On Apostasy and The Church

An Ongoing Interview
With Daymon Smith, By Himself.

So popular is this author to himself, that he cannot help interview his own mind. 

First, let me get right to the point.  Many people think you are saying the Church
(the LDS Church) is in Apostasy?  So, what are you really saying, Daymon?

Good question.  What About Apostasy?  First, what is meant by that word?  I know of no real definition
of “apostasy” which gives good enough directions that one might find an instance of it.  In fact, that may be the
best indicator that one is “in” apostasy!  Ha, ha.

Look, the word is used to describe what the speaker believes is bad and wrong, and was once good and
correct.  It is useful, particularly if one has enough power/authority to make one’s definition effective on another
person.  But otherwise, the term merely marks one’s assessment, and avoids the obligation to define it, defend the assessment, and justify it.  The definition requires authority, for by that independent resource one can decide
who is good and make it so, inside that respective magic circle.

Just because a word exists, socially, doesn’t mean it really means anything in reality.  A person can
apostatize by turning against, knowingly against, what one believes is God.  It doesn’t really matter if one’s
notion of God is wrong in this particular case, so long as one believes one is turning away.  And in fact, only a false god, a badly understood, a poorly defined notion of God, can be turned away from, perhaps (unless one is really on the level with Lucifer); and that is where we find that the True God is crafty indeed, and allows us to stray from false gods.

OK, but what about institutionalized apostasy, like a Church?

Again, no definition.
Useful for finding folks who might say the same, but until it has a good
definition, it doesn’t give us anything other than “he said she said” quality
to our conversations.  It brings complainers together, and points fingers.
The Catholics?  When?  How so?
Easy to throw around, hard to explain.
That is, a good definition would be given by the concerned party:
namely, God, who is the one “turned away from,” right?

So, are you saying the Church is in apostasy?

No.  Let me be absolutely clear about this: The LDS Church is NOT IN APOSTASY!  I can bear testimony to this fact!  And use exclamations!!!  How could the Church be in something, when it isn’t something that can “be”?  That is, there is no “LDS Church,” except as a trademark of a corporation sole, which consists of one man, The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There, that is the Church, so stop playing semantic games!

He is the corporation, and there are no other “Latter-day Saints,” except as they believe they are Saints, in their hearts or something.  But then, that means, they cannot be “excommunicated” from a work of their own hearts; and if you can’t be kicked out, it’s because you ain’t never been in.  Just so, presumably God won’t allow the
Church to go “astray,” or “the Prophet” to led “us” that way, because there is no “the Church” to go anywhere; and “the Prophet” is Joseph Smith, so of course he won’t led you astray.

What about baptism?  Aren’t we baptized a member of the Church?  So there!

Baptized a member of a church?  Um, no.
Baptism existed, historically, before any church was organized in 1830, and, indeed, in the beginning with Adam as well.  Baptism by water merely brings in a covenant, to be ratified later by the baptism of fire, and of itself does nothing without the baptism of Fire.  After baptism one’s name is entered into a database of donors, and one is given a little paper certificate, but does this really mean one has a covenant with Jesus?  That is a doubtful inference.

What about the clean feeling?  Doesn’t that mean I am a member of the Church?

Perhaps, but not the Church that doesn’t exist.  Satan can imitate angels, who think he’s unable to fake good feelings?  Or, perhaps you are doing well by trying to find Jesus. Or, you may have stumbled into the Church of Christ, but that is no mere temporal corporation.  It’s because you sought for it, and now have gained entry, but nothing more.  And believing “the Church” is that kingdom of God, well, that is the obstacle: where an image used to teach becomes an illusion used to confuse.

But if I am not a member of the Church, what about my baptismal covenants?

Which are, what?
Those relate to your relationship with Christ, not to a non-existent church.

You just have an ax to grind!  What is your problem, anyway?

My problem, what is your problem?  I’m just here to point out the fact that there is no the Church, and so it can’t be in apostasy, any more than an individual is in apostasy by leaving the Church.  The word “Apostasy” is the problem, as is the word “the Church.”  These terms cannot be defined, and so are useful to the powerful, and to pick them up and to try to use them against the powerful is to act rather stupidly.  To confound an illusion with the same illusion.  You are using their tools, which require power, in order to counter their power?  That will only extend their reach, and give the powerful more of what they desire, and you, my friend, won’t be around to
make any changes.  Until we have a definition of apostasy, from God, we have no real reason to say “the Church.”

Whatever.  That’s not how I feel.  But what do you say about the Priesthood, if there isn’t any Church?

NEXT TIME, I Answer my own question about priesthood.

1 Comment

  1. Winterbuzz says:

    Loved it. Hilarious and insightful!

Comments are closed.