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

[jwhitlock]

Actually this entire thread reminds me of "1984" and the thought police...some in this thread have even suggested turning other members of their ward in to their bishops for comments they make at church? Are you all being serious? This is crazy talk...and it is because of group control thinking like this that former believers like myself want little or nothing to do with the church.

Is there no one here with alittle sanity and will stand up to this kind of crazy talk?

I don't think that there could be a discussion of this type of topic without you misrepresenting your oppositions viewpoints in such extreme ways.

Pretty heavy handed, actually, in addition to being inaccurate.

[jwhitlock]

If the Lord instructed Church members to deal with those seeking to destroy the Church who had stolen from, raped, and even murdered Church members with gentleness, meekness, kindness, and love, without sarcasm, bitterness, or clenched teeth, I have a very hard time understanding how anyone could possibly justify treating those enemies whom an apologist defines as "seeking to destroy the Church" in any other way than the manner defined in scripture.

Your conclusion is made based on cherry-picking scriptures. Using all scriptures available concerning how we should respond to those who seek to destroy us - which is the theme here - would point out that you've tried to create a hard and fast rule for all situations. Check out what the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, along with the New Testament, have to say about responding in various situations. It's not nearly as simplistic as you like to make it out to be.

[jwhitlock]

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.

As far as you can tell? You must not look very far before coming to such conclusions.

Trying to reclassify those who seek to destroy the church and its members as just having a "disagreement" is simply ridiculous.

Then again, your agenda against the church has been pretty clear, so I guess it's to be expected.

[jwhitlock]

And it appears you, among others, have appointed yourselves as shepherds.

Perhaps a full reading of Alma 5:57-60 will give you a more accurate perspective of what Will is talking about.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Exactly.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Your conclusion is made based on cherry-picking scriptures. Using all scriptures available concerning how we should respond to those who seek to destroy us - which is the theme here - would point out that you've tried to create a hard and fast rule for all situations. Check out what the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, along with the New Testament, have to say about responding in various situations. It's not nearly as simplistic as you like to make it out to be.

Perhaps I could provide some more examples of the principle taught in D&C 121. How about this one from the NT?

"But I am saying to you, you shall not rise up against an evil person, but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other cheek also" (Matt. 5:39).

Or how about from the OT?

"Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you" (Proverbs 20:22).

Though difficult to implement, I believe that Christian behavior IS quite simple to understand.

[jwhitlock]

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-

It does seem to be a standard response by critics of the church whenever this is brought up. Must hit something close to home.

[William Schryver]

Employing typical wolfish tactics, several contributors to this thread are attempting to derail and hijack it. Therefore I would like to remind everyone of the focus I intended for the thread:

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?

Those reading should note well that my final question concerns what we should do to "combat the things they are doing" once we have learned to recognize these modern-day enemies of the Church.

I don't suggest we should combat the people themselves, but rather "the things they are doing." Misrepresentation is, of course, a standard tactic of the enemies of the Church. It has occurred several times already in this thread.

[Analytics]

For the sake of argument, let’s assume brother X is literally a (metaphorical) “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” That being the case, how should the wolf’s bishop respond? Release the wolf from his calling as Gospel Doctrine teacher? Tell the wolf that he is welcome to mingle among the sheep as long as he keeps his sheep’s clothing on properly?

Of course not. If a given member is a wolf(!), the bishop should excommunicate him! Warn the other sheep! Loudly!

That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? It follows that if an alleged wolf’s authorized ecclesiastical leaders don’t react that way, that is proof that the alleged wolf is not a wolf at all.

[jwhitlock]

I believe you've taken these scriptures out of context to justify your harsh treatment of those you define as critics. When read in context, Alma 5, for example, is not referring to those members who disagree with apologists and/or the Church on some issue.

Note that the "wolf" in v. 60 who cannot remain in the Church is defined specifically in verses 53 and 55 as one wearing costly apparel, setting his or her hearts upon their riches, and turning a back to the poor and needy, withholding his or her substance from them.

This makes clear why Alma uses the term "ravenous" wolf, meaning a wolf that is very eager or greedy for food. Since a true disciple of Christ will do as Alma commands and take care of the poor, rather than consume them, those refusing to do so have no place in the Church or the good shepherd's "book of life" (v. 58).

This thread illustrates the problem of taking the scriptures out of context as a justification for bad behavior.

Reading the entire chapter, along with the context of what Alma was dealing with overall, leads to a different conclusion. You fail to note in verse 56 - which you avoid - that Alma then addresses their wickedness as a whole, in addition to the other specifics he mentions. This encompasses a wide variety of other sins, including a desire to destroy the church and its members. If Alma's enemies couldn't do it spiritually, then they would be glad to do it physically, as demonstrated a few chapters later when he deals with Amalek's people. I doubt that Alma was unfamiliar with the fact that there were lots of people out there who hated him and his fellow Christians; he speaks consistently in condemnation of them.

I see no justification in the context of this scripture to think that Alma was just referring to the specific situations he claim. I see plenty of justification to understand that Alma was very aware of the destructive nature of his enemies, and that this was the context that influenced this scripture.

[CASteinman]

That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? It follows that if an alleged wolf’s authorized ecclesiastical leaders don’t react that way, that is proof that the alleged wolf is not a wolf at all.

Not necessarily. The scriptures require reasonably compelling evidence. If that fails, it does not mean the wolf is not a wolf but rather that the sheepskin is working.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Employing typical wolfish tactics, several contributors to this thread are attempting to derail and hijack it. Therefore I would like to remind everyone of the focus I intended for the thread:

Those reading should note well that my final question concerns what we should do to "combat the things they are doing" once we have learned to recognize these modern-day enemies of the Church.

I don't suggest we should combat the people themselves, but rather "the things they are doing." Misrepresentation is, of course, a standard tactic of the enemies of the Church. It has occurred several times already in this thread.

Did you not, in post #235, use Alma 5:59 as a reference to the way you believe the Lord indicates apologists should treat "wolves"? Though taken out of context, the text in question states that the wolf should be driven out and destroyed by the shepherds.

It's hard to understand how this statement could be taken in any other way than a call to action against the wolves themselves, not simply "the things they are doing."

[CASteinman]

Did you not, in post #235, use Alma 5:59 as a reference to the way you believe the Lord indicates apologists should treat "wolves"? Though taken out of context, the text in question states that the wolf should be driven out and destroyed by the shepherds.

It's hard to understand how this statement could be taken in any other way than a call to action against the wolves themselves, not simply "the things they are doing."

I can't speak for Will... except to say that he seems to have focused on their actions.

I, on the other hand, am fine with a call to action against the wolves themselves. They are evil. I do not believe that they should receive the same sort of treatment that mere covenant-breakers and troubled apostates might receive. Indeed while the latter should be sought as the lost lamb, those who have perverted their ways to become hidden anti-Christs should be cast out with prejudice.

You are out of the thread and one more like this and you are off the board.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps I could provide some more examples of the principle taught in D&C 121. How about this one from the NT?

"But I am saying to you, you shall not rise up against an evil person, but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the other cheek also" (Matt. 5:39).

Or how about from the OT?

"Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you" (Proverbs 20:22).

Though difficult to implement, I believe that Christian behavior IS quite simple to understand.

I'm sure you could cherry-pick quite a few more examples.

Tell you what; why don't you come up with some that directly contradict your conclusion and let me know why. There are plenty of them, and I'm sure you're aware of them. If you tell me that there aren't any, then you're going to look a bit foolish when I start quoting them.

Let me know what you can (or won't) come up with.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Reading the entire chapter, along with the context of what Alma was dealing with overall, leads to a different conclusion. You fail to note in verse 56 - which you avoid - that Alma then addresses their wickedness as a whole, in addition to the other specifics he mentions. This encompasses a wide variety of other sins, including a desire to destroy the church and its members. If Alma's enemies couldn't do it spiritually, then they would be glad to do it physically, as demonstrated a few chapters later when he deals with Amalek's people. I doubt that Alma was unfamiliar with the fact that there were lots of people out there who hated him and his fellow Christians; he speaks consistently in condemnation of them.

I see no justification in the context of this scripture to think that Alma was just referring to the specific situations he claim. I see plenty of justification to understand that Alma was very aware of the destructive nature of his enemies, and that this was the context that influenced this scripture.

I'm afraid you've misread this text. Note that the "wickedness" in v. 56 is made clear via a repetition of the phrase "persist in."

V. 56 states, "all ye that will persist in your wickedness," creating a literary link between "wickedness" and the specific type of sin Alma was addressing:

"will ye persist in supposing that ye are better one than another; yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren" (v. 54)

"will you persist in turning your backs upon the poor, and the needy, and in withholding your substance from them?" (v. 55)

This makes clear that the "wickedness" Alma is referring to is the ravenous wolf who out of greed, consumes the poor, not the person who questions the Church, or who is defined by an apologist as unorthodox in his or her teachings.

This entire thread illustrates why scripture must be read in context.

You will be removed from the thread the next time you describe members as apologists in a derogatory manner. We have the same problem with those who want to label nonmembers as anti.. Last warning.

For everyone else, it is alright to talk about wolves in sheep's clothing as a scriptural principle. The thread will be closed if it becomes personal by name or an attack on all Mormons by inserting terms such as apologists or nonbelievers by calling them all wolves or antis.

[volgadon]

And, I think you are nit-picking the term in a way that misses my general point. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was talking about something very specific. According to the Book of Mormon, in order to merit the death penalty one has to do more than teach something false. Killing, attempted murder and robbery, and violent revolution, those are much more than merely false teachings.

[jwhitlock]

Employing typical wolfish tactics, several contributors to this thread are attempting to derail and hijack it. Therefore I would like to remind everyone of the focus I intended for the thread:

Those reading should note well that my final question concerns what we should do to "combat the things they are doing" once we have learned to recognize these modern-day enemies of the Church.

I don't suggest we should combat the people themselves, but rather "the things they are doing." Misrepresentation is, of course, a standard tactic of the enemies of the Church. It has occurred several times already in this thread.

I think that your distinction concerning combating the things they are doing is well placed.

Unfortunately, I find that in exposing the flaws in our enemies' claims, I am often accused of making a personal attack anyway. I believe such a response is motivated by a misconception that because they have "determined" some slander against the church is "true", anyone disagreeing with them is questioning their integrity. In some cases, they may actually feel that way, but in others it's just an excuse to shoot the messenger rather than admit that there's a problem with their attack on the church.

In any case, it makes true discussion difficult.

[volgadon]

I believe you've taken these scriptures out of context to justify your harsh treatment of those you define as critics. When read in context, Alma 5, for example, is not referring to those members who disagree with apologists and/or the Church on some issue.

Note that the "wolf" in v. 60 who cannot remain in the Church is defined specifically in verses 53 and 55 as one wearing costly apparel, setting his or her hearts upon their riches, and turning a back to the poor and needy, withholding his or her substance from them.

This makes clear why Alma uses the term "ravenous" wolf, meaning a wolf that is very eager or greedy for food. Since a true disciple of Christ will do as Alma commands and take care of the poor, rather than consume them, those refusing to do so have no place in the Church or the good shepherd's "book of life" (v. 58).

This thread illustrates the problem of taking the scriptures out of context as a justification for bad behavior.

The wolf in sheep's clothing idiom was not an ancient Semitic one, but it seems to cause a lot of confusion in interpreting passages refering to wolves..

[jwhitlock]

I'm afraid you've misread this text. Note that the "wickedness" in v. 56 is made clear via a repetition of the phrase "persist in."

V. 56 states, "all ye that will persist in your wickedness," creating a literary link between "wickedness" and the specific type of sin Alma was addressing:

"will ye persist in supposing that ye are better one than another; yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren" (v. 54)

"will you persist in turning your backs upon the poor, and the needy, and in withholding your substance from them?" (v. 55)

This makes clear that the "wickedness" Alma is referring to is the ravenous wolf who out of greed, consumes the poor, not the person who questions the Church, or who is defined by an apologist as unorthodox in his or her teachings.

This entire thread illustrates why scripture must be read in context.

Again, you continue to claim that context is needed and then proceed to leave out key phrases that indicate otherwise.

In verse 56, the phrase "And finally" at the beginning of the verse clearly indicates that Alma is bringing up a separate point - and not just continuing with the previous examples. Verse 56 is far more encompassing than you would want us to believe. In fact, verses 56 through 60, taken together, give us a pretty clear idea of how Alma is counseling members of the church - and not just leaders - to respond to such all encompassing wickedness, including the wickedness so prevalent in Nephite society of those seeking to destroy the church.

We do a pretty good job of reading scriptures in context, thank you. The irony of you making partial quotes and then inferring that only you have taken context into consideration is really quite instructive.

Finally, your last phrase - " not the person who questions the Church, or who is defined by an apologist as unorthodox in his or her teachings" is simply irrelevant. That's the conclusion you draw, according to your agenda, from what has not been said on this thread. It's been explained that this is not what we're talking about, so the strawman you try to construct with it is invalid.

My point concerning Alma 5:57-60, including the context it's given in, still stands.

[jwhitlock]

For the sake of argument, let’s assume brother X is literally a (metaphorical) “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” That being the case, how should the wolf’s bishop respond? Release the wolf from his calling as Gospel Doctrine teacher? Tell the wolf that he is welcome to mingle among the sheep as long as he keeps his sheep’s clothing on properly?

Of course not. If a given member is a wolf(!), the bishop should excommunicate him! Warn the other sheep! Loudly!

That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? It follows that if an alleged wolf’s authorized ecclesiastical leaders don’t react that way, that is proof that the alleged wolf is not a wolf at all.

Of course, if the real world was as extreme as this particular strawman, you might have a point.

Since it isn't, you don't.

[CASteinman]

I was talking about something very specific. According to the Book of Mormon, in order to merit the death penalty one has to do more than teach something false. Killing, attempted murder and robbery, and violent revolution, those are much more than merely false teachings.

I believe that is true and is one of the things that to me, testifies to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

[Libs]

Employing typical wolfish tactics, several contributors to this thread are attempting to derail and hijack it. Therefore I would like to remind everyone of the focus I intended for the thread:

Those reading should note well that my final question concerns what we should do to "combat the things they are doing" once we have learned to recognize these modern-day enemies of the Church.

I don't suggest we should combat the people themselves, but rather "the things they are doing." Misrepresentation is, of course, a standard tactic of the enemies of the Church. It has occurred several times already in this thread.

Okay, this is a very welcome clarification. Thank you.

Why not just talk about the misrepresentations, rather than "wolves in sheep's clothing"...which most people are going to interpret as going after individuals. I know, even some critics, might actually appreciate clarification on misrepresentations. I am not a "critic" (for the most part, although, I do have issues with "some" church doctrine and history), but I am always open to correction on anything I believe about the church (or anything else, for that matter, that can be shown to be inaccurate).

Edited June 8, 2012 by Libs

[volgadon]

False teachers like Nehor.

Were not executed for false teachings. Nehor was executed for killing a man. If you follow the rest of Alma 1, you'll see that Nehor's followers were allowed to teach and believe what they would as long as they did not break certain laws.

[jwhitlock]

I was talking about something very specific. According to the Book of Mormon, in order to merit the death penalty one has to do more than teach something false. Killing, attempted murder and robbery, and violent revolution, those are much more than merely false teachings.

There's actually a fairly thin line between trying to destroy people spiritually and destroying them physically. I think the Nephites recognized the link between the two and dealt with it accordingly, given the examples in the Book of Mormon.

In our time, it gets a little more complicated, since there are so many ways to harm people give the technology we have. Someone frustrated in their attempts to destroy people spiritually may resort to other things instead of physical harm. Some of us in the church have run across such people on occasion; it really alters your perspective on the subject when you start to understand how very wicked some people are out there. Fortunately, the worst of them seem to be still a rather small minority, but they can do a great deal of damage before they're identified.

[volgadon]

I believe that is true and is one of the things that to me, testifies to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

It is a very important principle, one directly concerning our agency.