S11 E2 Who Are Apostates Really?

Episode 2 of Apostates discusses Alan D. Roberts' groundbreaking analysis of apostasy in Mormonism, challenging traditional stereotypes of those labeled "apostate." We examine how 61% of Joseph Smith's closest associates faced severe discipline, analyze definitions of apostasy from Brigham Young to modern handbooks, and review case studies including Jesus, Martin Luther, and William Law. We discover that most apostates weren't evil but were often deeply faithful individuals reacting to institutional problems or crushed expectations.

Sources

• Essay_Profile of Apostacy_Dialogue

AI Prompt

Summarize the key points from Roberts article profiling apostacy. Introduce how Joseph Smith had 61% of his most trusted leaders; all but 1 First Counselor, Nine of 19 apostles, left. Define apostacy. Why do Church's discipline members? Discuss apostacy through histroy: Jesus, Martin Luther, William Law, Harrison. Go through the 11 points from the Conclusion section one by one in order from one to eleven. Conclude with what faithful and doubting Mormons should understand about apostacy.

Transcript

Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen,

and I'm Paul Carter,

And we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

We know there is a lot of information out there about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Oh, tons.

You might know it as the Mormon faith. Um, you know, books, articles, people's opinions.

It can be overwhelming,

Right? And so, we're here to kind of break through all that.

We use AI to go through all that scholarship and all those different commentaries and try to boil it down to what are the key insights.

Think of us as your AI study buddies ready to help you on your journey.

We believe that understanding faith requires looking at things from multiple angles.

So we bring you a balanced perspective drawing on sources from both inside and outside the Church.

You know, sometimes those perspectives align and sometimes they clash.

That's where things get really interesting.

And remember, we're not here to tell you what to think,

Right? And just to make sure that you're getting the full picture, make sure you check out the sources in the AI prompt that we use.

Absolutely.

Uh you can find those in the episode description.

Yep.

So, if you're ready to learn,

Question.

Question.

Discover.

Discover something new, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started.

Let's do it.

Welcome back to the deep dive.

It's good to be here. Ready to get into it.

Today we're looking at just one source, but it's packed. It's the article: Profile of Apostasy, Who are the Bad Guys Really? by Alan D. Roberts from the Dialogue Journal.

Right. And our goal here is to really unpack what Roberts is saying about apostasy specifically within Mormonism. We'll be looking at history definitions, challenging some assumptions, all based on his analysis.

And he kicks it off with a really fascinating contrast, doesn't he? Goes between the words apostle and apostate.

They sound so similar. Apostle, you know, from the Greek apostolos, one sent forth usually means honor, respect,

And then apostate from apostasia meaning one who abandoned beliefs. And the feeling there is more like pity or fear, someone you shun.

Similar sound, totally opposite meaning. And Roberts points out they're not even related words etymologically.

Yeah. It immediately gets you thinking about labels, about perspective.

Okay, so let's dive in. Roberts goes straight to the history, early Mormonism under Joseph Smith and hits us with a statistic that's well it's pretty eye opening.

It really underscores how complicated this issue was right from the very beginning. He talks about an extraordinary incidence of apostasy among Joseph Smith's closest associates.

Extraordinary is definitely the word. Roberts calculates that 61% of Joseph's most trusted leaders faced severe discipline.

61%. That's 14 out of 23 top leaders he looked at. And most of them were actually excommunicated. I mean, think about that. Over half the inner circle.

And if you break that down, the article says all but one of his first and second counselors got excommunicated. Hyrum, Joseph's brother, was the only exception.

And 9 out of 19 apostles were excommunicated.

Plus, you had Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde, who were cut off temporarily, which affected their standing later on.

So, we're talking about men called by Smith, believed to be called by God,

Men who often made huge sacrifices.

Huge sacrifices. And Roberts poses the big question, the one we're kind of wrestling with here, what happened? What caused these breaks?

And that ties right into how apostasy has even been defined within the tradition. Roberts traces this through different sources. First up, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It lists uh three main things, rejecting revelations or ordinances,

changing the gospel itself, and third, rebelling against commandments, which leads to losing blessings and authority.

And Roberts points out something interesting there. The encyclopedia talks a lot about the great apostasy of early Christianity, but not so much about historical apostasy within the LDS Church.

Okay. Then there's Brigham Young. Young's view from an 1855 sermon mentioned in the article.

Yeah. And his view was pretty stark. Basically, obedience, no matter the cost, is righteousness

and disobedience.

Disobedience or even resisting abuse regardless of the reason. That's wickedness and apostasy. He really criticized people who believed but wouldn't, you know, risk temporal loss or accept checks on their liberty.

Wow. Resisting abuse is apostasy. That's, that's a hard line.

It is. Fast forward about a century and you get Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine. The article notes he really broadened the definition.

How so?

Well, he listed all sorts of things. Abandoning principles, pride, worldly learning, secret combinations, denying the Holy Ghost. I mean, the list goes on. And he even suggested according to the article that things like drinking tea or coffee or playing cards could be a kind of personal apostasy.

So, it ranges from fundamental disagreements to lifestyle choices.

Exactly. A very wide net potentially. Yeah. Now, bringing it more current, the article looks at the Church's Handbook of Instructions,

the official guidance for leaders.

Right. It gives a more specific three-part definition for disciplinary councils. First, repeatedly acting in clear, open, deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Okay.

Second, persisting in teaching things that aren't doctrine even after being corrected.

Makes sense.

And third, continuing to follow teachings of what they call apostate cults, like groups advocating plural marriage after being told to stop.

And the article points out importantly that this official definition doesn't explicitly mention trying to destroy the Church,

which is often part of the common stereotype. Yeah. But even with that definition, the practical application can apparently still be quite broad. Well, the article cites Elder James Faust saying that while just disagreeing isn't necessarily apostasy,

Okay,

Making those differing views public or publishing them. That he said is definitely apostasy.

Ah, so public dissent is the key line there.

Seems to be. And the article also references Apostle Dallin Oaks instructing that criticism of leaders is wrong.

Even if it's true.

The article emphasizes that phrase even if the criticism is true.

So putting this together, the picture the article paints is one of well leadership attitudes that value loyalty and unity above open critique. Maybe assuming a kind of infallibility.

That's the implication Roberts draws a sort of conditional view of truth where public dissent is seen as inherently harmful regardless of the substance.

Okay. So based on these definitions, why do Churches or this Church in particular use discipline? What's the function?

Synthesizing from the sources in the article, it seems discipline is used to maintain what's seen as doctrinal purity, enforce obedience to authority, ensure people follow specific practices, and importantly control the public conversation by members.

So it's a tool for conformity and loyalty. Essentially,

that's how the article frames it. And it adds another layer that the administration of discipline is often inconsistent.

Meaning,

Interpretation can vary. Some people might get disciplined for things that seem like, you know, personality clashes or just being eccentric, while others doing similar things might get a lot more leeway. It's situational.

And Roberts notes a recent trend, too.

Yeah. He suggests the Church seems to be trying to narrow what's acceptable, kind of attacking members on both the perceived Left maybe for historical research, feminist ideas, things like that. And the Right - maybe for focusing too much on lassay stuff or prioritizing scripture over current leaders if there's a conflict.

This leads into the discussion around 1993, The September Six.

Right. Though the article mentions the number is actually much larger, over 135 known cases at the time of writing and apparently growing people disciplined are leaving since then.

And Elder Oaks denied it was a purge.

He did, but Roberts compares that denial pretty sharply to calling historical events like the Mountain Meadows Massacre or Haun’s Mill something else.

Strong comparison.

It is. The article argues this whole cycle, discipline, denial, justification, hasn't really helped credibility or led to reconciliation.

Okay. So that's the institutional perspective and its complexities.

Yeah.

But the article then pivots, right, to look at the actual individuals labeled apostate.

Exactly. It argues we need to examine their journeys to see if the stereotype fits. And it reminds us crucially that calling someone an apostate is always a matter of perspective.

And the article even suggests that maybe it's abusive Churches or leaders that actually create apostates.

That's a central argument. Let's look at the case studies Roberts uses, starting with one that might make people uncomfortable. Jesus seen as an apostate from Judaism.

Okay. Yeah, that definitely reframes things

from the viewpoint of the Jewish establishment at that time. As the article explains it, Jesus wasn't the Messiah. He was maybe an impostor or a teacher. causing divisions.

And the article mentions Paul too, right? Both key figures in Christianity.

Yeah. Jesus providing the core ethics, Paul developing theology and organization, and Paul himself was seen as an apostate from Judaism and Roman traditions.

So, focusing on Jesus, the article says while he taught love, he was also a major critic of the authorities.

A huge critic. Rabbis, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, judges, the wealthy. He challenged them directly. Some thought he was trying to cleanse Judaism, not start something new. But his actions were seen as undermining the existing order.

So from their perspective, he fit the definition of an apostate

perfectly. The article gives examples criticizing rabbis for loving titles, scribes for dead literalism, Sadducees for denying resurrection, Pharisees for their judgmental approach, and attributing his miracles to the devil.

He deliberately broke rules like the handwashing,

Right? And criticized their focus on external stuff, cleaning the outside of the cup. He said he healed on the Sabbath, putting human need above strict rules.

He went after the wealthy, too.

Called them lovers of money, warned against their arrogance, told his followers to follow the teachings, but not the example of leaders because they say and do not. He criticized their vanity, their lifestyles. The greatest should be the servant, he taught.

And the famous, "Woe unto you condemnations."

The article lists them. Shutting up the kingdom of heaven with legalism, devouring widows’ houses, making converts only to make them two-fold more the child of hell, converting them to a corrupt system. Basically

focusing on minor rules over weightier matters like judgment, mercy, faith,

strain at a gnat and swallow a camel and comparing them to whited sepulchers, beautiful outside but full of hypocrisy and decay inside.

And the result from the establishment's view?

Charged with blasphemy, a form of apostasy against their religious order, convicted and crucified. It powerfully illustrates the perspective point.

It really does. Okay, next case. Martin Luther, apostate from Catholicism.

And like Jesus, the article notes, reformers often start out deeply devout. Luther was a priest, a monk, really wrestling with how to be perfect before God

is a big turning point.

Studying Romans 1:17. The insight that the just shall live by faith, justification by faith alone through scripture, that was revolutionary. And the article notes, just developing a new theology like that, which was usually the domain of bishops and cardinals, already put him on a dangerous path.

He wasn't initially trying to break away though.

No, just teach about faith. But two things pushed him further according to the article. First, a trip to Rome.

What happened then?

He saw the whole relic trade, superstitious practices meant to buy time off purgatory. He was apparently disgusted by what he saw as lies and the immense wealth and luxury of the Italian clergy compared to Germany. Disillusionment set in.

And the second thing, indulgences, right?

The big one. The deal between Prince Albrecht and Pope Leo X. to sell certificates guaranteeing pardon freeing souls from purgatory. Tetzel’s famous jingle as soon as the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory spring.

Luther must have hated that.

Absolutely. It flew in the face of justification by faith. He saw it as blasphemous, an insult, and also a ripoff of German money going to Rome.

Leading to Ninety-Five Theses.

Posted in 1517 challenging indulgences. They spread like wildfire. The Pope's response wasn't engagement but asserting papal infallibility to shut him up.

And Luther realized

he was leading a revolt. He was branded a heretic facing death. But he kept going even though he feared splitting the Church.

He wrote key treatises. Then

three main ones criticizing rituals, clergy pride, papal infallibility, called for breaking down the clergy distinction, denounced mandatory celibacy, urged Germans to ditch Roman traditions, echoes of Jesus's critiques in a way,

Challenged the sacraments too.

Rejected five of the seven - keeping only baptism in the mass, rejected transubstantiation, wrote the freedom of a Christian man. By 1520, his influence was huge. The pope condemned him, ordered his books burned, and excommunicated him when he wouldn't recant.

The article mentions the peasant wars briefly.

Yeah, a tragic outcome he couldn't prevent. Over a 100,000 killed. He got blamed by both sides. It also notes the Catholic Counter-Reformation as an unintended positive consequence.

And his famous defense.

At the Diet of Worms 1521. “My conscience I get from God. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Again, from devout insider to apostate founder.

Okay. Now into Mormon history. William Law, counselor to Joseph Smith.

Chosen for reliability, character, financial means. The article calls him one of Smith's ablest and most courageous men. Steadfast and incorruptible.

He invested heavily in Nauvoo.

Huge contributions. Energetic, practical, religiously honest. That's how Roberts describes him, "But his disillusionment," the article says, was slow and reluctant.

What caused it?

Seeing what the article calls the darker aspects of Joseph Smith up close, he stayed loyal for a long time, though. A major turning point was plural marriage.

Learning about the revelation.

Yeah. Hyrum presented it to Emma, who apparently felt she had to submit or be destroyed. Law heard it himself in August 1843 and just couldn't accept it in good conscience. He became a leader of the opposition within the hierarchy.

Other issues, too.

He was offended by using a supposed revelation to manipulate the Mormon vote for Hyrum's political race. Saw it as a sellout.

And financial dealings?

Resented Joseph's near monopoly on real estate. Felt Smith was too focused on temporal business. He was troubled by threats to excommunicate wealthy competitors. Distrusted Smith's business sense, and funded a steam mill instead of Smith's Bible project.

He saw workers struggling while funds for things like the Nauvoo House seemed to disappear.

Yeah. He suspected Smith was using hotel funds for land speculation, buying low and selling high to new converts.

But despite all this, the article says the friendship held for a while, even knowing about Smith's weaknesses, like attraction to younger women.

It seems so. The ultimate break, according to the article, was intensely personal. Joseph Smith propositioning William's wife, Jane Law.

Wow, that's explosive.

The article states, Jane Law and two others later signed affidavits about Joseph and Hyrum trying to seduce them or making indecent proposals. Other insiders apparently confirmed this. Emma Smith even suggested Jane become a plural wife to William.

How did William react?

Confronted Joseph angrily, demanded he stop polygamy. Smith refused, reportedly saying he'd be damned first. It would overthrow the Church. They had a heated exchange. Law saying he would serve God even if Smith went to Hell.

But even then, Law didn't immediately write Smith off.

No, he still believed in the early revelations, saw Joseph as maybe a fallen prophet, hoped he'd repent. But that hope, the article says, was not to be rewarded.

He started getting warnings.

Suspected he was the, the Judas Smith was denouncing, got warnings about Danite threats. He distanced himself sympathizing more with the anti-polygamists

Which led to the Nauvoo Expositor.

Published June 7th 1844. Law was a co-editor only one issue. He'd been excommunicated two months prior but wanted to present facts not rumors. The article calls it extraordinarily restrained.

What did it attack?

Polygamy, financial issues, misuse of the city charter, political revelations, abuse of authority, and Smith's moral imperfections.

And Smith's reaction?

Had the press destroyed, an act that escalated everything and led to his own death. The article argues that violent reaction suggests the accusations had merit.

Law tried to start his own Church.,

Yeah, the Church of Christ based on the Book of Mormon, still devout in his way, but it didn't take off.

And Orthodox histories blame Law for Smith's death.

They paint him as the villain plotting murder. Roberts confirms Law testified against Smith about adultery and Smith used police against Law, leading to legal battles.

Was Law involved in the killing?

A warrant was issued, but he wasn't indicted. Mormon historians name him as a murderer, but the article points out even B.H. Roberts admitted there was no proof, and Law was likely in Iowa.

So, a tragic end for both.

Hopes shattered. Law didn't intend to destroy Smith initially, but felt he had to act against what he saw as a despot, leading to his role in the tragic demise.

Law acted from conscience. Smith followed his light. one revered, the other a dark footnote perspective. Again,

Absolutely.

These stories definitely show it's not black and white, which brings us to the article's conclusions and its attempt to build a new profile of apostasy.

Right. Roberts says there's no single explanation, but we can draw useful conclusions.

The first big one, the traditional stereotype, just doesn't fit most people labeled apostate.

It's inaccurate, he argues. And second, flowing from that, most aren't evil, wicked, immoral, or trying to destroy the Church. Maybe someone like John C. Bennett was an outlier, but not the norm.

Then comes a really powerful third point.

Yeah, this one's key. The article contends that if leaders and members actually lived the Christian gospel fully, there'd probably be very few apostates.

Because there'd be less to react against.

Exactly. Little to be hurt by, find fault with, rebel against. So the argument is apostates are made, not born. They're often initially devout, moral people, expecting the Church to be Christlike, loving, caring, inclusive. When it falls short, they react not from evil, but wanting the Church to be what it ought to be.

That's a huge reframing. And the fourth point connects directly to that, right? About expectations.

Yes. Apostasy is often a product of unfulfilled or crushed expectations.

Like what?

Like revering leaders, then seeing them act in ways that seem self- serving or unholy, or studying diligently only to find historical or doctrinal issues that challenge your faith.

Or expecting inclusivity, but finding discrimination based on gender, race, orientation, wealth, politics, whatever,

Right? Or being told to be perfect and judged harshly for failing while seeing imperfections in leadership. Is that fair? The article asks a double standard.

The analogy used is expecting bread but getting stones.

Exactly. Should the Church align its promises and the expectations it creates with the reality it delivers? That's the challenge posed.

Okay. Point five offers another angle. Creative spirituality.

Yeah. That sometimes those labeled apostate are actually bringing a new or higher vision. Think Jesus's law of love, Paul's spirituality, Luther's faith insight.

Initially seen as threats,

big threats by the establishment, but later those ideas enriched millions. What's heresy in one era might be orthodoxy in the next and vice versa. That applies to Mormonism too, the article suggests.

So point six follows. Religions, especially those believing in continuing revelation, should be more open to new ideas.

They should theoretically, but the reality, Roberts notes, is that religions, like any institution, tend to resist change, resist listening to lower ranks, resist sharing power. He quotes Marty: “religions survive by changing slowly if at all.”

Point seven brings back that provocative idea about institutions creating apostasy.

It basically says apostasy will always happen agreeing with Brigham Young on that. But because institutions can never be as perfectly moral, spiritual, or caring as individuals might hope, apostasy exists as long as Churches create it through their abusiveness.

And point eight is about where the article thinks the Church specifically errs.

By defining apostasy too broadly catching minor disagreements new ideas even disobeying potentially unrighteous commands it errs doctrinally by being exclusive instead of inclusive like Jesus spiritually by needing too much control using unrighteous dominion and practically by acting like members are disposable.

There were some stats mentioned.

Yeah contrasting Joseph Smith's descendants few active LDS with the huge posterity of the faith The Allred family over 55,000. What of the Allreds have been driven out and sociological data suggesting maybe 75% leave at some point though most return. The worth of souls is great. Scripture says their worth should be great to the Church too.

Point nine tackles the stereotypes head on.

Calls them mythical. The evil apostate stereotype is as unreal as the infallible leader stereotype. Both are harmful, divisive, prevent unity.

And why are they maintained?

For control and power? The article argues the institution needs clear good guys and bad guys.

How do we break them?

By accepting everyone's a sinner, leaders included, everyone's equal before God. Leaders aren't perfect, apostates aren't purely wicked. Perspective is key. And Roberts asks again, who thinks Jesus or Luther were evil apostates except the establishments they challenge? So why assume Mormon apostates fit that negative mold?

Point ten is about language.

The language of accusation, marginalization, suppression. It needs to change or be countered. Ideally, eliminated for more inclusive language. But if we accept opposition in all things, maybe we need language for both sides. If you have sinners, maybe you also have self-righteous accusers, apostates, maybe hypocrites, unfaithful, maybe whited sepulchers, unrighteous, maybe blind guides. Without language for both sides, the minority is disempowered. Authority controls the narrative by controlling the words.

And the final point eleven asks, what does the Church fear from apostates?

Does it have something real to fear if it accommodated different views? Would it change negatively? The article says yes, it would change. Whether that's good or bad depends on your perspective.

What kinds of changes are feared?

Roberts lists a lot. Secularization, doctrinal shifts, women's empowerment, liberalism, losing power or growth, financial transparency, historical challenges, losing uniqueness, decentralization, democracy, diversity, individuality, loss of infallibility, and so on. If apostates were leading, it would be a different Church.

It mentions a conflict in models.

Yeah, Marie Cornwall's idea. A conflict between a sort of corporate top- down model leaders and a more pluralistic democratic one, intellectuals, feminists. Unclear who wins, maybe a blend. But for now, the article states power is often used to label and remove challengers, and individuals have to decide if advocating a different vision is worth the personal cost.

Okay, so let's try to synthesize the main takeaways from Roberts's article for you, the listener. 

I think the biggest one is that apostasy is just way more complex. than the simple definition or stereotype allows. It's rarely about pure evil or malice.

It's more often a reaction, right, to institutional problems, inconsistencies, or those crushed expectations we talked about.

Exactly. Many labeled apostate were once deeply faithful, moral people with real concerns, or maybe new insights that just didn't fit the current mold.

And the article argues pretty strongly that the traditional evil apostate profile serves the institution's needs for control, for defining boundaries more than it reflects the actual messy human reality.

Yeah, this deep dive really underscores that understanding apostasy means looking past the labels, thinking about the power dynamics, and realizing how much perspective shapes the story.

So, what should you take away from this? Whether you're deeply faithful, maybe doubting, maybe you've left, or you're just listening out of curiosity,

Perhaps it's just the importance of pausing before we label people, of trying to see things from different angles, understanding the human struggles on all sides. Individuals wrestling with beliefs and expectations and institutions dealing with change and control.

And the article leaves us with that really provocative thought, building on the idea that perspective is everything and stereotypes are often myths.

It asks, if only the contemporary Jewish authorities saw Jesus as an apostate and only Catholics saw Luther that way, why should we automatically accept the negative portrayal of Mormon apostates?

It really leaves you with the question, who gets to decide who the bad guys really are?

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.