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

[wenglund]

Your point...?

Given who-all to which the parable was meant to apply, and the role they are to take in shepherding the lost sheep, I would think my point was obvious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 8, 2012 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

You know, this thread has stretched pretty far without Will or Dan (or anyone else) actually supporting their thesis.

Neither Dan nor I proposed any "thesis".

As far as I can tell, this whole "wolf in sheep's clothing" is nothing more than a label for people to tar other members of the Church for no other reason then that they disagree with them.

Neither Dan nor I labeled anyone as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

And most of the "examples" suggested in this thread for "wolves in sheep's clothing" don't work for one obvious reason: they're not actually hiding. They're "wolves in wolves clothing", or "sheep that are a different color than me and I don't like it so I'm going to call them a wolf" or they're some other farm animal that co-exists with the sheep without wanting to kill them.

Neither Dan nor I suggested any "examples" of "wolves in sheep's clothing." At least not living examples. We did speak of characters from the Book of Mormon, and asked whether or not there are contemporary analogues to them, and if so, we asked how one might go about recognizing them. To that end, I propose that one tactic of contemporary wolves is to misrepresent the words of the Saints in order to discredit them. I see this happen quite often on Mormon-related message boards.

[Log]

"If an LDS ____________________________________, then they exhibit the qualities of Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (WSC)"

1. finds fault with the Brethren

2. undercuts the authority of the Brethren on any particular topic

3. brings direpute upon the Brethren

4. undermines trust in the Brethren

5. justifies what the Brethren have condemned

6. undermines faith in the Word of God

7. advocates policy change in the Church

8. advocates doctrinal change in the Church

9. seeks fellow travelers in any of the above

and so forth. This list is not exhaustive.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Log

[Senator]

Given who-all to which the parable was meant to apply, and the role they are to take in shepherding the lost sheep, I would think my point was obvious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You mean to tell me that all this talk of faux sheep skin detection and maintainance is really bourne out of love and the desire for the reclamation of lost souls?

Wonderful!!!!

[William Schryver]

Awesome!! Thank you for this clarification.

Another tactic I have often observed among the wolves is that they band together in a pack to affirm each other's misrepresentations of the words of the Saints. This produces an impression that there is merit to the original misrepresentation, when all it really is is an echo of the first lie, repeated over and over and over. This is actually a classic propaganda technique: repetition of a big lie until it achieves the illusion of credibility.

[wenglund]

Yes I often use irony and sarcastic laced rhetoric to help point out the absurdity of ridiculous arguments.

You do this so poorly and unintelligently that the result is invariable a self-parody. Please keep it up. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I am thinking your post illustrates an inclination to read scriptures in an overly rigid and narrow way, which creates an impediment to appropriately generalizing certain precepts and a possible inclination to consider good as bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If either you or Mr. Schryver wish to present your own sermon in which you define those within the Church with with whom you take issue for spiritual and/or doctrinal reason as "ravenous wolves," by all means, feel free to deliver your sermon. However, to claim, as does Mr. Schryver's post, that Alma did so in Alma 5 is clearly wrong.

[wenglund]

You mean to tell me that all this talk of faux sheep skin detection and maintainance is really bourne out of love and the desire for the reclamation of lost souls? Wonderful!!!!

Obviously!!! It is also born out of love and the desire to avoid the loss of souls.

I am glad this was straightened out and that you now understand that, in a way, we are all shepherds of the flocks and our brothers keeper. At least some good has come of this thread so far.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Another tactic I have often observed among the wolves is that they band together in a pack to affirm each other's misrepresentations of the words of the Saints. This produces an impression that there is merit to the original misrepresentation, when all it really is is an echo of the first lie, repeated over and over and over. This is actually a classic propaganda technique: repetition of a big lie until it achieves the illusion of credibility.

The problem with this assertion is defining who are the "saints" and who are the constituents of the "wolf pack" that band together to affirm each other's misrepresentations of scripture.

What are we to do over the fact that I believe Cinepro is a "saint" and that you and Wenglund are in fact the "wolf pack"? I suppose the only solution is to simply treat each other with kindness and respect in spite of our differences.

By their fruits...

[stemelbow]

What are we to do over the fact that I believe Cinepro is a "saint" and that you and Wenglund are in fact the "wolf pack"? I suppose the only solution is to simply treat each other with kindness and respect in spite of our differences.

By their fruits...

Here we go. The battle is on, maybe. I'm thinking wolf packs can be quite feisty. We'll just have to see who becomes the most feisty.

By their feist ye shall know them.

Edited June 8, 2012 by stemelbow

[CASteinman]

You know, this thread has stretched pretty far without Will or Dan (or anyone else) actually supporting their thesis. As far as I can tell, this whole "wolf in sheep's clothing" is nothing more than a label for people to tar other members of the Church for no other reason then that they disagree with them.

Totally bogus. He did support the thesis. Merely that you disagree is not the same thing as him not supporting it.

Edited June 8, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

In other words, he will not come in wearing a mask. If he does, then he has authority only to the extent that his words are manifestly spoken by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost--the same as everybody else.

You mean, if someone had said to Jesus, "You are the Messiah", he would not have charged them strictly to tell no man because it would be all in the open. Like that?

[wenglund]

If either you or Mr. Schryver wish to present your own sermon in which you define those within the Church with with whom you take issue for spiritual and/or doctrinal reason as "ravenous wolves," by all means, feel free to deliver your sermon.

That doesn't come anywhere close to any wish I have had or expressed. But, don't let that stop you from propping up straw men.

However, to claim, as does Mr. Schryver's post, that Alma did so in Alma 5 is clearly wrong.

Again with the mis-caricatures. Please stop illegitimately trying to wrap the the sheep and shepherds in wolves clothing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Obviously!!! It is also born out of love and the desire to avoid the loss of souls.

I am glad this was straightened out and that you now understand that, in a way, we are all shepherds of the flocks and our brothers keeper. At least some good has come of this thread so far.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not feelin the love.....

[sethpayne]

Another tactic I have often observed among the wolves is that they band together in a pack to affirm each other's misrepresentations of the words of the Saints. This produces an impression that there is merit to the original misrepresentation, when all it really is is an echo of the first lie, repeated over and over and over. This is actually a classic propaganda technique: repetition of a big lie until it achieves the illusion of credibility.

Hi William,

This is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a while. Thank you for introducing the topic.

You have given us specific traits of Church members who are wolves and unfortunately, I think that many on this thread may misunderstand your view. Could you give us names of one or two of wolves with whom we may be familiar?

I'm probably misreading what you wrote above but it seems like you are calling cinepro a wolf. In your view is cinepro a wolf or were you speaking more broadly without anyone specific in mind.

Thanks!

Seth

[zerinus]

You mean, if someone had said to Jesus, "You are the Messiah", he would not have charged them strictly to tell no man because it would be all in the open. Like that?

You are stretching it. The meaning of what I had said is clear.

[CASteinman]

Was there afterwards an increase of love shown forth?

I do not know. That was not the point of the story.

[CASteinman]

You are stretching it. The meaning of what I had said is clear.

Yes, your meaning was that someone with authority will speak openly about that authority. I am pointing out that there are exceptions to that.

I do not think that it is a stretch to address directly the point you were making!

But I should also say.. I do not mean any offense toward you.

[wenglund]

What are we to do over the fact that I believe Cinepro is a "saint" and that you and Wenglund are in fact the "wolf pack"?

In other words, what do we do when you mistake opinions as facts and view up as down and down as up? Among other things, we offer you corrective lenses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

Some people on this board do not want the Church membership to actively protect itself against false doctrine and ravening wolves or teachers with itching ears.

Its just not something that they support. They support something else.

[wenglund]

Not feelin the love.....

Dense callouses can have that numbing affect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Please stop illegitimately trying to wrap the the sheep and shepherds in wolves clothing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now YOU are beginning to understand!!!!

[zerinus]

Yes, your meaning was that someone with authority will speak openly about that authority. I am pointing out that there are exceptions to that.

And I am saying that no authority can be assumed where none is declared. I mean no hostility towards you either.

Edited June 8, 2012 by zerinus

[cinepro]

Totally bogus. He did support the thesis. Merely that you disagree is not the same thing as him not supporting it.

Neither Dan nor I proposed any "thesis".

[cinepro]

1. finds fault with the Brethren

2. undercuts the authority of the Brethren on any particular topic

3. brings direpute upon the Brethren

4. undermines trust in the Brethren

5. justifies what the Brethren have condemned

6. undermines faith in the Word of God

7. advocates policy change in the Church

8. advocates doctrinal change in the Church

9. seeks fellow travelers in any of the above

and so forth. This list is not exhaustive.

While I think your list may be overly broad in its application, props for actually having the guts and clarity to say it.

For example, some might say the "Brethren" have "condemned" the legalization of same sex marriage. Would that mean that any LDS who is okay with SSM is a WSC?

Do you have any specific examples of things you have seen or heard about that WSC have done along those lines?

Edited June 8, 2012 by cinepro