A Breath of Fresh Air

[consiglieri]

Sadly, I fear this may be true. What you fail to understand is that I am not the only one who is watching. How tragic when aspirations and possibilities draw further and further apart, without us even being aware ...

I don't even know what the heck you are talking about, Will.

Sounds kinda nutty to me . . .

[William Schryver]

I disagree with the premise in MM's OP, and I do not think that core faith claims (such as the existence of God, the atonement, and the prophetic nature of the restoration) should be compromised on, but inquisitions are an ugly thing. MM is still a member of the church. We have no right to root out apostates or drive people away from the church. His belief (or lack thereof) is between MM, the Lord, and at mostt, his local ecclesiastical leaders.

One cannot "drive away" that which is already gone.

<sigh>

I'm not sure why it is, but I have observed that naïveté is a common debility among those who aspire to be or already consider themselves learned. The "rank and file" of the church is quite often much wiser when it comes to such things.

”If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

[mercyngrace]

Is this naive?

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

[consiglieri]

Our team is the brotherhood of man.

[William Schryver]

Is this naive?

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

Naïveté is often manifest in the failure to recognize when a principle is applicable and when it is not. It has been my experience that one of the most frequently misunderstood (and therefore either misapplied or neglected) principles of the restored gospel is this:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another."

-Joseph Smith

Conversely, it follows that "that which is right under one circumstance may be, and often is, wrong under another."

The adroit discernment of such things is the antithesis of naïveté.

[mercyngrace]

I'm anxious to see how the situational ethics justification of your apostate hunts goes over at the judgment bar, Will.

More naivete:

We admonish, we beseech our brothers and sisters, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, not only to honor themselves by a proper course of living, but also to honor and love and be charitable to their neighbors, every one of them. We admonish you not only to keep the greatest of all the commandments that has ever been given of God to man, to love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and mind, and strength, but we exhort you also to observe that second law, next unto it, to love your neighbors as yourselves [see Matthew 22:36–40]; return good for evil, do not revile others because you are or may be reviled. We have no need to tear down the houses of other people (using this expression as a symbol). We are perfectly willing that they should live in the homes they have erected for themselves, and we will try to show them a better way … and build them a better house, and then invite them kindly, in the spirit of Christ, of true Christianity, to enter the better dwelling. ~ President Joseph F. Smith

[stemelbow]

Here's the rub as I see it:

We are to expand the influence of the Church. We are to get the message out to as many people as possible. We must figure out a way to make it ring useful to others. In this, I see a great deal of benefit to having diversity in the Church. Surely though, there must be a line. We must have some set of defined beliefs that qualify, otherwise our tolerance becomes the vehicle for confusion. We may end up with a universal church that expresses no dogma and little definitive altruism. There's got to be a line, I'd think. I dont' know its safe to say I can draw that line.

[David Bokovoy]

Sadly, I fear this may be true. What you fail to understand is that I am not the only one who is watching. How tragic when aspirations and possibilities draw further and further apart, without us even being aware ...

Since despite your assertions to the contrary, you are in no way privy to my personal aspirations, I'll simply share that I have no desire to follow your efforts to condemn critics and non-believers. The way that you approach your defense of the faith is so un-Christ-like that I cannot imagine anyone reading your public comments and feeling a desire to take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seriously. You and a few vocal others have given LDS apologetics such a negative representation that I can assure you I have no aspirations of ever being considered an LDS apologist and/or affiliated with any official LDS apologetic groups.

And trust me, as a believing scholar, I am not alone.

[WalkerW]

I think Stanley B. Kimball "gets it" more than John Dehlin:

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley B. Kimball (a Latter-day Saint scholar who taught at Southern Illinois University and published extensively on both European and Latter-day Saint historical subjects) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history."

He called the first of these "level A." This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear.

"Level B," he said, is the anti-Mormon version of church history—essentially a mirror image of level A or, alternatively, level A turned on its head. On level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always or almost always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil. Much in the level B version of Mormonism is simply false, of course; critics of the church have often failed to distinguish themselves for their honesty or for the care with which they've treated the issues they raise. But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on problems that are more or less real.

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall.

The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed "level C," which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don't impress them....

Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is "false," or that the church "lies" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A. (Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction: Reflections on the Reactions to Rough Stone Rolling and Related Matters," FARMS Review 19:1, 2007)

[consiglieri]

I'm anxious to see how the situational ethics justification of your apostate hunts goes over at the judgment bar, Will.

There's no way I should be enjoying this so much . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And trust me, as a believing scholar, I am not alone.

I am not a scholar, can I still agree with you?

For some odd reason, this board has become a drag. I know, I know, some of it in the past has been my fault, but I have noticed things becomming too perosnal. I remember a day when we all would just come on here and pound out our theological differences and it was fun. Now it seems to have taken a different direction.

I need to figure some things out.

Take care everyone.

[William Schryver]

... your apostate hunts ...

I've never once "hunted" apostates. I only recognize and then tag them. The difference is profound and pronounced.

You would do well to examine, in the history of the church, the way Joseph Smith himself did the same, notwithstanding the opposition he frequently encountered from his faithful followers (the insistence of the Saints to uphold Sidney Rigdon when Joseph sought to do otherwise is a prime example).

As I noted above, it is no mistake that William Law is so highly regarded by the fifth-columnist apostate evangelists currently plying their trade among the Saints. One would also do well to examine the fundamental differences between the life of William Phelps and that of William Law.

[mercyngrace]

I've never once "hunted" apostates. I only recognize and then tag them. The difference is profound and pronounced.

You would do well to examine, in the history of the church, the way Joseph Smith himself did the same, notwithstanding the opposition he frequently encountered from his faithful followers (the insistence of the Saints to uphold Sidney Rigdon when Joseph sought to do otherwise is a prime example).

As I noted above, it is no mistake that William Law is so highly regarded by the fifth-columnist apostate evangelists currently plying their trade among the Saints. One would also do well to examine the fundamental differences between the life of William Phelps and that of William Law.

One would also do well to examine the fundmental differences between an accuser and an advocate.

[William Schryver]

Since despite your assertions to the contrary, you are in no way privy to my personal aspirations, I'll simply share that I have no desire to follow your efforts to condemn critics and non-believers. The way that you approach your defense of the faith is so un-Christ-like that I cannot imagine anyone reading your public comments and feeling a desire to take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seriously. You and a few vocal others have given LDS apologetics such a negative representation that I can assure you I have no aspirations of ever being considered an LDS apologist and/or affiliated with any official LDS apologetic groups.

And trust me, as a believing scholar, I am not alone.

I have never condemned anyone, nor do I have any desire to do so. I hope for everyone to come unto Christ.

That said, discerning wisdom recognizes that not all will so do, and that a great many will instead opt to kick against the pricks, persecute the Saints, and fight against God--and often do it under the pretense of standing for that which is good (see the Nauvoo Expositor as a prime example).

[semlogo]

Since despite your assertions to the contrary, you are in no way privy to my personal aspirations, I'll simply share that I have no desire to follow your efforts to condemn critics and non-believers. The way that you approach your defense of the faith is so un-Christ-like that I cannot imagine anyone reading your public comments and feeling a desire to take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seriously. You and a few vocal others have given LDS apologetics such a negative representation that I can assure you I have no aspirations of ever being considered an LDS apologist and/or affiliated with any official LDS apologetic groups.

And trust me, as a believing scholar, I am not alone.

Amen! Someone had to say it.

[David Bokovoy]

I've never once "hunted" apostates. I only recognize and then tag them. The difference is profound and pronounced.

You would do well to examine, in the history of the church, the way Joseph Smith himself did the same, notwithstanding the opposition he frequently encountered from his faithful followers (the insistence of the Saints to uphold Sidney Rigdon when Joseph sought to do otherwise is a prime example).

As I noted above, it is no mistake that William Law is so highly regarded by the fifth-columnist apostate evangelists currently plying their trade among the Saints. One would also do well to examine the fundamental differences between the life of William Phelps and that of William Law.

There are at least two problems with your efforts to tag/hunt apostates. 1. “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God,” and despite your conviction otherwise you were not called by God to tag apostates. And I believe that this calling has not been extended to you for good reason (see point #2).

2. Your definition of an apostate is anyone who holds a view contrary to the ideas you espouse. This is the problem when one begins to believe, as you do, that the apologetic arguments one holds came by means of sacred dreams and revelation. In your zeal, you often forget that the definition of apologetics is a scientific defense of the faith. In such a context, your personal dreams and revelatory experiences (as valid as they may be for you personally) are not only out of place within apologetics, but do not hold authority over the Saints as a whole (see point #1).

Regardless of our disagreements, Will, you have a responsibility as a Latter-day Saint seeking to defend our faith publicly to do so in a way that expresses love and kindness and avoids the types of offensive “poetic” imagery you employ in your efforts to tag the enemy.

[mercyngrace]

I have never condemned anyone, nor do I have any desire to do so. I hope for everyone to come unto Christ.

I hope that is true, Will, but if it is, it does not come through in your posts.

That said, discerning wisdom recognizes that not all will so do, and that a great many will instead opt to kick against the pricks, persecute the Saints, and fight against God--and often do it under the pretense of standing for that which is good (see the Nauvoo Expositor as a prime example).

This is irrelevant. We can't justify our behavior by pointing out another's acts. Or as the song says "Other men's failures will never save you.." Ours is to do what is right. Period.

[consiglieri]

I hope for everyone to come unto Christ Will.

Fixed it for ya!

[wenglund]

Forgive me for cross posting this, but If people truly ascribed to the "Big Tent" notion, and were consistent in their belief, we wouldn't have personal attacks on threads like this--particularly of a ganging-up type. Instead, we would have expressions of acceptance for people like Will and his differing approach.

That is, unless the "Big Tent" notion is believed to have its limits and at some point it is thought appropriate to draw a divisive and exclusionary line--which is what Will advocates, thus making the "Big Tenters' like Will except perhaps in where they draw the line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Forgive me for cross posting this, but If people truly ascribed to the "Big Tent" notion, and were consistent in their belief, we wouldn't personal attacks on threads like this--particularly of a gang-up type. Instead, we would have expressions of acceptance for people like Will and his differing approach.

That is, unless the "Big Tent" notion is believed to have its limits and at some point it is thought appropriate to draw a divisive and exclusionary line--which is what Will advocates, thus making the "Big Tenters' like Will except perhaps in where they draw the line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure that tolerating intolerance and witch hunting in the name of our religion is necessarily productive. It gives all of us a bad name. In fact, I'd say that sort of thing is more destructive than even the most fallacious anti-Mormon argument.

[Daniel Peterson]

There's no way I should be enjoying this so much . . .

I agree.

Personally, I would like to see it stop.

[consiglieri]

Forgive me for cross posting this, but If people truly ascribed to the "Big Tent" notion, and were consistent in their belief, we wouldn't have personal attacks on threads like this--particularly of a ganging-up type. Instead, we would have expressions of acceptance for people like Will and his differing approach.

I agree.

We in the Big Tent should give expressions of acceptance for those trying to shove us out . . .

. . . or tag us.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[why me]

Since despite your assertions to the contrary, you are in no way privy to my personal aspirations, I'll simply share that I have no desire to follow your efforts to condemn critics and non-believers. The way that you approach your defense of the faith is so un-Christ-like that I cannot imagine anyone reading your public comments and feeling a desire to take the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seriously. You and a few vocal others have given LDS apologetics such a negative representation that I can assure you I have no aspirations of ever being considered an LDS apologist and/or affiliated with any official LDS apologetic groups.

And trust me, as a believing scholar, I am not alone.

Since when are personal attacks allowed on this forum? What you fail to see David is that Will is routinely attacked by critics on the other board. This surely affects the way he posts and responds to such critics. What you need to do is to also condemn the critics who attack certain apologists at random. One must have leather skin not to be affected by the personal attacks by critics as Will has been.

[William Schryver]

There are at least two problems with your efforts to tag/hunt apostates. 1. “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God,” and despite your conviction otherwise you were not called by God to tag apostates. And I believe that this calling has not been extended to you for good reason (see point #2).

2. Your definition of an apostate is anyone who holds a view contrary to the ideas you espouse. This is the problem when one begins to believe, as you do, that the apologetic arguments one holds came by means of sacred dreams and revelation. In you zeal, you often forget that the definition of apologetics is a scientific defense of the faith. In such a context, your personal dreams and revelatory experiences (as valid as they may be for you personally) are not only out of place within apologetics, but do not hold authority over the Saints as a whole (see point #1).

Regardless of our disagreements, Will, you have a responsibility as a Latter-day Saint seeking to defend our faith publicly to do so in a way that expresses love and kindness and avoids the types of offensive “poetic” imagery you employ in your efforts to tag the enemy.

Your willingness to misrepresent is well-noted and, frankly, quite expected. I am also not surprised, in the least, by those who concur with you.

As I have frequently noted: "You can only judge the distance by the company you keep."

Suffice it to say that I know where I stand and who stands with me.

[David Bokovoy]

Forgive me for cross posting this, but If people truly ascribed to the "Big Tent" notion, and were consistent in their belief, we wouldn't personal attacks on threads like this--particularly of a gang-up type. Instead, we would have expressions of acceptance for people like Will and his differing approach.

That is, unless the "Big Tent" notion is believed to have its limits and at some point it is thought appropriate to draw a divisive and exclusionary line--which is what Will advocates, thus making the "Big Tenters' like Will except perhaps in where they draw the line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I agree. However, once again, Will has drawn first blood. And since his actions in this and in other forums occur in a public context, I believe they need to be publicly condemned. If I didn't care so deeply about both Mormonism and the real-life people behind the posts, this behavior would be easy to ignore. However, as members of the Church sharing a public defense of our faith, not only can we not conduct ourselves in this manner, but we should not allow others to do so without expressing opposition.