Apostasy

The meaning of words can be very important. Words can convey a lot of meaning. They can influence thought or stop it.¹ Apostasy is one such word. In modern Mormonism, once a person or belief has been defined as apostate, loyal members will avoid interacting with that person or thinking about the beliefs they hold. While scripture prescribes the identification of and treatment of apostates, scripture also shows that the mislabeling of true messengers as apostates has been a common occurrence that carries a heavy penalty. With such high stakes, an effort to understand the various definitions of apostasy is worthwhile.

The LDS church has defined apostasy in several public venues. Apostasy is defined on LDS.org as follows: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.”² “True to the Faith,” a book of short topical entries published by the church has the following definition for apostasy: “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.”

Interestingly, the church has a very different private definition. The church’s private handbook distributed only to leaders states:

As used here apostasy refers to members who: Repeatedly act in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings. (Handbook 1: 2010.)

Absent this description is any mention of Christ or his gospel. Instead, the charge is that of opposing the church, church leaders, or church doctrine, all of which have been shown in past instances to have been out of harmony with Christ and/or his gospel.

It is troubling that the private definition is the one that is used to charge and convict members of apostasy. The Oxford English Dictionary defines apostasy as the “abandonment or renunciation of one's religious faith or moral allegiance.” If the church prosecutes members as apostate whose only crime is to have opposed the church, church leaders, or church doctrine, doesn’t this mean that the church has defined their moral allegiance to the church and/or the brethren, and not to God?

Scriptural Examples of Apostasy

Because the church offers two contradictory definitions of apostasy, perhaps the question of which is correct can be settled by an appeal to scripture. After all, Joseph Smith said:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. (History of the Church 4:461.)

There are two examples in the Book of Mormon of apostates who are excommunicated: Sherem and Korihor. In both cases, the crime of these individuals was to preach that there would be no Christ. They preached against “the doctrine of Christ,” which Nephi taught was faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, and seeking the face of Christ until you obtain it (see 2 Nephi 32). Sherem flattered the people by telling them that sin did not exist. He claimed to be living the law of Moses, but he was actually living something that had been drastically changed from the law of Moses as given by God. Korihor, meanwhile, preached “unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets...” (Alma 30:6.) He preached that there was no Christ and no atonement. He said that you could do as you please independent of God's law,³ and he preached contrary to what the scriptures said. He spoke against visions and revelation. In the cases of these men, apostasy was not defined as daring to disagree with tradition, the commandments of the elders, or pointing out the error of the elders. Instead, it was defined as preaching against the gospel of Christ in favor of the traditions of men. The Book of Mormon clearly supports the church’s public definition of apostasy.

There is another type for excommunication in the scriptures. This is the false type of excommunication, otherwise known as the stoning of the prophets. Many righteous men were subjected to this treatment, so many that Joseph Smith said:

The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and these had to hide themselves ‘in deserts and dens, and caves of the earth’ [see Hebrews 11:38], and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men. (History of the Church 4:574.)

Consider the following examples of the excommunication of righteous individuals. Which definition of apostasy was used to condemn them?

Christ. Jesus’ crime was that he preached the original law of Moses, which was very different from the adulterated version taught by the Pharisees. He publicly pointed out the hypocrisy and error of the church leadership. He went out of his way to teach against their traditions, proving from scripture that they deviated from God’s word.⁴ He told them they considered the commandments of men from their leaders to be greater than revealed commandments, and were thus wicked. Those who crucified God were the children of the devil, yet they truly believed they were doing God service. The church leaders cast him out for blasphemy and had him crucified—the highest ecclesiastical punishment they could render.

Abinadi. He publicly preached against his church leaders, quoting scripture to show that their actions and teachings deviated from God. Unlike Korihor or Sherem, Abinadi was not put on trial for the benefit of the people, but because Noah and his wicked priests were offended at his words⁵ and feared the response of the people if they, too, saw their wickedness, which they had till then successfully hidden. The leaders sought to cover their sins,⁶ gratify their pride and their vain ambition, and exercise control and dominion upon the children of men (see D&C 121:37). He pointed out their wickedness, and the wicked take the truth to be hard. Were the charges against Abinadi justified? Is quoting God’s word apostasy? If quoting scripture implicates leadership, is it the reader of scripture who has committed apostasy, or the leadership whose actions fit the sins described in scripture? Is not the punishment of someone for reading scripture at least as great a witness of the apostasy of a leader as anything else could be? Does truth cease to be truth when it implicates leadership? Abinadi did not commit apostasy. It was Noah and his priests who had deviated from God's word, not Abinadi. One can never be righteously charged with apostasy for quoting God’s word, no matter who it implicates.

Abinadi was given a way to avoid punishment. Noah told him he would be killed “unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.” (Mosiah 17:8). Gratify my pride or suffer the full extent of my power! Abinadi's response is the response of the many righteous who find themselves in this common situation:⁷ “Now Abinadi said unto him: I say unto you, I will not recall the words which I have spoken unto you concerning this people, for they are true...” (Mosiah 17:9.) Abinadi simply says, “what I have said is true, and I will not recant.” For Noah, and for all children of the devil, the question is whether or not his words are offensive. For Abinadi, and all servants of God, the question is whether or not what they say is true.

We could likewise analyze Stephen, Paul, Jeremiah, Zacharias, Isaiah, and many others who were cast out by the religious leaders of their day for “apostasy.” In the case of each of these men, the charges of apostasy exactly match the church’s second (secret) definition of apostasy. There isn’t a single example in scripture of that definition being used righteously, only to condemn true messengers from God.

Conflicting Standards

The 11^th Article of Faith states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In the Book of Mormon “there was no law against a man’s belief...” (Alma 30:7.) These perspectives match with our accounts of Joseph’s treatment of church members. For example, when one man was disciplined for a difference in doctrine, Joseph argued in his favor, saying:

I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. (History of the Church 5:340.)

There are plenty of statements from subsequent church leaders that seem to reinforce the same principle of freedom of belief and expression in the church. For instance, President Joseph F. Smith explained:

contradictions of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther was told to recant or be punished. He responded: “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything...” [Latter Day Saints] are given the largest possible latitude of their convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue in his membership in the Church, he is permitted to remain...Members of the Mormon Church are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the Church... But so long as a man believes in God and has a little faith in the Church organization, we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the Church though he may not believe all that is revealed. (Joseph F. Smith U.S. Congress, Senate, 1904-1907, Vol. I, pp. 97-98.)

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley 1997, 661, 665.)

And yet, the Handbook of Instructions states that members who publicly disagree with church leaders should be excommunicated from the church.

Is it Right to Publicly Disagree with Church Leaders?

The scriptural record unanimously provides support for publicly disagreeing with church doctrine or leaders when either is in error. The quintessential example is given in the opening pages of the Book of Mormon, where Lehi—a man without any office or authority in the Jewish realm—begins to preach against the wickedness of the church and its leaders:

Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard. And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world. And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. (1 Nephi 1.)

With Lehi, the question was not whether Lehi had standing in the church he criticized, but whether or not his criticism was true.⁸

Another lengthy but illustrative example is found in the book of Jeremiah. Not only does it provide one of very many scriptural examples of a righteous man criticizing his religious leaders’ errors, it also provides Jeremiah’s recalling to his subjects’ memories the example of a few exceptional leaders past who, instead of prosecuting those who criticized them, heeded their words and were blessed for it:

...ye have not hearkened; Then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth. So the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the Lord. Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt surely die. Why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord, saying, This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate without an inhabitant? And all the people were gathered against Jeremiah in the house of the Lord. When the princes of Judah heard these things, then they came up from the king’s house unto the house of the Lord, and sat down in the entry of the new gate of the Lord’s house. Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears. Then spake Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying, The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you. As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you. But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears. Then said the princes and all the people unto the priests and to the prophets; This man is not worthy to die: for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake to all the assembly of the people, saying, Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls. And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the Lord, Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim, who prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah: And when Jehoiakim the king, with all his mighty men, and all the princes, heard his words, the king sought to put him to death: but when Urijah heard it, he was afraid, and fled, and went into Egypt; And Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt, namely, Elnathan the son of Achbor, and certain men with him into Egypt. And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people. Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hand of the people to put him to death. Jeremiah 26:5-24.)

Another example is provided by the high priest Eli and the child Samuel. Eli, despite his wickedness, was humble and honest enough to admit his folly even when God chose a non-priest child of no authority before the high priest to tell him that God would punish him for his sins.

And the Lord came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth. And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision. Then Eli called Samuel, and said, Samuel, my son. And he answered, Here am I. And he said, What is the thing that the Lord hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee. And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him. And he said, It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good. (1 Samuel 3:10-18.)

In every case, the criteria held to modern Mormons would have convicted as apostate nearly every righteous man in the scriptures. If we know that these men were not apostate, but in fact righteous, should we not consider that modern men quoting the same scriptures with the same message of repentance might actually be on the Lord’s errand, and not raging enemies of God?

Early leaders’ statements teach plainly that public disagreement with church doctrines or church leaders is not apostasy. Joseph Smith said,

We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we believe ought to be duly considered by every individual, that all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 2007,pp. 344-345.)

Modern leaders would claim that they agree with this statement, provided members keep their beliefs to themselves. However, Joseph made it clear that this was not just an internal freedom. He never once punished a member for differing in doctrine. Instead, he supported those who disagreed with him. He said,

I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels good not to be trammeled. It don't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5: 340.)

The church used to teach that we should not obey leaders or agree with them simply because they preside over the church:

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them—even if they knew it was wrong. But such obedience as this is worse than folly to us. It is slavery in the extreme. The man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise this idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary...When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves. (Millennial Star, 14:38, pp. 593-595.)

Brigham Young echoed Joseph’s positions on this issue.

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon a false foundation...If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us. (JD, 13:270.)

Elder Orson Pratt invited normal members to question what the brethren taught, stating that he would be grateful to have his errors pointed out:

Convince us of our errors of Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings. (Orson Pratt, The Seer (1853). p. 15.)

Elder James E. Talmage explained that we should all be open to criticism of our positions. He said,

[t]he man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one-sided but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending. (James E. Talmage Improvement Era, Jan 1920, p. 204.)

President Hugh B. Brown held a similar position. He taught,

Only error fears freedom of expression....Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church....we should also be unafraid to dissent—if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. (Hugh B. Brown (1988) The Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin B. Firmage (Salt Lake City: Signature Books). pp. 137-139.)

President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. stated succinctly:

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. (J. Reuben Clark quoted in “J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years,” Quinn, D. M. (1983). Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press. p. 24.)

Clearly, the modern church’s positions have shifted from what these men stated. If God were to raise up a prophet from outside the hierarchy to call the LDS church to repentance, as he did with Jeremiah, Lehi, Isaiah, Hosea, Samuel, Abinadi, Christ, etc., they would be excommunicated: not for disobeying the gospel, but for preaching in favor of it, to the church’s condemnation:

For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation. (Alma 10:26.)

The words uttered many hundreds of years ago by a prophet of God are just as fitting today at they were then:

Yea, wo unto this people, because of this time which has arrived, that ye do cast out the prophets, and do mock them, and cast stones at them, and do slay them, and do all manner of iniquity unto them, even as they did of old time. And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out. Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil. But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet. Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him. (Helaman 13:24-28.)

Breaking the Rules of Scripture in Church Trials:

The canonized instructions for church trials are provided in D&C 102 and D&C 42.⁹ Here we will briefly compare the execution of church trials in modern Mormonism to the scriptural instructions provided.²¹⁴

D&C 102 describes the roles of the Stake President (the judge) and the high councilors, who are split into defense and prosecution of the defendant.

Whenever a high council of the church of Christ is regularly organized, according to the foregoing pattern, it shall be the duty of the twelve councilors to cast lots by numbers, and thereby ascertain who of the twelve shall speak first, commencing with number one and so in succession to number twelve. Whenever this council convenes to act upon any case, the twelve councilors shall consider whether it is a difficult one or not; if it is not, two only of the councilors shall speak upon it, according to the form above written. But if it is thought to be difficult, four shall be appointed; and if more difficult, six; but in no case shall more than six be appointed to speak. The accused, in all cases, has a right to one-half of the council, to prevent insult or injustice. And the councilors appointed to speak before the council are to present the case, after the evidence is examined, in its true light before the council; and every man is to speak according to equity and justice. Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice. (D&C 102:12-17.)

Current church trials have a very different form. The handbook reads:

After hearing any additional comments from the high council, the stake presidency withdraws from the council room to confer in private. After consultation and prayer, the stake president makes the decision and invites his counselors to sustain it. The stake presidency then returns and announces the decision to the high council. The stake president asks the high councilors as a group to sustain his decision. The high council cannot veto the decision; it is binding even if it is not sustained unanimously. (Church Handbook of Instructions.)

Elder Oaks described that an LDS church court is not actually a court at all:

In a stake disciplinary council, the stake president is assisted by twelve high councilors. Their role is easily misunderstood. Uninformed persons are tempted to liken the high council to a jury. In view of the not well understood instructions in section 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants, there is also a tendency to view individual high councilors as prosecutors or defenders. Neither of these comparisons is appropriate. Members of the high council are present to “stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice” (Doc. & Cov 102:17). In other words, they are to give added assurance that the evidence is examined in its true light and that the procedures and treatment of the accused are consistent with equity and justice. Their roles are illumination and persuasion, not advocacy or decision. (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Lord’s Way,” pp. 233-34, 1991.)

Elder Oaks mistakenly claims that half the council does not advocate for the defendant. It is defined as defense, support, or vindication. The sample sentence provided by the 1828 Webster's is “the advocate pleads in behalf of the prisoner.” A literal reading of the scripture matches trials as they were held in Joseph’s day, but contradicts the current implementation.

The church has also removed the veto power of the high council. In D&C 102, there are two veto mechanisms provided the high council. The first is to demand a retrial, a right of each member of the high council. Second, a “majority of the council” has to agree¹⁰ with the decision in order for the Stake President's decision to stand.

After the evidences are heard, the councilors, accuser and accused have spoken, the president shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case, and call upon the twelve councilors to sanction the same by their vote. But should the remaining councilors, who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an error in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a re-hearing. And if, after a careful re-hearing, any additional light is shown upon the case, the decision shall be altered accordingly. But in case no additional light is given, the first decision shall stand, the majority of the council having power to determine the same. (D&C 102:19-22.)

The church has recently claimed “[Disciplinary] Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.”¹¹ This is not true. A string of recent communications have been initiated by General Authorities. Recent excommunicant Denver Snuffer wrote:

In my case the news came directly from Elder Russell M. Nelson of the twelve, who presides over the Strengthening the Members Committee. Usually the news comes through Elder Whitney Clayton, one of the seven presidents. He was also involved in my case, but the original pressure came through Elder Nelson directly. (http://denversnuffer.com/2014/06/church-discipline-topdown/)

The New York Times reported that, in the case of Rock Waterman,

If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up — one of the church’s leaders known as an Area Seventy.¹²

The same article reported that Keith Kloosterman had his temple recommend removed at request of a Seventy for posting a pro-gay marriage twitter post. There are plenty of other examples.¹³

In defense of Jesus, a dissenting Pharisee attempted to correct the High Priest for unrighteously condemning Jesus without the requirement of hearing the defendant plead his case: “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” (John 7:51.)¹⁴ Likewise, D&C 102 requires that the councilors hear “the evidences and pleadings impartially” (D&C 102:20). They cannot do so if they are under the understanding that the defendant is guilty before the trial has even begun, or if they do not understand that their duty is to independently decide the matter and vote according to their own understanding, not merely agree with the Stake President.

Ironically, Elder Holland recently made this statement:

In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept,’ with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy. (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Prayer for the Children,” Ensign, May 2003.)

There have been others like it.¹⁵ And yet, the recent excommunication of Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer, and many other less-known individuals followed a generic pattern: Charges of apostasy for pointing out church doctrines that contradicted scripture, coercion in threats to cease writing or suffer consequence, lack of attempts to reason with the individual and show error in their positions, and an anti-scriptural predetermined court outcome. Church courts in modern Mormonism are vastly different from those described in the revelations. If the church’s current practices bear no resemblance to what God revealed, how can they be binding in heaven? After all, God said, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (D&C 82:10.) They are courts of men, operating under the commandments of men.

In these types of proceedings, men are judged for their allegiance to the commandments of men instead of the commandments of God. This is a Pharisaical condition. As the Pharisees taught:

even if they tell us that what we think is our right hand is our left hand and what we think is our left hand is our right hand, we should accept their teaching. (Sifrei)

And again:

According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word they will tell you, right or left. (Devorim 17:11.)

Just as in the days of Jesus, righteous men are prosecuted not because they have broken God’s word as revealed in scripture,¹⁶ but because they have broken the man-made traditions of the elders, that in many cases contradict the scriptures.

Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. (John 9:16.)

Jesus was tried for violating policy, not for violating commandments:

`And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? (John 18:22-23.)

Just as in modern examples, specific doctrinal charges were lacking in Jesus’ trial. Eventually, the ill-defined charge of blasphemy was applied. Today, the equivalent is “apostasy.” In both cases, the real charge is daring to agree with God’s word when those in power do not. Since there are no charges of sin, there is nothing to persuade the member of. There is no need to continue ministering to the individual, because their facts are not the problem: their lack of allegiance to the brethren in spite of the facts is. Thus the suspicious absence of the mandated continual ministry to the excommunicant in modern apostasy excommunications.

Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; (3 Nephi 18:32.)

Joseph taught that the way to minister to those in error is to teach them truth, not to shun them:

...If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear down on them? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better. I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by force or reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:498– 99.)

Nephi made a prophesy about our time and the consequences of men who hold these unjustified councils:

For assuredly as the Lord liveth they shall see that the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off; And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught. (2 Nephi 27:21-32.)

The only doctrine that matters in modern Mormonism is “believe anything the brethren say.” As with all organizations led by man, “The price of maintaining membership in the establishment is unquestioning acceptance of authority.”¹⁷

You would think that one would have to rebel against Christ or his teachings in order to be considered apostate. When apostasy becomes a measure of allegiance to an organization or a group of men—both having proven exceptionally capable of deviating from God—instead of to Christ, the process of church discipline becomes a farce that is not recognized in heaven as anything but a glaring instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain.