THE DEFINITION OF APOSTASY - IT IS NOT WHAT YOU MAY THINK IT IS

 I was in a chat this morning with some former peeps from the DoC.  I have not been able to get them to admit to their adherence to the DoC, but the talking points are all the same - so, to save time, they just get lumped in with them.  The DoC stance is one of arrogance and moral superiority calling out our temple ordinances as satanic, throwing out anything the Prophet has had to say because he made an overt statement about the shaht (which I also did not like), while throwing out the other things that were said that were spot on.  They pretty universally have a hatred towards BY and anything to do with Section 132 and deny that the Priesthood is intact any time after 1832 or 1834 (I can never get a straight answer from them when trying to pin down their "no longer good after" date).

All I am asking them to do is clearly define their beliefs so I can make a call as to which side of the fence they are on.  It is not my job ultimately, but for me and mine, it is imperative to decide whether their statements should be given the time of day, or not.  When they went after the temple, it became a definitely NOT.  Up to that point, there was a lot of dancing around the subject - but no clear statements.  I guess I have even been called a stalker for the crime of being privy to a FB convo that was public domain wherein one of them said they were not sure how long they would remain in the Church and whether they could "do more good in, or more good out".  I took that to mean, if they had not been detected with the sheep skin draped over their backs while hanging out among the flock of justifiably confused sheep, or should they go join the ranks of the Dehlinites and be part of the full frontal assault on virtually the same things - but with just a harsher tone or with the teeth exposed to the bleating sheep....

Being a good ole shepherd, I like to drive the wolves out - or at least point them out to the rest of the sheep.  There is no gentleness when the shepherd detects an impostor (I am not talking about someone who has chosen to not go to church on Sundays to sup at the Lord's table), but someone who is at full odds with the doctrines and practices of the Church as spelled out by everyone from Joseph to our current leadership.  If a person is at odds with some of the practices of the Church (the vaccine policy, for example), I can relate to that and even sympathize with that.  I have been there.  But I also understand that the Church has to cover it's arse and play in the same sandbox with some very wicked people.  I am not sure compromise is the right word, but bending a little might be a correct description of the practice.  For example, if those who were hiding a Jewish family in the attic were not to bend a little and give the nazi salute occasionally to give off the notion that they were loyal to the goose stepping schmucks, their overall goal to save a few Jewish lives likely would have been foiled prematurely.  I am sure Schindler likely threw a few salutes and Heil Hitlers himself.  Go along to get along in order to do a greater work.  The end justifies the means.  I have done this tons when dealing with snakes.  And then I reach my point - and unload.

However, to the overzealous among the Jewish underground, this act of saluting a nazi would have seemed an extraordinary act, worthy of treason.  So, do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Nope.  Not when you see the overall picture, you do not.

One of the gripes of the DoC is that the Church had the penalties that were removed from the old endowment back in 1989.  I took out my endowment before my mission while those were still part of the rite and when I got back from Brazil, they were no longer part of it.  For obvious reasons, I cannot discuss here, I was shown very remarkably that those things have power and meaning.  I learned this after trifling and the Spirit rebuked me so hard I thought I might die (at least spiritually).  When I was given an everlasting reminder of the breach of those things (which I will be resurrected with), the point was driven home and the Spirit quietly reminded me of what I went through was done to me so that I would take my covenants seriously.  Only my wife knows the details of this experience.  To someone who was born a few years later than I was, they only know of what these penalties were (from someone else relating them) and ignorantly call them satanic masonic things.  They know nothing of what they are saying other than through those who were there to physically witness the change.  At that time (this was around the time of the Godmakers), video tech was getting small enough that someone finally snuck a camera into the endowment session and good old Ed Decker plastered the endowment all over the place in the film, The Godmakers.  Talk about pearls before swine....  Sheesh....  Of course, one of the things they centered on, just as my apostate associates do, was the penalties.  The antis had a circus with that.  I am not sure what came first, but the penalties were removed from the endowment around that time.  I am saddened because they reference things from scripture that relate to apostasy and betrayal.  Lessons that I think we all need to remember before we become the next Judas I., Hiram A., etc.

Lessons of punishment which all anti's rail against (because they fear punishment for their rebellion).  Lessons of those who attempt to usurp authority from the Lord's anointed, as in the case of Ham attempting to relieve Noah of the garment that he inherited from Adam, as it was handed down to him through the rightful heir(s) since Father Adam (I am not sure that Father Adam did not give it directly to Noah, since I am not aware of any interrim handoff).  Likewise, those who attempt to call out the Lord's anointed, and gas-light others who support them, will lose all power in their Priesthood unless they repent.  It is their choice.  The power is in us to choose.  Just as it was in the pre-mortal realms by one who used to be on par in glory and power to the Savior.  All before the accusations and the doctrinal deconstructions started.  Again, I affirm that this illogical stance (rage against the order God has set in place) leads to one place.  I am yet to see it end well in any single case.  It never does.  Just as with Ed Decker (a known adulterer, who would never admit it - but whose reason for being ex'd was due to sexual impropriety), it has not ended well.  And we have not even seen what he has coming to him on the other side.  And just as with the DoC, they all feel they are doing God's work in exposing the "terrible harms" the Church is doing or has done.

At some point, you just have to raise your head, look around and go, "Well, this is not going well"....

I always ask myself, in the case of the Great Accuser, has he ever tried to pinch an inch on the ole spiritual body and come to the realization that he will never have a physical body?  If most of those who were there in the pre-mortal realms, who qualified have gotten a body (the "get a body" line is slowly moving forward) while your line is still stuck in the same place with no forward movement.  Does that not give ole scratch pause?  Or is he still delusional (mentally ill) in the idea that his chance is still going to happen.  I mean, when Christ rose after the 3rd day, did he get a clue that his plan to thwart the Son of God might be in jeopardy?  Is he still so wrapped up in his hatred that he cannot see things as they are?  I get some sense of delusion occurring prior to 33AD - because, if he could have just convinced Jesus to throw himself off the pinnacle, el diablo might have had a chance to put a W on the scoreboard.  But as it was, not even a chance since the successful resurrection.  I mean how long will he go on before he cries uncle?!?  I ask the same thing of these apostates.  But, at least they are having some kind of success out there lately.  In the end; they lose along with ole scratch and company.

So yeah....  It is so painful to watch some kick against the pricks.  Here is a great quote that sums up my definition of apostasy.  Apostasy is just deciding to not go to church for some extended period of time.  Apostasy is deciding to blast away at the foundations of the Restored Gospel, while feigning to be there to help lead the poor confused sheeps to a better place.  Many are fooled.  Some are not:

HYPOCRISY BY THOSE WHO WANT TO CHANGE GOD’S COMMANDMENTS TO FIT THEIR OWN SELFISH WANTS

The teachings of the Lord are clear in regard to the way we must deal with sinners. Christ treated them with compassion -- as long as they confessed that their sin was a sin. Only when they attempted to pretend that their sin was righteousness did he harshly name them for what they were: fools, hypocrites, sinners. (this was not gaslighting, BTW.  This is stating of pure fact by the very God of Love....).  Hypocrites because they were unwilling to change their behavior and instead attempted to change the law to fit it (tithing, temple ordinances, the list is long); fools because they thought that deceiving an easily deceivable society would achieve the impossible goal of also deceiving God. These are they who are “kicking against the pricks” and “fighting against the Saints of God”. 

Joseph Smith taught that it is never enough to physically leave the body of the Church and then leave the Saints alone. You can leave the Church, but the Church never leaves you -- because immutable truth is just that, immutable. It will gnaw at you at every turn and every choice in life until you either bow the knee and confess Christ as your Savior or raise your fist to heaven and curse God and wish to die because of your defiance at the failing to give heed to saving laws and (temple) ordinances which can bring peace and lasting joy.

The Church has plenty of room for individuals who are struggling to overcome their temptation and bad behavior. But for the protection of the Saints and the good of the persons themselves, the Church has no room for those who, instead of repenting of gross sin or rebellion, wish it to become an acceptable behavior in the society of the Saints. They are wolves in sheep's clothing, preaching meekness while attempting to devour the flock, or their families, etc. 

No act of violence is ever appropriate to protect Christianity from those who would rob it of its meaning. None of us are without sin -- the casting of stones (final judgment) is not our duty or our privilege. All that must ever be done to answer them is to declare the truth, and to deny them the right to call themselves Latter-day Saints while proclaiming their false doctrine. Even as Christ freed from her accusers the woman taken in adultery, he told her, Go and sin no more.

Quote attributed to Orson Scott Card with modification by Iraq.