Only the apostates who fight the Church.
This is a MAD teaching, not the teaching of the LDS church. The LDS church carefully defined apostasy, and I shared that in a very recent thread:
Apostasy
36863, True to the Faith, Apostasy, 13
When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy.
This is a direct citation from a church manual.
The apologists on MAD try to present a different story, because they know that church leaders have consistently taught extremely offensive things about apostates. If apostates just means people who leave the church, that creates a dilemma for them in that it presents LDS bigotry quite starkly.
Apostates were hounded, and some killed, in the 19th century. Yes, the leaders who encouraged this will have blood on their hands. They will have to answer for that. I am an apostate by the dictionary definition, yet I fear some exmos and their extremism far more than any TBM. I have posted on RFM, and Exmo-Social, and the vile sentiments expressed against me there left me far less trusting of exmos. I would even call some of the more extreme ones sociopaths, like the one who called my daughter a "crack whore", and that was not the worst of it. But get this? WHY were such vile sentiments expressed against me? Because I stated I still believed in the Book of Mormon, and not even a liberal interpretation could stop this bile. What I experienced there convinced me I was dealing with some very unstable people.
That was a quick backflip. First you insist apostate means only those who attack the church, now you include yourself by "dictionary defintion".
Of course you fear exmormons more than you do Mormons, Ray. You're on the Mormon side. Why is it so difficult for you to admit this fact? You've conceded as much right here on this thread. They're not going to attack you. As I said before, you're their dream version of an exmormon.
OTOH, I have experienced malicious personal attacks at the hands of internet LDS apologists. I have been called a mentally unstable liar. Some have hinted that I have not been truthful about my divorce, and my exhusband is probably a victim of my malicious nature. Others have been more mundane, and simply called me a liar and plagiarist. I can think of at least two LDS apologists I've encountered that I genuinely believe to be mentally unstable. I would never feel comfortable with them knowing my real name. I believe they have a very dark side and would fear them in real life.
Of course you haven't experienced this. You're on their side, Ray. Is this so hard to grasp?
I'm certainly glad that you agree that Brigham Young and other notable church leaders have blood on their hands. Their rhetoric was violent and it wouldn't even take a mentally unstable believer to think it was condoning outright murder. Now go read some old threads on MMM and see how the apologists excuse their rhetoric, and insist that everyone knew it was meaningless rhetoric - it was the style of the times. Would you contest the apologists who made such statements?
The comments made on RFM pale in comparison. Do you also agree with that? For one thing, no comment on RFM condones violence. If a violent threat were ever made, the mods would remove it the second they became aware of it.
You have made a wild leap to state that the criticisms of DCP constitute incitement to violence. It is no leap to state that the extreme, violent rhetoric of BY and other church leaders incited violence, and eventually led to the worse case of domestic terrorism until the Oklahoma City Bombing. Yet you still feel comfortable viewing these men as speaking for God somehow.
I don't get it. I really don't.