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

[CASteinman]

Posted Today, 02:02 PM

CASteinman, on 08 June 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

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

William Schryver, on 08 June 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Neither Dan nor I proposed any "thesis".

That you engage in the error of amphiboly does not make your argument stronger. But laughing as you make an invalid argument reveals that either 1) you did not realize your error or 2) you realize it but you are not interested in valid discourse.

[cinepro]

That you engage in the error of amphiboly does not make your argument stronger. But laughing as you make an invalid argument reveals that either 1) you did not realize your error or 2) you realize it but you are not interested in valid discourse.

Wait, you were both responding to the exact same post. You said "He did support the thesis", and Will (the originator of this whole conversation) said he didn't have a "thesis". I agree there is some confusion there, but how could that be confusion on my part? You and Will may both have understood the word "thesis" differently, but you can't accuse me of intentionally using it in two different ways at the same time.

Anyhoo, assuming you believe there are Wolves in Sheep's Clothing operating in the Church, can you give some specific examples of things they are doing, and how best to detect them?

Edited June 8, 2012 by cinepro

[Senator]

Dense callouses can have that numbing affect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Or your apologetic style.

[Senator]

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

I know. THAT point often gets ignored.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

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?

Indeed, according to this list, any apologist who has ever been critical of Brigham Young's racism, or who contends, for example, with Joseph Fielding Smith's view that locating Book of Mormon events in Central America constitutes a "modernistic theory," inconsistent with the Church's teaching would qualify as a WSC.

It would appear quite a few LDS apologists are in fact WSC, and should therefore, according to the thesis in this thread, be not only driven from the flock, but destroyed.

Most members of the church would consider themselves apologists for it. Be respectful to Mormons when you are on a board used by Mormons and use words appropriately.

[Libs]

Isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing, by definition, someone who appears to be one thing, but is actually something else? Seems like anyone who is open about their criticism of the church, could not be seen as a wolf in disguise?

Plus, where do you draw the line? I'm sure many loyal members have criticized or, at least, questioned something about doctrine or leadership at some point in their lives...?

Edited June 8, 2012 by Libs

[wenglund]

Now YOU are beginning to understand!!!!

I have long understood the difference between legitimate and illegitimate "wolf" labeling--as evinced by my initial post in this thread. Evidently, one of the purposes of this thread is to bring others to that understanding. Hence, the investigatory questions in the OP. It would be nice if you would now begin to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Or your apologetic style.

Or your simplistic grasp of the notion of love.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am amazed at how this topic, and a few reasonably investigatory questions, have animated certain critics and appeasers, and I am caused to wonder why? What, if anything, is the interest and/or concern?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

I know. THAT point often gets ignored.

It appears to me that you ignored the key point though.

[CASteinman]

Wait, you were both responding to the exact same post. You said "He did support the thesis", and Will (the originator of this whole conversation) said he didn't have a "thesis". I agree there is some confusion there, but how could that be confusion on my part?

Because I was answering you, using the most reasonable definition of thesis as you would have used it. He obviously used a different definition as indicated by the word being expressed in quotes.

Its not the same.

But I don't think it was confusion on your part but rather an attempt to be confusing on purpose.

In order to change the topic away from the fact that your criticism was utterly bogus.

Edited June 8, 2012 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

Speaking of love in relation to the topic, who can correctly fill in the blank for a statement made by the God of the New Testament to his disciples: "If thine eye offend thee_________"

Is it:

A. Do nothing

B. Quibble over the word "offend" and chastise those who are discussing how to determine if the eye has offended, and if so, what to do about it.

C. Pluck it out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nominee]

Yes I often use irony and sarcastic laced rhetoric to help point out the absurdity of ridiculous arguments. And I believe that the OP qualifies as being absurd, paranoid and unachievable. Full implementation of such a weeding out, exposing and purging of sheep in wolves clothing can only result in the opposite result from what the original poster desires.

Purges or witch hunts rarely achieve their desired goals….for one man’s lie is another man’s truth…how deep does one dare go down this rabbit hole?

I didn't see in this thread where anyone discussed actively seeking out and hunting down those one may think is destroying the church. I missed that part OR it doesn't exist. I'm talking about things that come to your knowledge. Should I keep it to myself? No.

"Full implementation of such a weeding out, exposing and purging of sheep in wolves clothing can only result in the opposite result from what the original poster desires." ~ I agree. So I wish you would stop suggesting it.

Again, no one is talking about obsessively seeking out and hunting down those who disagree with doctrine. Well, except you.

Anyone can disagree with church doctrine. That isn't the same thing as actively attempting to destroy the church.

~ Naomi

Edited June 8, 2012 by Nominee

[William Schryver]

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

Subtlety is not one of your strong suits, I see.

Perhaps you should get together with cinepro for a tutorial. I consider him a veritable master of the art, and have frequently acknowledged him for his talent in that area.

At any rate, I can state emphatically that, in relation to the post you have referenced, I was not talking about cinepro. Rather, I was talking about cinepro in this post.

As you well know, wolves in large numbers congregate at MDB, postmormon.org, RfM, thefoyer.org, and other such places with which you are familiar, and where many of your friends and cohorts gather to reinforce each other's unfaith.

I'm also consistently impressed by the temerity of those who attempt to suggest that it's the shepherds who are really the wolves. Here are a couple recent examples:

Example 1

Example 2

Edited June 8, 2012 by William Schryver

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Indeed, according to this list, any apologist who has ever been critical of Brigham Young's racism, or who contends, for example, with Joseph Fielding Smith's view that locating Book of Mormon events in Central America constitutes a "modernistic theory," inconsistent with the Church's teaching would qualify as a WSC.

It would appear quite a few LDS apologists are in fact WSC, and should therefore, according to the thesis in this thread, be not only driven from the flock, but destroyed.

Most members of the church would consider themselves apologists for it. Be respectful to Mormons when you are on a board used by Mormons and use words appropriately.

Thank you for the correction. I was pointing out the fact that one man's "wolf" is another man's sheep, and that we should all therefore be respectful of one another. Though the logic in this thread would point to the conclusion I made, to clarify, I don't believe that LDS apologists should be driven from the flock or destroyed. I was simply citing the originator of the thread in terms of those he defines as "wolves."

[sethpayne]

Subtlety is not one of your strong suits, I see.

Indeed it is not. I prefer to be straightforward.

Perhaps you should get together with cinepro for a tutorial. I consider him a veritable master of the art, and have frequently acknowledged him for his talent in that area.

Cinepro is quite talented, I agree. I'm sure I could learn a lot from him. Thank you for the suggestion.

At any rate, I can state emphatically that, in relation to the post you have referenced, I was not talking about cinepro. Rather, I was talking about cinepro in this post.

My question was not about a particular post. Rather, it was about cinepro.

If I understand you correctly cinepro was a wolf *in a particular post* but not another? Does wolfishness come and go?

As you well know, wolves in large numbers congregate at MDB, postmormon.org, RfM, thefoyer.org, and other such places with which you are familiar, and where many of your friends and cohorts gather to reinforce each other's unfaith.

I enjoy MDB. Did you follow the thread on the wordprint study in the Celestial forum a few months back? That was a great discussion and I learned a lot from posters on both sides of the issue.

I'm also consistently impressed by the temerity of those who attempt to suggest that it's the shepherds who are really the wolves. Here are a couple recent examples:

Example 1

Example 2

Thanks for sharing but I have no idea what this has to do with the questions I posed to you.

I'm still concerned that some reading this thread may be misunderstanding you. You are using a lot of innuendo accusing some of being wolves and to avoid any confusion I believe it would be helpful for you to provide a couple of names as examples of what you consider a wolf to be.

Thanks Will. I always appreciate your viewpoint.

Seth

[jwhitlock]

Yet he is right about executing false teachers. The BoM is against it too.

False teachers like Nehor.

[Libs]

Seems like he already did give a couple examples with those two links.

[jwhitlock]

To clarify things somewhat, do you think we should proactively search for them?

That's what Alma 5:57-60 - which Will quoted - seems to indicate.

I haven't seen anyone on the thread address that directly yet.

[jwhitlock]

In a ward/stake setting, I don't know how I would accomplish that, even if I were so inclined. And I'm not at all persuaded that it's necessary. For example, in many years of teaching gospel doctrine, I never once encountered a class member who was argumentative or seemed inclined to ravage the flock, as it were.

If such are present, they keep a very low profile that escapes my ability to detect them.

On an Internet forum such as this, of course, it's a different matter entirely. I come here fully expecting to encounter individuals who, to a greater or lesser degree and in one way or another, oppose the teachings and faith of the Latter-day Saints.

I can't hunt down and deliver the wolves here either. But as I've said on more than one occasion in the past, my ongoing concern here is for the unseen lurker who is in a very real danger of being misled if the antagonists are not confronted and their words are not challenged. I can try to keep my interactions civil, even cordial, but as you and I witnessed day before yesterday, it is not always easy or possible to do that while being bold and direct. Some people truly hate to be contradicted.

At a FAIR Conference a few years ago, Dan Peterson gave a talk in which he applied the principle of triage to rescuing and reclaiming struggling or lost souls. The idea is that cases must be prioritized according to urgency and prognosis.

Frankly, the vast majority of the antagonists who come on here are beyond any help that I could give, especially when they post anonymously. They are too far gone, and they're not interested in being reclaimed anyway. If we could interact face-to-face in a ward setting, where friendships could be cultivated and mutual understanding developed, maybe things would be different, but not here.

So I turn my thoughts to the undetermined number of readers who might be observing the conversations here. Perhaps I can help one or two of them by confronting and confounding as best I can some of the sophistries that are served up here by detractors. And maybe I don't accomplish a lot individually, but I can at least lend a hand to others who have the same objective. Perhaps we'll never know the results of our collective efforts, but I still think it's worth the trouble.

Excellent post, Scott.

[Nominee]

Duplicate.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Nominee

[sethpayne]

Seems like he already did give a couple examples with those two links.

Hi Libs,

I may have misunderstood Will but I believe he gave examples of accusations made against shepherds.

Seth

Will -- does accusing a shepherd of being a wolf automatically qualify the accuser as a wolf? If so, then you are accusing John Dehlin and Analytics of being wolves, correct?

Edited June 8, 2012 by sethpayne

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Personally, I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Mr. Schyrver started this thread shortly after his public criticism in this forum of Brian Hauglid, a man Mr. Schyver has called publicly (amongst other things) a "traitor," etc.

If he's not willing, I'm sure others could add to this list of "wolves" that Mr. Schryver believes should be cast out and destroyed.

[Nominee]

That's what Alma 5:57-60 - which Will quoted - seems to indicate.

I haven't seen anyone on the thread address that directly yet.

I posted my take on it in post #288.

edit to add: In reading Alma 5:57-60, I hear it telling me not to ignore what I know to be wicked. If I become aware of the fact that someone is NOT JUST DISAGREEING WITH CHURCH DOCTRINE BUT ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING TO TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE IN CHURCH AND LEAD THE SAINTS AWAY that I should bring it to the attention of the bishop as a serious concern. So that ... "The names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people;"

As far as how I treat that person, being an ordinary member, I look to Gideon. I stand up for my faith and make it known in a christian manner that I am solid in my beliefs and do not agree with what false doctrine may being said. Hopefully, I won't be smited to death.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Nominee

[Cushan Rishathaim]

That's what Alma 5:57-60 - which Will quoted - seems to indicate.

I haven't seen anyone on the thread address that directly yet.

See post #243.