Jump to content


1 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#1 William Schryver

William Schryver

    Lord Wilmore

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,720 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:55 AM

A couple weeks ago, on the Sunday of the spectacular solar annular eclipse, I also had the opportunity to teach my ward's gospel doctrine class while Dan Peterson and his wife Debbie sat in as guests.  Interestingly enough, in light of conversations Dan and I have had over the years, the topic of the lesson was the conversion of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah.  As part of the lesson, we read the following passages from the Book of Mormon:

Quote

Mosiah 27

8 … the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities.

9 And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them.

10 … for he did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church, and to lead astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God …

I noted the fact that we are often taught that the Book of Mormon was written, not for the people of that day and age, but rather for us, and that its various lessons should be "likened unto" us.  Therefore, I posed these questions to the class:

Quote

We are informed that these apostates among the Nephites went about "secretly … seeking to destroy the church."  Are there such people among us today?  And, if so, in what manner are they "seeking to destroy the church" and "to lead astray the people of the Lord"?  How can we recognize such people?  What are their methods and techniques?  Once we recognize them, what should we do to combat the things they are doing?

Dan has referenced my lesson and questions in his Mormon Times article today.  I recommend it, and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.

Edited by William Schryver, 07 June 2012 - 09:56 AM.


#2 DBMormon

DBMormon

    Book Of Mormon Answerman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:03 AM

Not sure what to say... many think I am fighting the good fight while others say I am an ark steadier.  I think I might be exactly the kind of individual some of you may describe in answering this question.  But with that I will say, to me, the answer is those who take us away from Christ and his saving ordinances are those I would consider seeking to destroy the church.
http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/  
http://www.facebook....!/LDSLeadership  
[email protected]

#3 Craig Paxton

Craig Paxton

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 602 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:09 AM

View PostWilliam Schryver, on 07 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

A couple weeks ago, on the Sunday of the spectacular solar annular eclipse, I also had the opportunity to teach my ward's gospel doctrine class while Dan Peterson and his wife Debbie sat in as guests.  Interestingly enough, in light of conversations Dan and I have had over the years, the topic of the lesson was the conversion of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah.  As part of the lesson, we read the following passages from the Book of Mormon:



I noted the fact that we are often taught that the Book of Mormon was written, not for the people of that day and age, but rather for us, and that its various lessons should be "likened unto" us.  Therefore, I posed these questions to the class:



Dan has referenced my lesson and questions in his Mormon Times article today.  I recommend it, and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.

Oh Brother...REALLY?????

Oh NO you've exposed us....there is a vast right wing apostate conspiracy to destroy the church...drat and we all thought it was being done in complete secrecy...well you've really foiled our evil plans to destroy the church now.... drat foiled again....

Here's a suggestion...

Drop the paranoia…there is no conspiracy to destroy the church…why would there be…the church is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself on its own....without so-called apostates help...a majority of Mormom members don't even participate in Mormonism

Most former Mormons would love nothing more than to just be able to walk away and never look back…

Edited by Craig Paxton, 07 June 2012 - 10:11 AM.


#4 Mola Ram Suda Ram

Mola Ram Suda Ram

    Ax Slinger after the order of RR

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,286 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:19 AM

View PostCraig Paxton, on 07 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:



Most former Mormons would love nothing more than to just be able to walk away and never look back…
I am sorry but this just is not true. You are a prime example. No one makes you post an an LDS themed board.
"Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram. Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram." Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Dogs have more in common with mammals than they have in common with wolves.

#5 Mola Ram Suda Ram

Mola Ram Suda Ram

    Ax Slinger after the order of RR

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,286 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:20 AM

View PostWilliam Schryver, on 07 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I recommend it, and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.
One thing I have noticed is when some one starts to complain about things about the church all the time. That is a sure sign.
"Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram. Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram." Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Dogs have more in common with mammals than they have in common with wolves.

#6 zerinus

zerinus

    Antum Publications

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,054 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:21 AM

View PostWilliam Schryver, on 07 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

. . . and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.

If you are referring to members of the Church as such, any Church members acting in that way today wouldn't be members of the Church for long. They would be exed, or leave the Church of their own accord before they got very far.

#7 bcuzbcuz

bcuzbcuz

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:23 AM

View PostCraig Paxton, on 07 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

...a majority of Mormom members don't even participate in Mormonism

Most former Mormons would love nothing more than to just be able to walk away and never look back…

Does anyone have numbers, such as "active/non-active" membership?

#8 William Schryver

William Schryver

    Lord Wilmore

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,720 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:31 AM

View Postzerinus, on 07 June 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:



If you are referring to members of the Church as such, any Church members acting in that way today wouldn't be members of the Church for long. They would be exed, or leave the Church of their own accord before they got very far.
You seem to forget that Mormon specifically informs us that these enemies of the Church "... did go about secretly ... seeking to destroy the Church."

#9 wenglund

wenglund

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,427 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:37 AM

View PostMola Ram Suda Ram, on 07 June 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

I am sorry but this just is not true. You are a prime example. No one makes you post an an LDS themed board.

Maybe one day he will figure out that actions speak louder than words.

It is like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and immediately exclaiming, "What?...I didn't do anything."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 07 June 2012 - 10:38 AM.

My Blog; You may be a useful idiot if...

For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}

#10 rpn

rpn

    violets

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,398 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:43 AM

Well, one thing is to remember the rest of the story ---- those who were so labelled repented and turned back to God.  So the take away cannot be to shun or judge.   Take away has to be to stand firm, testify often of truth, and live as devote disciples.

#11 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,840 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:44 AM

View PostWilliam Schryver, on 07 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

A couple weeks ago, on the Sunday of the spectacular solar annular eclipse, I also had the opportunity to teach my ward's gospel doctrine class while Dan Peterson and his wife Debbie sat in as guests.  Interestingly enough, in light of conversations Dan and I have had over the years, the topic of the lesson was the conversion of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah.  As part of the lesson, we read the following passages from the Book of Mormon:



I noted the fact that we are often taught that the Book of Mormon was written, not for the people of that day and age, but rather for us, and that its various lessons should be "likened unto" us.  Therefore, I posed these questions to the class:



Dan has referenced my lesson and questions in his Mormon Times article today.  I recommend it, and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.

Timely questions indeed, Will.

As I've read your post and Dan's Mormon Times piece, I have been reminded of an insight I have gained through my current reading of the Book of Mormon.

Several times in the Book of Mormon, the verb to flatter or noun flattery are used. As I have considered these usages in context, it has occurred to me that the word has a broader meaning than we are used to today. We think of flattery as insincere praise. I think the Book of Mormon uses it to mean any sort of influence that is applied in a beguiling or manipulative way. That could include insincere praise, but it could also comprise sophistry, deceptive rhetoric or reasoning that might seem persuasive on the surface but in reality is unsound.

Viewed in that light, flattery is employed today by those who oppose the Church of Jesus Christ, just as in former times and it is no more prominent than in Internet discussions about the Church.

I invite any reader to test this understanding by looking up usages of flattery in the Book of Mormon and applying this meaning to them.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 07 June 2012 - 01:26 PM.

To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture.  I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#12 Freedom

Freedom

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:46 AM

View PostCraig Paxton, on 07 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:


Most former Mormons would love nothing more than to just be able to walk away and never look back…

Uh, I don't know how to respond to this comment without sounding condescending and rude. This reminds me of the man who beats his wife and claims she made him do it.

#13 altersteve

altersteve

    Legen... wait for it...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,539 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:47 AM

View PostCraig Paxton, on 07 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

there is no conspiracy to destroy the church…

Nobody ever claimed there was such a "conspiracy."

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
—Mahatma Ghandi


#14 Gohan

Gohan

    Jedi Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:51 AM

View PostMola Ram Suda Ram, on 07 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

One thing I have noticed is when some one starts to complain about things about the church all the time. That is a sure sign.
Not necessarily. People are allowed to have opinions and disagree, and still be strong and believing members.

For instance, I had a very difficult time with a student ward bishop a few semesters ago. He didn't like my roommates and I - we were five minutes late to church the second Sunday of the semester, and his opinion of us went down from there -  and I wasn't particularly fond of him and the methods he undertook to run the ward, and people knew that I felt that way. But I still sustained him, because he was my Bishop, and I knew where his call had come from.

Just because you disagree and/or complain doesn't mean you're on the fast track to apostasy.
Served in the Nevada Las Vegas West Mission: 10/1/2008 - 10/5/2010

Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning, Satan shudders and says, "Oh Crap...he's awake!"

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.(John 21:25)

#15 Matthew J. Tandy

Matthew J. Tandy

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,492 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:53 AM

Quote

Nobody ever claimed there was such a "conspiracy."

There is indeed a vast and important difference between a conspiracy, which usually involves a group (ala Illuminati) and individuals acting of their own accord for their own reasons in ways that are designed to bring about change and/or destruction and/or defamation to the church. That multiple people of this ilk may pop around the same time usually speaks more to social trends than any coordinated effort.

Quote

Well, one thing is to remember the rest of the story ---- those who were so labelled repented and turned back to God.  So the take away cannot be to shun or judge.   Take away has to be to stand firm, testify often of truth, and live as devote disciples.

Absolutely.
"There are those who mock our beliefs in the most uncharitable ways. And we will bear what they do with long-suffering, for it does not change truth. And in their own way they move our work along a little faster."

â??Boyd K. Packer

#16 wenglund

wenglund

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,427 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:54 AM

Quote

And, if so, in what manner are they "seeking to destroy the church" and "to lead astray the people of the Lord"?  How can we recognize such people?  What are their methods and techniques?

I would say their methods and techniques generally consist of placing reliance and trust in men rather than God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
My Blog; You may be a useful idiot if...

For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}

#17 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,840 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:00 AM

View Postrpn, on 07 June 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Well, one thing is to remember the rest of the story ---- those who were so labelled repented and turned back to God.  So the take away cannot be to shun or judge.   Take away has to be to stand firm, testify often of truth, and live as devote disciples.
Meanwhile, to the extent that they publicly use flattering (influential, persuasive) words to destroy the Church or lead others astray, they must be be publicly exposed, opposed and their words rebutted, for the sake of those they would mislead.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture.  I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#18 volgadon

volgadon

    Crazy Israeli & Filthy Socialist

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,777 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:10 AM

Hopefully this doesn't turn into another apostatesmeller pursuivant thread.
Calba Savua's Orchard


I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo

i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon

#19 CV75

CV75

    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,781 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:11 AM

View PostWilliam Schryver, on 07 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I recommend it, and I hereby pose the questions to all of you.
1. They would be family members or close associates with faithful members in key leadership positions;

2. The faithful members in key leadership positions would have an idea that something was “off” but for a variety of reasons (likely family, economic or political dynamics) can’t quite put their finger on it;

3. They would enjoy such influence or be placed in positions of responsibility so as to sabotage, embezzle, make purposefully bad decisions and set others up to fail;

4. They might, unknown to others, invest in or contribute to endeavors that undermine the moral fabric of their community;

5. They would hardly be detectable until they have an experience like Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah.

#20 Nominee

Nominee

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:24 AM

Quote

Take away has to be to stand firm, testify often of truth, and live as devote disciples.

I agree with this comment by rpn.

I think the scripture speaks of those in the church who deliberately attempt to convince all other members that the gospel need not be taken so seriously. They mock inspiration and openly complain about church bureaucratization, etc.  

I think the best way handle it is to "stand firm, testify often of truth, and live as devote disciples."


~ Naomi

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." ~ William Shakespeare



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users