't be, because it was never part of the real church. It was made up by Smith. Who was a false teacher and a false prophet and a wolf in sheep's clothing and a con man and a liar, and a drunk, and an egomaniac.

You've gone TOO FAR, Sparko. You are ASSUMING he was a drunk just because he seemed to have a fascination with booze, even though he taught against it!

[nrajeff]

Religions cannot be apostate. Only people can.

How about churches--aren't churches just groups of people--"bodies of believers" so to speak? I agree that it's probably incorrect to label an "ism" apostate.

For instance, Joseph Smith was an apostate, since he came out of the visible church and thus qualifies for the warning in 2 Peter. He then founded a heretical, schismatic cult around his personality and claims of magic powers. Those who abandoned true churches to join him were apostates. But those today who grew up in Mormonism are not apostates, never having been members of a true church. They may or may not be heretics, depending on whether they endorse the heretical doctrines of their false church.

How about the Anabaptists, then?
("As a result of re-baptism, Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both Protestants and Roman Catholics."-wiki)
Say, the Swiss Anabaptists. What were they --apostates? Heretics? Is it possible to be both?

Was Thomas Muntzer an apostate, or a heretic-but not-apostate who deserved to die for his teachings? Or was he a martyr? A soldier for Christ?
("He turned against Luther with several anti-Lutheran writings, and supported the Anabaptists. In the Battle of Frankenhausen, Müntzer and his followers were defeated. He was captured, tortured and decapitated" --wiki)

[Cerebrum123]

Your implication was that "our guys" contributed in a big way to our supposedly bad reputation. I merely pointed out that "your guys" have contributed in a similar way to your bad reputation. The kettle was just reminding the pot how un-shiny he was.


List the religions other than your own that you DON'T declare to be apostate.

That would be 0 religions that are apostate, you first have to believe in something to become an apostate.

[OtherCheek]

derp. I said the LDS church cannot be apostate. That it was heretical. Please note the highlighted red text above. Smith coud easily be a false teacher and a heretic. and he did start "among" the church. Remember him going to the various churches and then rejecting them? He could be apostate, but the church he started can't be, because it was never part of the real church. It was made up by Smith. Who was a false teacher and a false prophet and a wolf in sheep's clothing and a con man and a liar, and a drunk, and an egomaniac.

And so you BOTH apostate AND heretical derp. derp. derp. Got it.

[Cow Poke]

And so you BOTH apostate AND heretical derp. derp. derp. Got it.

Ummm... prior to your "derping", I think you may have kinda mangled that sentence. How bout taking a Mulligan and trying again.

[RBerman]

How about churches--aren't churches just groups of people--"bodies of believers" so to speak? I agree that it's probably incorrect to label an "ism" apostate.

I could think of two cases in which I might say a particular church (that is, a group of people) was apostate.

1) The church as an entity, and its constitutent members, had been an established true church which then apostasized en masse but stayed together as a group. Like, a traditional pastor who goes off the rails, and his people follow him. As that false church gained new members through childbirth or conversion, the term "apostate" would increasingly be an inaccurate descriptor, unless the new members themselves continued to meet the definition of apostate.

2) A group of apostates founded a new, false church together. Again, the term "apostate" would increasingly be an inaccurate descriptor, unless future new members themselves continued to meet the definition of apostate.

So in general, the concept of "apostate church" will be of limited applicability.

How about the Anabaptists, then?
("As a result of re-baptism, Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both Protestants and Roman Catholics."-wiki)
Say, the Swiss Anabaptists. What were they --apostates? Heretics? Is it possible to be both?

Was Thomas Muntzer an apostate, or a heretic-but not-apostate who deserved to die for his teachings? Or was he a martyr? A soldier for Christ?
("He turned against Luther with several anti-Lutheran writings, and supported the Anabaptists. In the Battle of Frankenhausen, Müntzer and his followers were defeated. He was captured, tortured and decapitated" --wiki)

Really what you're asking is, "How wrong can someone be before qualifying as a heretic?" Different ages have had different answers to that question, as your Muntzer example shows. I would not call Muntzer a heretic by today's standards, but I would call Smith and Young heretics, due to the severity of their error, which I recognize is a judgment call.

[nrajeff]

Really what you're asking is, "How wrong can someone be before qualifying as a heretic?"

That is indeed a question that fascinates me.

Different ages have had different answers to that question, as your Muntzer example shows. I would not call Muntzer a heretic by today's standards, but I would call Smith and Young heretics, due to the severity of their error, which I recognize is a judgment call.

What was their most egregious error IYO?

[RBerman]

That is indeed a question that fascinates me. What was their most egregious error IYO?

Well, I could answer "egregious" in one of two ways. The most damnable non-Christian doctrines were (1) the various deviations from Trinitarian orthodoxy, and (2) the redefinition of the afterlife as a three-tiered system, the highest rank of which could only be reached through a combination of faith in Jesus, good lives, and participation in the mystic rites of the Mormon Temple. But in another sense, the most egregious sin was the first one, the attention-seeking claim to have found a buried treasure containing a message from God which only the finder could translate. That sort of "I am the gateway to God" message could only really work with Jesus, the one perfect Man. Everybody else who's made that claim ends up abusing power (in Mormonism this came out not only in polygamy but also in general autocracy), making mistakes which get enshrined into doctrines that become embarassing down the line (e.g. King Follett, pre-Columbian Israelites, the real contents of the Book of Abraham, Negro inferiority, etc.), and so on.

So the first mistake seemed like a small snowball, but by the time its logical conclusions reached the bottom of the hill, massive doctrinal problems were inevitable. Mormonism survived the death of its founder where other heresies did not, probably because the Nauvoo refugees had the good fortune to head to Nevada in the "sweet spot" of the 19th century, when Manifest Destiny was in the air, and the California Gold Rush was just around the corner.

[Sparko]

And so you BOTH apostate AND heretical derp. derp. derp. Got it.

a person can be both. Heretical means holding or teaching false doctrines. Apostate means leaving the faith. So you could leave your faith and hold or teach false doctrines and be both.

But an organization can't be apostate. It can be heretical in that it espouses false doctrines, but it can't be apostate because it doesn't have faith (people have faith)

derp derp.