DiscussMormonism.com

Church Handbook, 32.6.3.2 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng wrote: ... apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following:

• Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders
• Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president
• Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members
• Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president
• Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

From the first point, my Stake President has ample evidence of my state of apostasy, and if called out I would have no grounds for denying my state. I email him twice a year to remind him that I oppose the sustaining of the Q15, and ask him to formally note my opposition, and pass it "up the line". Clear cut. He would not allow me to have a Temple Recommend, for example, if I were to request it.

I have not satisfied any of the other points - so far at least - but one is enough.

But if I were a faithful believer, sustained the Q15, and were not under church discipline for any reason, would anyone - faithful member or not - have the right to publicly call me apostate?

When I look at Parker/Pan's accusation of apostasy against Neville, I see a case in which one member (presumably faithful, etc.) is taking it upon himself to make a serious accusation against another member (presumably also faithful, etc.) without any right to do so. He simply disagrees with Neville on a point of belief on which the church has no official position.

If Neville were guilty of any of the 5 points of apostasy, is it not the prerogative of his priesthood leaders, and no-one else, to make that judgement? And if that were the case, is it not reasonable to assume that they would have done so? It's not as if Neville is hiding his views, right?

ETA: As a result of my public opposition to leaders, I'm OK with anyone - faithful member or not - publicly call me apostate, because I have given them the right to do so. And I know that at some point, if my opposition became widely known, my SP might decide to call me to a disciplinary hearing.

They haven’t added the 6th criteria for apostasy yet.

6) Do not criticize Daniel Peterson or any church apologist who advocates for the two cumorah Mesoamerica limited geography theory.

When I look at Parker/Pan's accusation of apostasy against Neville, I see a case in which one member (presumably faithful, etc.) is taking it upon himself to make a serious accusation against another member (presumably also faithful, etc.) without any right to do so. He simply disagrees with Neville on a point of belief on which the church has no official position.

This is what I find as comical in all of this. There are two stooge camps fighting over that which there isn't any good evidence to support. Neither the LGT or Heartland theories can stand up to the evidence and must be treated as myth. Yet, all the emotion and nonsense.

The Fund managers are wise to stay out of this when the inspired fiction model is where it is headed in the end. Don't alienate either camp while pushing the contents of the book. Sounds like a good strategy to me.