"… He Did Go About Secretly … Seeking To Destroy The Church …"

[volgadon]

CFR -- Modern Scripture or a modern Apostle or Prophet.

Can you convene a church disciplinary council?

Sure, if you are a bishops and branch president and stake, mission, and district president. Otherwise, no. Note that you have to be called to those positions. No man taketh, etc.

http://www.lds.org/l...0003a94610aRCRD

Are you allowed to drive someone away from church? No.

D&C 46:3-4 3 Nevertheless ye are commanded never to ^acast any one out from your public ^bmeetings, which are held before the world.Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings. nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation.

Edited June 8, 2012 by volgadon

[CASteinman]

Can you convene a church disciplinary council?

Who said anything about doing that? You are conflating two different things.

Are you allowed to drive someone away from church? No.

Who said anything about doing that? Why would you answer something with another matter totally off track?

Again... I want a CFR on how it is not our role to judge and evaluate the teaching of members and to either directly call them to account or bring them before the Bishop?

Do you have the reference?

[volgadon]

And this is the one I particularly wanted to post for your CFR.

D&C 42:88-89 And if thy ^abrother or sister ^boffend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she ^cconfess thou shalt be ^dreconciled. And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a ^ameeting, and that not before the world.

[volgadon]

Again... I want a CFR on how it is not our role to judge and evaluate the teaching of members and to either directly call them to account or bring them before the Bishop?

Do you have the reference?

Why don't you read my posts before issuing a CFR.

[ERayR]

Internet discussion groups aren't "the church".

I didn't say that anyone was saying that. But church members of all persuasions post there and some stress their membership then advocate remaking the church for recognition from the worldly. That the discussion boards are not the church means exactly what when there are those using it to attempt to dismantle the church?

Edited June 8, 2012 by ERayR

[CASteinman]

There is another issue, alluded to here but not really focused on directly: That many of these wolves in sheeps clothing do their most ferocious work anonymously on the interwebs.

These individuals cannot be called before a Church court because they cannot be identified.

In these cases, Church Members on their own, interacting with these folk are justified in calling that individual out directly overtly on the same venues where they practice their sorcery.

Unfortunately, some venues will not permit this, and thus aid and abet the process.

[CASteinman]

And this is the one I particularly wanted to post for your CFR.

D&C 42:88-89 And if thy ^abrother or sister ^boffend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she ^cconfess thou shalt be ^dreconciled. And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a ^ameeting, and that not before the world.

So then I can confront them.

As I thought.

And here, I was told it was not my place.

Edited June 8, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Why don't you read my posts before issuing a CFR.

I read them and quoted them. Do you think I missed something?

Edited June 8, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

I had a SS teacher who was teaching "on the edge". I simply went to the SS president, told him what was going on, and left it to him how to handle it.

The ark steadiers are the leaders of the church -- bishop, stake president, general authorities. My job is to "steady" myself, my family and those over whom I have a responsibility. Also, perhaps, to let the leaders know of situations were they may not be aware. In the case of Alma II, it is likely that the church members made his father aware of the situation, and he handled it by giving it to Heavenly Father.

And, yes, if the SS teacher continued with such teachings, I would simply find somewhere else to attend SS -- e.g. Gospel Essentials.

And leave the ss teacher to mislead others?

[CASteinman]

And leave the ss teacher to mislead others?

I do not believe you have much choice other than appeal to Priesthood chains. If you attempt any other action, it will be you steadying the ark.

[volgadon]

So then I can confront them.

As I thought.

And here, I was told it was not my place.

So, you have read my posts, have you? Seems you have read Alma 30 just as carefuly. What was Alma doing and what was his role? What were the people of Ammon doing? Will suggested we act like Alma in this case. That would require overstepping our bounds unless we have been called to be branch president/bishop, etc.

I read them and quoted them.

I could stoop to the same juvenile level and issue a CFR, but suffice it to say that I have stated more than once on this thread that taking your concerns to the bishop is the right way to do it. So much for reading my posts.

[volgadon]

I do not believe you have much choice other than appeal to Priesthood chains. If you attempt any other action, it will be you steadying the ark.

What was the priesthood chain in Alma 30?

[CASteinman]

So, you have read my posts, have you?

As I said, yes I read your posts. Did you think I missed something?

Will suggested we act like Alma in this case.

As you well should know, if you do not, he was not saying or implying that we should abrogate authority to ourselves that we do not have -- Authority to lead the Church. He never said it. Never implied it.

However, he did say we should act like Alma in behaving righteously and in identifying and denouncing false teachings.

It is uncharitable to someone to place upon their words meanings that they did not have.

I could stoop to the same juvenile level and issue a CFR, but suffice it to say that I have stated more than once on this thread that taking your concerns to the bishop is the right way to do it. So much for reading my posts.

Yeah.. But I was not asking about taking them to the Bishop. I was asking for a CFR that it was not our role to confront them.

If you are retracting that, then so be it. If you are not, the CFR stands.

Or if all you are doing is objecting to an idea that was NOT put forward by Will then forget it all... because your objections had no basis.

[wenglund]

We should not be openly confronting one another, their should be no contention among us. We should take our concerns to those who has the God-given authority to confront.

This may make some sense when the wolves are devouring the sheep in person, and where both the wolves and the sheep are a part of the same local flock. It doesn't make much sense with world-wide online discussion boards, particularly where some of the wolves and sheep are posting anonymously. In such situations, I view it as morally imparitive (speaking of "God-given authority") for each of us to confront the wolves for the sake of the flock.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mentalgymnast]

Here on an internet board almost anything goes, as long as it can get past the moderators. So the judging, the condemnation, the calling on the carpet of those that are "questionable characters" is part and parcel of what goes on in cyberspace. So be it. And alternatively, the response/rationalizations taken by those that have some beef to grind in regards to the church is to be expected. So be it.

But cyberspace is not the local ward and stake. I think we need to separate the two. On the ground, within our wards and stakes, the rules (scriptures, church policy and practice, etc.) apply because we're acting and being acted upon within the geographical stewardships of sheperds of the flock. In real world situations if we see what we consider to be a "wolf", it is appropriate to privately talk to that individual and ask them some very frank questions. If the answers to those questions from the individual spur/cause us to privately conference with our own ecclesiastical leaders (who have stewardship over that individual) and bring our concerns to them...fine. But beyond that, our hands are tied. And they should be.

Otherwise the Lord's "house of order" comes a tumbling down.

Trying to apply the same standards/practices here in cyberspace, however, are impossible. So I don't know that we should make an attempt to do so. There seem to be some that would like to follow "real world" practice in cyberspace. Here in this venue about all we can do is "reason together" and go our way. If we have concerns that some of those we interact with online are wolves trying to devour the flock there isn't any rule that says those accusations can't be made, although very little good usually comes of it. Things tend to move towards a state of high entropy once the words start flying helter skelter (low order of behavior) all over the place.

Regards,

MG

[Avatar4321]

Before we begin likening the scripture unto ourselves, it is important to examine what the scripture is saying. I know that the phrase "they did not believe the tradition of their fathers" is usually taken to mean a very venerable belief. I think there is a different way of looking at it. These were considered the two major beliefs rejected by the younger generation. "They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ." They rejected both the earthly advent of Jesus Christ and the resurrection. According to Mosiah 4, this was the message delivered by thr angel.

The revelation by the angel to king Benjamin had taken place only a generation before. It would seem that at some point these two beliefs had dropped out of Nephite teachings, necessitating an angelic restoration. What I'm getting at is this. The message delivered by king Benjamin was considered a recent innovation. By rejecting these elements, the younger generation would have considered themselves a reformation, returning to the original roots of their faith which their parents had betrayed. An angel appeared to Alma and the sons of Mosiah in order to show them that what they rejected- the angeli message of Christ's advent and resurrection- was indeed true.

That's an interesting interpretation. Especially since it's clear that the Church was a relatively recent thing since Alma the Elder was the one who established it. Oh that we knew what happened before then. It would illuminate alot more of those passages im sure.

[wenglund]

I found Dr. Peterson’s article to be quite eloquent. Clearly, he could influence and even manipulate others by the power of his language (with the flattering words you use to describe him, I’m sure you agree). It’s not surprising that he is among the best and brightest, from the elite class of the most privileged. It isn’t surprising that he’s a beneficiary of the best education available. Of course he wouldn’t admit that he’d openly admit that his goal is to destroy the church. Maybe he hasn’t even admitted it to himself.

You certainly showered Peterson with flattering words. No doubt you feel that what you are doing is right. But are you rationalizing the fact that your flattering words open the door to iniquities forbidden by the faith of your fathers? As Ezra Taft Benson repeatedly warned, “Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice….Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion.”

You have a remarkable talent for inverting the meaning of things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Avatar4321]

You are not Alma nor should you call on people to be Alma.

I agree to some extent. We have been called on to be like Christ.

We are called on to have the Faith of the Brother of Jared.

We shouldnt limit it to just Alma:)

[CASteinman]

What was the priesthood chain in Alma 30?

It appears to be:

1. The regular members observed him and then treated him roughly: " they took him, and bound him" This actually happened twice and was praised by the editor of this text as being "wise".

2. Then they took him to both the Judge and the Priest,

3. Who considered the case and judged him but did not know what to do with him and

4. Had him bound and sent to Alma and the Chief Judge in Zarahemla

5. Where Alma cursed him

6. And the chief judge issued a proclamation against him and commanding people who believed him to repent.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, I don't believe in the kind of "God" who would kill people for most of the reasons given in the propagandistic nationalistic fictions contained in the Old Testament. Christ brought the sword of truth, the Good Word which defeats death. If one person is authorized to take away someone else's life merely because they claim they are a false teacher, then upon the same principle anyone is authorized to take away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood, and who would not be the sufferer? But no one is authorized to take away life because of a difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate, right or wrong.

So as far as Uzzah the Ark-Steadier goes, even if we do grant for the sake of argument the existence of the kind of God who smites people down for their errors, in context, I think Uzzah is actually guilty of a rather different sin.

[rodheadlee]

I think that since William’s questions are these as listed in the quote above that there is prudence in examining this line of reasoning as illustrated in the quote below:

While for the purpose of cdowis’s response the use of the analogy of an ark steadier is consistent with the traditional uses of this phraseology, I have yet to see it manifest where people really understand what conditions create an ark steadier as the phrase is applied to the conditions in 1 Chronicles 13. Since it very much addresses a significant observable phenomenon of how these wolves enter in amongst the members I would like to examine this scenario in greater detail. I will forgo all of the references and attempt to keep it as short as possible.

The issue begins with the Philistines who have captured the Ark in battle from the Israelites. After 7 months the havoc that the Ark has wrecked on the people of Philistia has brought them to the point of knowing this is an extremely sacred object. Also the symbolic meaning of Philistine in scripture is along the lines of “the flesh”, or “the evil which is within” or carnal man. If you note Philistia location it is surrounded by ancient Israel at times and looks just like a pain in the side. As Israel vacillated in unrighteousness from time to time the Philistines represent their succumbing to the desires of the flesh up to the point that at one time they nearly controlled all of Israel. Even currently the Gaza strip is the same thorn in the side in the same location that it has occupied throughout history. The fleshly desires of Eli’s sons are what contribute to the loss of the Ark in the first place.

Still have this sacred object in their presence that is clearly beyond the scope of their understanding. For this cause they are cut some slack by God as they are ignorant. But as they move it around trying to circumvent its effects The Lord ratchets up the effects until finally Philistines are dying from tumors and hemorrhoids and pestilence. So they have to get rid of this and they come up with an idea. Again keep in mind their ignorance of proper procedure for handling the ark. They build a “new cart” on which to place the Ark and send it back to Israel.

When it gets there the people of Bethshemesh rejoice for the return of the most sacred artifact in all of Israel. However, the Lord immediately makes known the fact that while he will tolerate justifiable ignorance of the part of those that do not understand sacred procedure, where much is given much is expected and the Israelites cannot claim ignorance of how to honor the ark. The result 50,000 or so are struck dead for looking upon the ark.

They called the men of Kirjath-jearim, who removed the Ark to the Levite home of Abinadab where his son Eleazar was sanctified to the proper care of the Ark. Here it remained for 20 years during the final years of Saul’s reign in Israel. So for 20 years the most widespread story in all of Israel concerning the ark is it’s miraculous return to Israel in an “new cart”.

Now we move to the point of the story most use to support their use of steadying the ark. When David finally cleans up Israel after he becomes King he decides it is a good idea to renew Israel’s reverence of the Ark of the covenant. So, recollecting the ever popular story of how the cart was returned to their control he remembers it was moved in a “new cart” before so let’ do it again. So David, who genuinely is one of the most sincerely obedient of all of God’s children by his very nature, (I know he other issues) has allowed himself to become confused about sacred things by following a pattern established by those that do not understand what it is for something to be profoundly sacred. This is the first step. Next he gets two unsanctified Levites, Uzzah and Ahio, that are the brothers of the consecrated Levite, Eleazar. They lead the cart to the dancing and music of non-Levites, he employes no “door-keepers” at the front and the back of the ark, no sanctified Levites to carry the ark by the staves, and he hopes to place it in a barn.

All of these issues are expressedly forbidden in transporting the Ark. So, David has allowed those who are the enemies of God, who have no clue about sacred matters, to start him on a path of multiple egregious offenses to God because they created a “new cart”. I keep “new cart” in quotes because it represents so much more than a cart. By analogy it represents the repackaging of sacred ordinances and performances to a level that is adequate for the ignorant to get away with because they fall somewhat outside of the immediate judgments of God to a substandard that those who should know better will be judged harshly for in forgetting the nature of the divine gifts they forgetfully denigrate in corruption. Uzzah is not the first offense in this scenario, he is the final offense in this scenario. He is in a place he should absolutely not be, unsanctified, leading the ark, which is on a cart on the way to a barn and he, completely in breach of all sacred protocol, reaches up to steady the ark. He pays the price not of ignorance but of arrogance and presumption. He serves as the poster child for all of those who with him that day forgot to consider how God wants things done.

David repents and corrects each of the offenses I have outlined in 1 Chronicles 15. However, in one of the most poignant acknowledgments he states the following.

1 Chronicles 15:12-13

12 And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

13 For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.

…sought him not after the due order…When we wonder how those amongst us lead astray members of the church we need only look at the most prominent examples of our current crisis. Amongst us are those that do not realize what they do and others that take advantage of this to yoke them, like oxen to a cart, to their cause. But for brevity let’s just look at the sacred ordinance of marriage. God ordained the conditions of marriage in the beginning as a union for all eternity. It is one of the most, if not the most sacred ordinance in all of religious practice.

However, over time people have forgotten the sacred nature of marriage and they have constructed several “new carts” with which to deliver the less sacred perspectives they feel are suitable for their lifestyles and living priorities. The real grief is like David some very good minded members have forgotten the “due order” of marriage. They have become sympathetic to the justifications of those less educated in things sacred and they have become the saints in our midst that lead astray the other saints. They play their mistaken rhetoric about how we shouldn’t define the standards for other lifestyles and it is hurtful and we should be fairer. In this manner they reach ever upward, fingers outstretched, arms extending near to full length and they attempt to be in position to steady what they perceive is an ark at risk. This same scenario is repeated over and over for each different perspective - lifestyles, priesthood, men and woman roles etc- that the members of the church should be able to clearly recognize as unacceptable according to the standards that God expects of his children. Some in the church are convinced that we should move the “new cart” along its way with all of its adulterated contents and yet one wonders at what point in time the fingers and the arms will reach full stretch in their effort to steady the ark and finally the last tolerable offense will be measured and judgment meted against the Uzzah’s who forgot to sanctify themselves and seek the Lord after “the due order” as He has defined it.

Outstanding, thanks for taking the time to post that.

[volgadon]

As I said, yes I read your posts. Did you think I missed something?

Yes.

As you well should know, if you do not, he was not saying or implying that we should abrogate authority to ourselves that we do not have -- Authority to lead the Church. He never said it. Never implied it.

Sure he didn't. You need to do a better job of convincing me, especially when Will has quite a history with this kind of thing.

However, he did say we should act like Alma in behaving righteously and in identifying and denouncing false teachings.

And in being pitiless? If you'll note, the people didn't judge and condemn him, that wasn't their role.

It is uncharitable to someone to place upon their words meanings that they did not have.

Pretty sentiment, but hasn't stopped you from that in your very first post on this thread addressed to me. I also don't see you calling Will out on the carpet for insinuating that I am a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Yeah.. But I was not asking about taking them to the Bishop.

Yes you were.

I was asking for a CFR that it was not our role to confront them.

If you are retracting that, then so be it. If you are not, the CFR stands.

What you cannot do with a CFR is badger someone. I've answered it, even when you have obviously not been reading my posts, or else you wouldn't say this: "Again... I want a CFR on how it is not our role to judge and evaluate the teaching of members and to either directly call them to account or bring them before the Bishop?

Edited June 8, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

It appears to be:

1. The regular members observed him and then treated him roughly: " they took him, and bound him" This actually happened twice and was praised by the editor of this text as being "wise".

2. Then they took him to both the Judge and the Priest,

3. Who considered the case and judged him but did not know what to do with him and

4. Had him bound and sent to Alma and the Chief Judge in Zarahemla

5. Where Alma cursed him

6. And the chief judge issued a proclamation against him and commanding people who believed him to repent.

So, is a regular member to act like Alma did?

[Avatar4321]

The question of my opening post had to do with recognizing the wolves working secretly to destroy the Church. Do you know how to recognize them? How do you go about it? What do you propose doing once you have recognized such a person?

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”⁵ - Joseph Smith

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng

If the Saints neglect to pray, and violate the day that is set apart for the worship of God, they will lose his Spirit. If a man shall suffer himself to be overcome with anger, and curse and swear, taking the name of the Deity in vain, he cannot retain the Holy Spirit. In short, if a man shall do anything which he knows to be wrong, and repenteth not, he cannot enjoy the Holy Spirit, but will walk in darkness and ultimately deny the faith. - Brighm Young

One of the first steps to apostasy is to find fault with your Bishop; and when that is done, unless repented of a second step is soon taken, and by and by the person is cut off from the Church, and that is the end of it. Will you allow yourselves to find fault with your Bishop? - Brigham Young

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-12?lang=eng

Im sure there are other good ones

[Avatar4321]

I found Dr. Peterson’s article to be quite eloquent. Clearly, he could influence and even manipulate others by the power of his language (with the flattering words you use to describe him, I’m sure you agree). It’s not surprising that he is among the best and brightest, from the elite class of the most privileged. It isn’t surprising that he’s a beneficiary of the best education available. Of course he wouldn’t admit that he’d openly admit that his goal is to destroy the church. Maybe he hasn’t even admitted it to himself.

You certainly showered Peterson with flattering words. No doubt you feel that what you are doing is right. But are you rationalizing the fact that your flattering words open the door to iniquities forbidden by the faith of your fathers? As Ezra Taft Benson repeatedly warned, “Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice….Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion.”

I would never describe his words as flattering. Flattery requires deception. I see sincerity here.