A Surprising Lesson on Apostasy

So the ill-anticipated lesson arrived today. Most here know I wasn't even sure if I'd attend. Knowing lessons like these tend to give me migraines, I drugged up, made sure I had a pen and paper, and just listened. I had no idea what I'd say, so I chose to say nothing at all and instead wrote some notes, quotes, and impressions to post here. I look forward to everyone's reactions. Some of what the ladies said really surprised me.

Our teacher today, Sister B, readily offered the fact that she was inactive for some years and even went so far as to call herself an apostate. Other women in the room also fessed up, one making sure to tell everyone that though she went inactive, she never renounced the Church, always believed in the "power of the priesthood" and in the "truthfulness" of the Church. When pressed, she said she didn't necessarily consider herself an apostate at that time, even now, though conceded that according to some definitions one could say she was.

Many women were quick to add that the "state of apostasy" rests upon a spectrum, that until or unless one knows the heart of the apostate, we cannot say for sure just how antagonistic one is or why. I appreciated this very much. One woman said, "It's a broad word and we have to be careful how we use it." The consensus lay that not everyone who leaves is antagonistic, and gratefully Sister B refrained from referring to such points to the contrary in the lesson except for one time, but nobody focused on that for very long. Yay!

Onto the quotes. If the responses aren't in quotes, they're paraphrased from what I heard the women say. I thought it would be of interest.

Question: What is apostasy?

1) Turning from the faith of Christ.
2) Relinquishment of faith - President Kimball
3) Fighting against the teachings of Christ.
4) There was some debate whether inactivity = apostasy, which led to the conclusion that apostasy is a matter of attitude/degree and the aforementioned spectrum.

Question: "What are the reasons one would apostatize?"

1) Failure to recognize leaders are fallible and laying fault when they act like human.

2) Failure to recognize the difference between The Church and the Gospel.

This surprised me, though it is closely related to #1. I hadn't heard many members...ever...suggest The Church and The Gospel could possibly be separate things. The people, perhaps, but never "The Church."

3) "A prophet has said the basis of all apostasy starts with sin...Not partaking of the Sacrament is a sin, let's face it."

You know, upon thought there is some truth to this statement. I don't believe this sister was correct, though many agreed. With everything the Church teaches to be sin, it wouldn't be difficult to sin in the eyes of fellow members and leaders, no matter what the offender thinks or how they came to that conclusion. This brought me to the conclusion that, as we all sin, well...we're always in danger of apostatizing. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily the reason every time, but I can see now how some might come to that conclusion.

4) The desire and chase of worldly things versus spiritual things.

5) "I tend to believe people leave when their expectations aren't met" and they start to believe "maybe this isn't true." (someone who's struggling, perhaps? I've never heard anyone utter those four words in church in any context)

6) One told a story of a man who coveted the position of bishop very much; when another man was called, however, and later was accused of having an affair with a temple worker, this man became rather offended and is today excommunicated. (They also said this was an extreme example, but one nevertheless). Everyone agreed with the woman when she concluded that anytime anyone feels they deserve or ought to have a specific calling, they're on their way to apostasy. Many spoke of no calling being "better" or higher than another. I know this is what we teach, but isn't exactly something most really remember. It's hard to.

Eventually one woman spoke of how we must respect the mantle of the calling, remember our leaders are human, and try putting ourselves into their shoes for a moment.

I almost hugged the woman who said, out loud, that we are expected to take everything our leaders say and pray about it. So glad. Not everyone thinks so.

7) "Satan twists everything in your head."

8) Apostasy is not always an immediate thing, but happens inch by inch.

Question: Why do apostates fight against the Church?

This was a question which led to a surprisingly short discussion. Among the answers:

1) "I believe they feel guilty for not going."
2) There was a great consensus that pride was the main reason.

Question: What happens to apostates?

A little attention was given to a likening of apostates to Judas, betrayers of the truth, betrayers of Christ. Sister B read this quote from Joseph Smith: "From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him. There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned."

The last part of this quote really haunted a few of the women in the room and led to another quote about how those naked and destitute are among the most helpless and hopeless individuals.

One woman said in relation to this, "We can't judge because we don't know what's in their hearts, but they do lose the Spirit. When we're around apostates, we feel their nakedness."

Another woman, one who confessed previous inactivity, said (and I paraphrase) "Many who leave the Church think they're just fine, but they will reach a point where they will look back and see the times when they could have used the Spirit, needed His help and it wasn't there. They'll realize their times of stupidity."

Another simply stated apostates will "Lose understanding and ability to judge" and they stay away from Church because they fear judgment from others. I believe a story was told about one who feared coming because he couldn't give up smoking. He was a great Boy Scout leader - very talented in his calling: loved camping, loved the boys, etc. He had all the boys set up to receive their Eagle. As members couldn't handle his smoking habit, he eventually left. The new scout leader couldn't measure up, and none of the boys received their Eagle. The woman concluded this was God's little consequence, that it happened all because some couldn't handle the fact that the one man couldn't break his smoking habit, and who the hell are we to judge. What matters more, anyway?

What surprised me most about this anecdote was the fact that no one belied the man for "allowing himself to be offended." One woman even said something to the fact that we needn't focus so much on other's but more on ourselves.

I cannot tell you all how grateful I was to hear some of what was said today, especially that last bit. All in all, it was a happy lesson and gave me some food for thought.

I didn't want to be the rule.

When I first started this blog, I had all of these same doubts, questions, and the knowledge that I might not be able to hack it.

I didn't want to admit that, though.

When I first began discussing lefty topics with fellow LDS on Facebook, I did so to feel a sense of community. The good people there gave me strength. I thought maybe I could do this, that who I am doesn't have to contradict the Church, that maybe I was wrong concerning everything and could be a middle-roader without sacrifice.

Numerous faithful, liberal members of the Church fight valiantly against sweeping generalizations that one cannot be a liberal Mormon and yet a good Mormon. Some succeed better than others. It's a hard fight to be made in a Church which seems to pride itself on being rooted in "family values," in being "pro-life" etc. and can't see past their ideological noses. Funny, really, because the Church is technically pro-choice and is based on as many liberal ideals as conservative. But whatever. Nobody wants to see that.

When I first began this blog, a girl from my stake came by to discover I support Obama, I am Pro-Choice, and I thought Prop 8 was a load of crap. She said something to the effect of "Except Obama, everything you just said goes against the Church!" These are basic stances many liberal members have and must contend with, along with a very real questioning of our faith and worthiness. This is the reason many choose to remain in the closet. I daresay this is why so many of us became so aggressive when it came to Prop 8. In our own way, we know what it's like to be shoved into a closet.

Over time, though, I weakened. My doubts raised to a piercing scream I couldn't ignore anymore. Knowing that my bishop could find this blog and call me in for expressing my opinion and discipline really rubbed my fur the wrong way. It's happened to too many others. Good members everywhere have walked into their bishop's offices where they were asked to shut down their blog. One commenter at The Faithful Dissident's recent post says his bishop told him he wouldn't sign his temple recommend based on his blog. He shut it down. Call me prideful, but there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't think I could shut mine down. Not in good conscience.

Freedom of expression, shut down. There's a reason so many abhor censorship - it brings to mind far too many things I'd learned in school, so much history we'd rather never happened. We live in America where we are supposed to be free to express our own beliefs. Without America, we would have no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I should be able to say I respectfully disagree and why without fear of rebuke. I should be able to discuss why I think marrying gay couples won't be the end of society as we know it and encourage people to reconsider their vote.

But, one might say, if you don't believe, why are you here?

This is my eternal soul, that's why. For so long I fought against the cultural crap - I could sweat the culture. I could rally against and scream about it all I wanted. There are some things about LDS culture I really love but most of it just sucks. But this is my church, I've been grafted to it. This deals with my eternal soul. I believed in enough for it to matter.

I didn't want to be this stereotypical liberal Mormon girl on the precipice of apostasy. I wanted to be an activist of sorts, change minds. I've never wanted to be an activist for anything until this past year. I wanted to be an example, so the first time I expressed serious doubt with the Church. I thought great, so much for being an example. But I couldn't keep pretending. That wasn't fair.

The Faithful Dissident says that without the courageous gay community who fought for so long to have others know their orientation is not a choice, that without courageous Mother's Who Don't Know fighting against the June Cleaver or Die mold, that without activist members this church never would have changed. And despite what many orthodox members will insist to the contrary, this Church does change.

I wanted to be part of that so much. I'm a martyr. I would be more than willing to fight except I don't really believe this anymore, not enough of it at least. I could still attend (and do) without being "worthy" of the temple, but...I would be willing to pay tithing if I could and if I believed in what I was investing my money in. It's not really a matter of faith. I would be willing to avoid coffee, tea, and alcohol if...well, as stupid as it is to make a point to drink this stuff, it's just as stupid to make a point not to drink it. I could give it up, though. Much as the garment top bugs the absolute shit out of me, I would wear it. These things matter about as much as they don't in the eternal scheme of things, and instead of worrying about the piddly crap, I'd rather spend my time focusing on other things that will make me a better person because I've so far to go. So that's what I'm doing.

This is the church that most closely mirrors my lifelong beliefs. BUT! sometimes the best form of protest is the one we make with our feet. I have a difficult time believing God would place me on the same shelf as the man who couldn't give up everything he had and follow Christ because I have an occasional cup of coffee - and no, I was never addicted to the stuff (though I freely admit addiction to soda).

My bishop knows I'm having a crisis of faith. At least that's what I told him. The truth is I've been having a crisis of faith for four years now; my husband for the last eight - I didn't even know about his doubts until I expressed my own. The truth is I'm at my end. I requested release from my calling as a Relief Society teacher because I couldn't stand up there and do what I could to show these girls that the norm isn't always the best way, that there are good people outside the church, that the culture doesn't always jive with the doctrine. I couldn't stand the material, of people trying to sound biblical instead of like regular members of the human race who are trying just as hard as I am.

They are no better than me and I am no better than them.

I never wanted to be the rule. I wanted to be the exception, but sometimes it's not worth the fight, not worth the mental abuse one has to go through. I've a family. I worry about enough things. I guilt trip myself, I don't need any help.

There are good, liberal Mormons out there who do believe and have testimonies. I just don't know what I have to add anymore but more of the same, more validation to the idiots' belief that "Liberal Mormons aren't Good Mormons." They do exist, and they're amazing people with very valid views and concerns. I hope more members accept them and give their ideas a moment of their time. I wasn't always like this. I used to be a Limbaugh girl - it was because I listened to other views that I began to change my mind. Not everyone will, but acceptance is all we ask for. We need each other, after all - apostate or not.

Better Safe Than Sorry

I’ve noticed lately many in the bloggernacle referencing the Word of Wisdom when it states “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints” (D&C 89:3) This has been attributed to many issues which are brought up when there is no other answer. Why take off my earrings? Well, maybe because the weakest of the saints need to learn how to be obedient. If they follow the little things they will be more apt to follow the bigger things. In essence many are saying we must follow every Pharisaical guideline because it's the safest way to ensure we don't do something wrong.

Apparently we cannot be trusted. Better safe than sorry.

Here's the thing: I may be a child of God, but I'm not a child. I'm not someone to be coddled or mistrusted as a human with uncontrollable urges, one who needs to be placed in a padded room to be kept safe from all evil at all costs. We would never do this to our own children. We allow them to learn for themselves. I'll teach them my ways and they'll give or take and I am to accept that because they are individual people. I am to trust in my ability to teach them and in their ability to discern and govern themselves when they become of age.

When it comes to Church, though, we are far too often saved from ourselves, spared the horrors of sin. The problem is that a person loses all ability to trust in themselves and in essence, their agency. Let the Church tell me what to do because I don't know if I should.

No? That’s not how it goes? I might have an Apostle publicly shame me for refusing to remove an earring, but the Church won't tell me what to do? I am not able to choose for myself when it's drink a cup of coffee or be "worthy" for the temple - for most, that's an easy decision. It shouldn't have to be a decision, though. I don't see how the crime fits the punishment anymore.

Just as we allow others, I want to be allowed to worship when, where, and how I may. I want to be able, even encouraged, to doubt and question and debate. If we are not to criticize our leaders, I would hope they would refrain from criticizing me for the very same reasons. If our leaders are fallible, then I shouldn't be encouraged to revere them as if they were because they're not, even when they're behind the pulpit.

Are we not to criticize Elder Mark E. Petersen for his abhorrently racist comments? We reject them now, but what of then? President Kimball for his ridiculous claim that masturbation leads to homosexuality? How about a good bishop who tells a tearful sister that leaving her abusive husband will only result in her being responsible for every bad thing that should befall her children?

Or are we supposed to remain quiet and faithfully bow our heads and say yes? Many do. Better safe than sorry.

Elder Ballard argues that "Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God" and continues to say that to do so is to show shame in the gospel. Again, and I know there's an overarching theme here through many of my entries, but we should not be so damned concerned with the Church as we should be with the individual! Not every question is rooted in a dark desire to disrupt the Kingdom. I'd say most if not all aren't.

It takes an unbelievable amount of courage to question. Un-be-lievable, and yet we are so quick to shut a person down before they even start because to do so is seen as aggressive. So what does one do when they find the courage to question and discover the insufficient answers? I feel this shouldn't be about "The" church or any church, but about our individual selves and our personal relationship with God. Guidance is fine. Teach me the principles and allow me to govern myself, but for heaven's sake let me govern myself!

We're famous for saying we have agency, but where is the choice? Heaven or hell. The Church or hell-bound Apostasy. A social network or spiritual and emotional exile. You pick. Stay in the ship or jump overboard and drown as Brigham Young alluded. It is tantamount to an ultimatum. I'll theorize most who jump decide their own brand of agnosticism is the only realistic and comfortable alternative and go on to lead successful and happy lives.

While a person may not fit in a congregation or feel at home in a religion, they do fit in with God somewhere, somehow. I trust in that more than I trust in those who may mean well but can't see beyond their fear enough to actually have faith in God and allow me the same. The problem with our church as I see it is that we're not given this. It's all or nothing. Some try to find or forge a middle road but I don't see how it can be done. The road is too narrow for a middle road. It's all or nothing. Black or white. Others have tried to argue otherwise, but I just cannot see it. We preach His way or the highway.

Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.

- Joseph Smith

The Church wrongly places dissent on the same stage as contention and betrayal when contention is bred when dissent is silenced or casually dismissed with quick and easy answers to complicated questions and concerns. Every question one asks of their leader too often comes with an answer rooted in just a sliver of truth. This is enough to make a person second-guess themselves. That's the hook, and if we don't know any better, we're loathe to stay in the ship because we're told we can't swim, that nobody can in the worldly waters infested with ideals ready to eat us alive. Stay in where it's safe, where we'll be saved. Better safe than sorry.

I can't buy that. Not anymore.

Judas, Satan, Eve, and "Transgressions"

First, a caveat: This entry is bound to offend somebody. I suppose most things are bound to offend somebody, but this one particularly harbors some potential and probable offense. If you find it, know I'm not out to blaspheme. These are genuine thoughts from a genuine person. This has crossed my mind more than once, and I thought I'd dare post them to see if I'm completely off my rocker or not. My husband assures me the Church has already addressed these issues but he isn't sure how. I'm very interested and ask that you please be respectful in your feedback. Thanks.


From an Ensign article regarding the Fall of Adam:

Truths restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith bring Adam and Eve out of obscurity and into marvelous light, revealing they were noble and great forebears who “fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25)....

Our Father in Heaven knew Adam and Eve would fall. In fact, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Adam “was made to open the way of the world” (Teachings, 12). Lehi tells us, “Adam fell that man might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:25). Modern scripture makes it clear that it was the will of the Father, as part of his plan, that Adam and Eve transgress and thus be moved out of Eden. Satan thus unwittingly furthered the plan, “for he knew not the mind of God” (Moses 4:6).

- Arthur A. Bailey, What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam, January 1998 Ensign.

Again, perhaps my logic is flawed. If you see it, let me know. These are merely thoughts, not statements of fact.

But here we go: God knew Eve would succumb to the serpent's words and temptation. He knew Adam, obedient, wonderful Adam, would follow his wife as commanded (think temple).

Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit. They had to disobey God's explicit command to leave the stupid fruit alone, 'else we would have no reason to exist today.

Hell, according to doctrine we would not exist today without Eve.

We love Eve. We love women.

/sarcasm.

But this is doctrine. Agreed? Everyone happy? Okay.

Judas.

We equate Judas with betrayal. He sold our Savior to Caiaphas and Pilate, to those who hated him and demanded His crucifixion, the very crucifixion which led to his death?

Would it be fair to suggest that without Judas we wouldn't have the Atonement?

I understand we believe the actual atoning of sins to have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane, prior to the betrayal of Judas. Without Christ's death, however, the Atonement would be in vain. It is in the Atonement, we teach, that Christ took on all our sins, all of them. He had to die with those sins on his shoulders and overcome death so that we may, too.

Correct?

Some may contend God could have had a plan for Christ to die without Judas' help. This may be true - God's omnipotence would demand it; however, the same could be said for Adam and Eve.

Correct?

We make the distinction that Eve committed not a sin, but a mere transgression in doing what she had to do, what God wanted her to do.

Could the same be said of Judas?

Satan

If you've been to the temple, think back. While I'm told most things are ok-ay to relate outside the temple, I want to be careful here for various reasons.

But perhaps I can circumvent that through simple explanation.

We're taught, as has been explained before, that God knew of the inevitable "Fall of Adam" (apparently his fall is the only one that matters? ugh, who cares). In order for Adam to fall, a few things had to be available:

1) The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
2) The Tree of (Eternal) Life
3) The very innocent and pure Adam and Eve
4) A Tempter: Satan/Serpent

Each are equally important in what we learn to be God's purpose for us: "To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man." (Moses 1:39)

Without the tree, there could be no possibility, according to the Gospel, that God's children would ever know good versus evil. This is vital to free agency.

The Tree of Eternal Life is a bit different in that Adam and Eve were not forbidden to partake of that fruit. Nothing stopped them from going there and remaining in their perfect, innocent state. It would be of interest to discuss this, but for today's purposes let's just remember that God placed Cherubim to guard it after Adam and Eve ate the fruit so they would not partake of this particular tree and remain forever in their sins.

I think the importance of Adam and Eve are fairly well understood for this purpose today.

The tempter.

Now there's something interesting. My husband tells me there are some who believe that, in the end, Satan will basically receive forgiveness and attain his own bit of glory. Remember the temple here and how Satan responds to God's inquiries of what he's doing around Adam and Eve.

Oh hell I'll just write it. My stepFIL is a temple worker and says it's fine to talk about pretty much everything - pretty much. I'm just in no hurry to get called in.

Remember how Satan/Lucifer responds that he's doing only what has been done in other worlds? Interestingly enough everything but this part is mentioned almost word for word in the Book of Moses. Hm.

I never understood why this time was different. It always seemed to me that God needed Satan's part in order to "bring to pass" his purposes for us, so that we could one day become like him. What good is it to know only the good? Where is the choice when you don't know the good for the evil?

Where is the choice indeed.

Was Satan rebuked in like manner during the other times? It's like telling your kid something needs to be done, and when he does it, sending him to his room. "I know it was important and a righteous means to an end, but dammit! You shouldn't have done it!"

Is that it? Did God have a different plan, or was he just waiting for Lucifer to inadvertently help him out?

So if Eve is to be revered for her actions in disobeying God - being the first to do so - why don't we then also revere Judas and even recognize Satan's part in all of this?

Would Eve have partaken of the fruit without Satan telling her all the cool stuff that would happen if she did?

Was there a different way for Christ to be crucified or was Judas an essential part of that plan, too?

Before anyone says "we're not to know all the mysteries of God" let me say I know. But I think this deserves some attention. It's been on my mind for some years, and I hardly think I'm so original as to be the first to think of such things.

Please, discuss.

Why I May Not Be in Church This Sunday

I believe it's this Sunday, at least.

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 27: The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy.

Apostasy.

To the dictionary, the word is benign: the renunciation of a religious or political belief or allegiance

To the Church, it's betrayal of God.

The second paragraph in the lesson begins thusly:

As that year wore on, a spirit of apostasy grew among some of the Saints in Kirtland. Some members became proud, greedy, and disobedient to the commandments... Sister Eliza R. Snow recalled: 'Many who had been humble and faithful to the performance of every duty - ready to go and come at every call of the Priesthood - were getting haughty in their spirits, and lifted up in the pride of their hearts.' (p. 317)

Too often, far too often, we shun those who no longer agree with all or some of the tenants of the church as prideful, haughty, greedy and worldly apostates. Indeed when one disagrees, some jump at the chance to suggest the apostate is looking for the approval of the world as opposed to that of God. As Latter-day Saints we are in the world, but not of the world. Apostates, on the other hand, fit both bills.

This lesson doesn't help that.

...Brigham Young...remembered a meeting at which some Church members were discussing how to depose the Prophet Joseph: 'I rose up, and in a plain and forcible manner told them that Joseph was a Prophet and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased, [but] they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God; they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell. (p. 317, emphasis added)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has mentioned it's inappropriate for anyone to criticise Church leaders, even when it is justified. And why? The lesson explains:

"Losing confidence in Church leaders, criticizing them, and neglecting any duty required by God lead to apostasy" (p. 318)

Siiiiigh.

It's never about anything else, either.

[Brigham Young] then remarked that any man, any elder in this Church and kingdom who pursued a course whereby he would ignore or, in other words, refuse to obey any known law or commandment or duty - whenever a man did this, neglected any duty God required at his hand in attending meetings, filling missions, or obeying counsel, he laid a foundation to lead him to apostasy and this was the reason those men had fallen. (p. 319, emphasis added)

I understand that it's wrong to complain just to complain. We all do it, we probably shouldn't. Sustaining our leaders, teachers, etc. includes buoying them up. Supporting them. Raising our hand in class, preparing for class, etc.

"As long as my brethren stand by me and encourage me, I can combat the prejudices of the world, and can bear the contumely [harsh treatment] and abuse with joy..." (Joseph Smith, p. 320)

Of course. We all need support in our work, our leaders especially. This isn't easy stuff, and there is a world of people against them. They've much to combat.

But to suggest justified criticism is wrong because it's a stepping stone to apostasy...? Is this shit for real?

It gets worse.

"From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him" (p. 321)

Ahh, yes. Apostates of the Church today = Judas.

Judas. Who betrayed Christ to his death.

"Who, among all the Saints in these last days, can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was?" (p. 321)

I get it! The Church isn't perfect, neither are the servants of the Lord. I get it! But I propose those who leave don't consider themselves perfect. We don't ask for a perfect church. We don't ask for perfect leaders...necessarily. I'll admit I do hope for better in my leaders. It's important to realize they're human too and will fail at times. We need to realize such about anybody. Respect is tantamount, but respect must be given and earned and isn't always even by our leaders. The benefit of the doubt is also vital, for both leader and follower alike. Sometimes we just don't know. I get all of this. I don't think "apostates" necessarily began with criticising present leaders as much as they may criticise past leaders' opinions as well as current church stances. There is a difference.

The lesson basically accuses "apostates" of biting the hand that fed them, and indeed perhaps some do. One such example MAY be Ed Decker (thank you, Equality, for the correction. Oy!). His work is unbelievably ridiculous. My mom had me watch his movie The Godmakers as an investigator and I laughed. Horrible. Fear mongering and exaggerations at its worst.

But are we much better sometimes?

This lesson encompasses the reason so many find difficulty in leaving. Many stay because they believe in certain tenets of the faith. Many stay because they feel a connection to God here. Many do stay because they cannot go anywhere else because their discriminatory beliefs in God are rejected in many other churches (though I hear many choose to attend the Unitarian churches).

But many don't leave because they're scared to death of abandonment and venom. If they haven't already, they know the accusations will fly. Gossip will hush behind their backs. They are going to hell. They are covenant breakers, and if you've been to the temple, you may recall the consequences of breaking those covenants, though they sound more like general threats of the wrath of God...

And it doesn't matter what dissenters say about their good feelings toward the Church despite their disaffection. This lesson also covers that.

When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: 'If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.'

The great Seer immediately replied: 'Brother Behunin, you don't know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant (p.324)

That's right.

The lesson ends on a higher note, I think, stating that the majority of the prophets and apostles will never lead us astray. Quite a change from "The Prophet will never lead you astray" but I suppose most things don't get through the Quorum until a majority rules, correct? Ahh, I don't know.

I don't believe the apostles and the Prophet to be imposters. I don't hate the Church; I'm grateful for it and will always be.

There are apostates, but not necessarily betrayers of God. Though I certainly understand why the Church would think so, many simply find another way to God (and many turn agnostic at best and athiest at "worst"). Some in the Church accept this and treat sincere dissenters with respect, but most hear lessons like this and choose to shun, choose to believe anyone who would leave (and generally these are the once very active and zealous) to be a fallen people, a prideful people, a worldly people.

This simply isn't true, not all of the time. I understand the Church wants to protect its people, wants to ensure its people stay faithful, but to suggest it's God or Satan, I think, is counterproductive. Some readers might find it to be a truthful statement. Such black and white teaching and thinking only serves to push more people away. I won't have anything to do with it.

I still haven't decided if I want to go or not. Upon my first reading of this lesson my anxieties kicked in. Guilt set in. I developed a migraine.

Many would say this is because "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard."

And I just might hit the next person who suggests such a thing. Guilt isn't always a reaction to uninvited truth, but to indoctrination.

I just don't know. I don't know how I'd react at Church. I already know what people will say, I just want to know what I would say. I couldn't go and remain quiet. That wouldn't be right, but it sure will pique some curiosities regarding where I stand. Eh.