The Sin Next to Murder - Critics

[_beastie]

What this immediately reminded me of was a thread I once started on FAIR called "Full Disclosure", in which I suggested that the LDS church needs to deal with some of these issues with members before they discover the information on the internet. While a few believers agreed with my point, the vocal True Fair Believers had their predictable hissy fit. Somehow I imagine that reading the same suggestion from Mike Ash instead of an evil exmormon would incur a far different reaction.

My second thought it that suggesting "leading people away" from the gospel, however that is interpreted (it can be argued, for example, that it is Joseph Smith who leads people away due to, for example, marrying other men's wives, not the people who reveal factual information), is ridiculous. Think of all the truly horrific acts human beings can impose on one another short of murder... and leading people away from the church is worse than all of those? Come to think of it, it's not just a ridiculous suggestion, it is an offensive one that I doubt even Ash truly believes. It's hyperbole. (my guess, not having read the article)

[_harmony]

Think of all the truly horrific acts human beings can impose on one another short of murder... and leading people away from the church is worse than all of those? Come to think of it, it's not just a ridiculous suggestion, it is an offensive one that I doubt even Ash truly believes. It's hyperbole. (my guess, not having read the article)

Leading people away from the church is worse than child abuse.

Leading people away from the church is worse than wife beating.

Leading people away from the church is worse than stealing aid meant for starving people.

Leading people away from the church is worse than any/all sexual sin.

R-i-i-i-ght. Good grief, did he even think this through at all?

[Shadrak]

[

Truth Dancer:quote]He suggest more than members struggling with the difficult issues, they struggle with their perception of deceit and betrayal once they discover them.

How to remedy the problem...

Have believing member slowly and delicately disclose the issues with appropriate faith promoting information... "inoculate" members just like we do with immunizing children. Give them small doses, carefully, and gently so members will be immune to the crisis of faith.

Miike writes, "The ideal would be to see inoculation introduced in official Church venues - although arguments could be made that such a program is not pragmatic."

I think this is exactly what Bushman did in his latest Joseph Smith bio... he gave just enough information to admit there were some tiny issues, gave the apologetic spin on it, so the information is out there with all the justifications. When people hear more of the story, they fall back on Bushman.

I agree with Mike Ash and it's surprising there are not more apologists who understand this.

Take a look at the thread going on MAD from "Her Anum" titled "For all the critics who say the church is ashamed of its history, explain this..." It's the typical denial that the church has intentionally avoided any mention of polygamy in the commonly studied Mormon church materials. I really don't understand the reason they insist on trying to prove the church doesn't do this. A member who has just learned the truth will view this as dishonest and the apologist loses all credibility. Now the critic appears to be the honest person, because they also felt deceived and betrayed for not ever learning about Joseph's wives, or plural marriage being required for that "forever family." It has never made sense to me why TBM's insist on alienating the member who struggles with learning the truth about history by blaming them instead of the church who intentionally misled them.


in my opinion, "innoculation" is one of the most important topics that will impact the future of the LDS church. I believe that is why they have silently supported "Rough Stone Rolling." In the past, the Mormon church was able to avoid most members ever coming in contact with troubling history, so the average member was able to assume anything negative they heard was "anti Mormon" lies.
Apologetics have changed that world. When I first discovered the Journal of Discourses and the disturbing sermons/teachings, my first instinct was to find an LDS church site telling me what I had just learned was false. I was not prepared to learn that not only was it true, but that apologists were defending some of the most immoral behavior by LDS leaders. I have never understood their approach, and it doesn't help the church.

Had I been "innoculated" with real history at an early age, it would have not caused the feelings of betrayal and deceit which led me to disillusionment with the Mormon faith I was raised in. I would still have to deal with the troubling doctrines and history at some point, but I believe I would have taken a different approach while doing so.

[_grayskull]

this is the one case where Internet Mormons have a great apparent orthodoxy to the scriptures and teachings of the brethren. if someone steals from me, i probably rate stealing as higher on the sinometer than i normally would. what could be worse for an apologist than having someone disagree with them, scoff at their ideas, and mock their person? so they construct 'judgement bar fantasies' where, following the storyline from the Karate Kid, they see themselves as standing with the Lord as a witness against the critic. the critic then, as those of the Cobra Kai, acknowledge their guilt and congratulate the apologist and FARMS for being right all along.

[_asbestosman]

this is the one case where Internet Mormons have a great apparent orthodoxy to the scriptures and teachings of the brethren. if someone steals from me, i probably rate stealing as higher on the sinometer than i normally would. what could be worse for an apologist than having someone disagree with them, scoff at their ideas, and mock their person? so they construct 'judgement bar fantasies' where, following the storyline from the Karate Kid, they see themselves as standing with the Lord as a witness against the critic. the critic then, as those of the Cobra Kai, acknowledge their guilt and congratulate the apologist and FARMS for being right all along.

IF we are right about God (and we are, but I'll say if for the sake of argument), then wouldn't it truly be the case that--in the big scheme of things--leading someone away from the path to ultimate joy is the worst thing you could do--even worse than torture.

Now mind you, I would never argue that other things are insignificant. I also also would not argue that because apostasy is worse that we should therefore make a law to punish it most heavily. Not at all! I think religious freedom is far too important than to hinder it with laws punishing apostasy. I also think that our laws should consider the other sins against abusing our fellow man as worse than leading others to apostasy. I strongly feel that punishing those who lead others to apostasy should remain in God's hands, not ours. However, I think it makes sense that such a thing would cause people to feel the most regret in the end.

Is it a good argument against leading others to apostasy? No--at least not any better than Pascal's Wager. So in some sense this statement is worthless even though I am fairly sure that it is true.

[_grayskull]

It is true, asb, in fact, it would actually be worse than murder. since as bob bennett points out in his FARMS essay, life and death is basically just a game. I'm saying it's logically justified to believe it. And there is scripture precedent.

But, it's a curious anomaly. If the church is true, it's logical that the hemispheric model that everyone in the church has always believed will still be vindicated in the future. It's logical that evolution is false, a deceit by the devil and that the dinosaur bones were planted personally by Lucifer himself. It's curious that they choose cases like apostacy or homosexuality to be so strikingly orthodox on. Issues that are either very personal or easily accounted for by prejudice.

[_beastie]

IF we are right about God (and we are, but I'll say if for the sake of argument), then wouldn't it truly be the case that--in the big scheme of things--leading someone away from the path to ultimate joy is the worst thing you could do--even worse than torture.

Here's part of the conundrum: does God "damn" people (using the word in the LDS sense, which is to halt eternal progression at a lower level, such as the terrestrial kingdom versus celestial) who are sincere, decent people,, but have been led astray by others?

I have had this argument with believers before, and most of them seemed to be arguing that God will NOT damn sincere decent people who were led astray by others in this life, because those same people would have the chance to embrace the truth in the next life. I argued that scripture seems to support the idea that God will, indeed, damn sincere people whose only sin was being led astray by others. It's in the D&C, section 76, in regards to the inhabitants of the terrestrial kingdom:

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

I think the interpretation of these verses is clear, but the discussion devolved into believers parsing about what "honorable" means, trying to find a way around the obvious: good, decent people whose only sin was to be led astray by others will be damned in the next life (in the LDS sense).

So if this is true, and God damns people for being led astray, despite the fact that the individual who was led astray was sincere, decent, ie, "honorable" - then perhaps it could be a sin next to murder.

But this is a particularly malicious type of deity, much like the one who damns infants to hellfire simply for having the misfortune of being born to the wrong parents, who didn't know enough to provide a Catholic baptism. I can understanding fearing such a deity, but I cannot understand loving and worshiping such a malicious deity.

If, on the other hand, the believers who argued with me were correct, and "honorable" doesn't necessarily mean 'decent and sincere' but some other obscure meaning, then these people whose only sin was to be led astray aren't damned in any permanent sense, so to say leading them out of the church is a sin next to murder is illogical and nothing more than hyperbole.

[_asbestosman]

beastie,

I would say that those who were led astray by the craftiness of men still sinned in some sense. I think that had they not been led astray, they'd still be punished based on how they allowed their hearts were susceptible to such craftiness. On the other hand, if you're right it would seem no more problematic than the whole salvation of children who die before eight thing even if it is the other end of the coin.

In fact I think the ultimate outcome of this is irrelavent to the matter of whether leading others astray is the worst sin. The reason for that is that even if one cannot truly cause another's loss of blessings, one can still be judged on the intent. You may object that the goal was not to lead someone away from God. Maybe there are some cases where this ist true and they will be given an easier judgment (the insanity defense?). But I think there are also many who lead others astray who should have known better and will regret their actions because of that. Again, this argument is basically as worthless as Pascal's Wager.

[_truth dancer]

Ahhhh..

I would say that those who were led astray by the craftiness of men still sinned in some sense. I think that had they not been led astray, they'd still be punished based on how they allowed their hearts were susceptible to such craftiness.

Of all the difficulties I had with the church this attitude was the most problematic.

Basically... those who don't believe in Joseph Smith, are choosing to be evil, are doing something wrong or they would believe, their hearts are in the wrong place, they sinned, were following Satan, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Belief in something other than Mormonism could never be, just a different way of experiencing life, different spiritual experiences, different world views, different understanding of reality, a different belief in what is good or wrong, a different sense of peace and goodness, a different sense of truth, a different understanding of inspiration or revelation, a different way of experienceing this existence, different answers to prayer, different ideal and dreams...

Nope... infidels! Pure and simple. They will be punished in the next life for their evil hearts, their sinful nature, and for their inability to hold to truth in light of the world.

Ohhhh please! :-(

Of course all the truly great, wonderful, sinless, sincere, decent humans will of course be believing members. They are the chosen of God, the future rulers of the universes, the only really good people to come to earth.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

Of all the difficulties I had with the church this attitude was the most problematic.

Basically... those who don't believe in Joseph Smith, are choosing to be evil, are doing something wrong or they would believe, their hearts are in the wrong place, they sinned, were following Satan, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

-----

Of course all the truly great, wonderful, sinless, sincere, decent humans will of course be believing members. They are the chosen of God, the future rulers of the universes, the only really good people to come to earth.

~dancer~

Nicely put. Sometimes I wonder why believing members don't see how obvious it all is. Why, I wonder, can't they see the church for what it is? And then I catch myself. I realize that this is the same attitude the members have. Maybe I'm odd, but even when I believed, I didn't think it was a sin to reach different conclusions about the church; I figured that many people's experiences and thought processes and desires weren't conducive to their accepting Mormonism. Now that I'm out, I'm more convinced of that. But yes, it is dismaying, and more than a little offensive, to hear this attitude so plainly stated. But then it's an honest statement, so I can't be too critical.

I know where I stand and why. And I suspect you do, too. That's all that matters, isn't it?