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

[jwhitlock]

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.

Actually he was executed for both. Read Alma 1:15.

[volgadon]

Actually he was executed for both. Read Alma 1:15.

That a confession was extracted or made, does not indicate that Nehor was executed for the false teachings, or else his renunciation would have been sufficient. V. 12-14 explain why Nehor was executed. A public confession by Nehor- a liar and murderer- would have made a powerful tool for countering the spread of Nehorite influence. However, if false teachings were one of the reasons for execution, then why were his followers allowed to continue teaching those very things?

[CASteinman]

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

Reading it, it appears to me that the idea of Enforced Separation from the Community and by the Community is obvious. It seems that Cushan would like to argue that only those particular sins actually mentioned are appropriate for this -- as though other sins would not also be appropriate.

Edited June 8, 2012 by CASteinman

[Analytics]

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.

What should a metaphorical shepherd do if a metaphorical wolf sneaks into his flock? That question isn’t a straw man—it’s the topic of the thread.

If the real world isn’t as extreme as the metaphor implies, the metaphor ought to be dialed down. Perhaps for the non-extreme real world, the verse should be translated as:

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are hungry cocker spaniels.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Analytics

[treehugger]

We are informed that these apostates among the Nephites went about "secretly … seeking to destroy the church."

Are there such people among us today?

There probably are, for instance I think to myself "How scans of the CHI 1 and 2 get on the internet a short time after the most recent CHI came out." Though I think the number would be very small in terms of the whole membership

How can we recognize such people? What are their methods and techniques?

I see such people as those who peacock and trumpet their own interpretations, agenda, pet "religious" projects. They use flowery emotionally driven language against those who dare to critique the pet projects and interpretations. They pat themselves on the back for outing enemies; though they are usually wrong. They work in "packs" wherein no dissent is permitted toward any member of the group; all for one and one for all. They proclaim victimization when someone disagrees with them. They misrepresent Doctrine, teachings, etc to promote their own agenda.

And, if so, in what manner are they "seeking to destroy the church" and "to lead astray the people of the Lord"?

I think of Judas from "Jesus Christ Superstar". Judas had a belief of what he thought the Messiah should be. In the same light the wolves have their beliefs and agenda of how they believe the Church should be. So they set out to promote their belief through various forms of communication.

Once we recognize them, what should we do to combat the things they are doing?

Call out their misrepresentation, show them the truth. Though, the truth usually does not do any good for these people, because these people have already convoluted the truth and must maintain their agenda. Additionally, if we look at the outcome of Alma, we should realize that we do not know the intent, heart or mind of another. Alma turned over a new leaf in his life and went about much good. Teach them correct principles and let the govern themselves.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

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.

I disagree with your proposal that the phrase "and finally" indicates that Alma is bringing up a separate point. If this was the case, we would expect the text to read more along the lines of Mosiah 4:29:

"And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

The text doesn't read this way. Instead, it states "and finally all ye that persist." This is because the transitional phrase "and finally" marks a change in subject, not a summary. If it was a summary clause, it would read like Mosiah 4:29.

Alma's references to "persist in X" are specifically addressed to his "beloved brethren" (v.53). They are the ones he is specifically warning against "persisting in" consuming the poor like "ravenous" wolves. When read in context, the phrase "and finally" simply broadens the application to more than just the original audience invoked in v. 53 from Alma's "beloved brethren" to finally "all ye" who commit the "wickedness" defined in the previous verses through the repetition of the phrase "persist in."

No indication that Alma had in mind those questioning the Church and/or its leaders as the "wolves" who should be "destroyed."

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[Scott Lloyd]

What should a metaphorical shepherd do if a metaphorical wolf sneaks into his flock?

In general, take the matter to the bishop and leave it to him to deal with it.

In most cases, the ward member's involvement should end there. If the matter is particularly egregious, and the bishop appears to be doing nothing about it, the member can take it up the line to the stake president and beyond. I should think, in practice, that it would rarely be necessary to do such a thing.

Of course, there are no bishops on the Internet. It's the Wild West, as it were. So in that arena, the best one can hope to do is counter the mischief with reasoned discourse, not necessarily in hopes of changing the "wolf's" mind but to protect under-informed onlookers from being misled.

If the real world isn’t as extreme as the metaphor implies, the metaphor ought to be dialed down.

Metaphors, like any form of literary imagery, can have more-or-less limited application and still be serviceable if one is careful about how and in what setting they are applied.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

That a confession was extracted or made, does not indicate that Nehor was executed for the false teachings, or else his renunciation would have been sufficient. V. 12-14 explain why Nehor was executed. A public confession by Nehor- a liar and murderer- would have made a powerful tool for countering the spread of Nehorite influence. However, if false teachings were one of the reasons for execution, then why were his followers allowed to continue teaching those very things?

The Nephites evidently placed a great deal of emphasis on what he taught as part of his execution. At the end of the chapter, the last two verses are interesting in that they talk about wickedness, and the consequences of the law being imposed on them for wickedness, as far as it was able to. One gets the impression that the Nephites recognized the damage such individuals do and tried to counteract it as much as it was possible; hence the direct link of the execution with what Nehor had taught. Chapter 1 also indicates that as persecutions rose, they did fight back and use the law wherever possible to punish such wickedness.

Later on, what happens to Korihor is published with the admonition that those who believe and teach the same things repent lest the same thing happen to them. While Korihor was not executed, he was smitten by God. I get the impression from this that the Nephites did not look upon false teaching as something benign, but actively associated it with punishment wherever they could.

[Craig Paxton]

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah... I was wondering when the old ..."you do this poorly and unintelligently" attack trick would appear. Just didn't expect it from you Wade.. Well you've certainly bested me. I was a fool to think I could challenge your superior intellect. Oh if only I could be as erudite and perspicacious as you Wade. But alias...I am a mere mortal man...that didn't even attend the Y... So I would kindly ask that you have the heart to show me some mercy and my poor inferior rhetorical sarcasm...

Thanks,-Craig Paxton-

You are both out of the thread.

[volgadon]

The Nephites evidently placed a great deal of emphasis on what he taught as part of his execution. At the end of the chapter, the last two verses are interesting in that they talk about wickedness, and the consequences of the law being imposed on them for wickedness, as far as it was able to. One gets the impression that the Nephites recognized the damage such individuals do and tried to counteract it as much as it was possible; hence the direct link of the execution with what Nehor had taught. Chapter 1 also indicates that as persecutions rose, they did fight back and use the law wherever possible to punish such wickedness.

Later on, what happens to Korihor is published with the admonition that those who believe and teach the same things repent lest the same thing happen to them. While Korihor was not executed, he was smitten by God. I get the impression from this that the Nephites did not look upon false teaching as something benign, but actively associated it with punishment wherever they could.

I agree with you that the Nephites did not see false teachings as benign. I also agree that they punish false teachers in accordance with their law, whener they were able to. That only serves to strengthen my point. If there a provision in the law for executing false teachers, it would have been applied to Nehor, his followers, and Korihor.

[jwhitlock]

What should a metaphorical shepherd do if a metaphorical wolf sneaks into his flock? That question isn’t a straw man—it’s the topic of the thread.

If the real world isn’t as extreme as the metaphor implies, the metaphor ought to be dialed down. Perhaps for the non-extreme real world, the verse should be translated as:

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are hungry cocker spaniels.

Not only are extreme metaphors invalid; heavy handed ridicule is also.

[jwhitlock]

I disagree with your proposal that the phrase "and finally" indicates that Alma is bringing up a separate point. If this was the case, we would expect the text to read more along the lines of Mosiah 4:29:

"And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

The text doesn't read this way. Instead, it states "and finally all ye that persist." This is because the transitional phrase "and finally" marks a change in subject, not a summary. If it was a summary clause, it would read like Mosiah 4:29.

Alma's references to "persist in X" are specifically addressed to his "beloved brethren" (v.53). They are the ones he is specifically warning against "persisting in" consuming the poor like "ravenous" wolves. When read in context, the phrase "and finally" simply broadens the application to more than just the original audience invoked in v. 53 from Alma's "beloved brethren" to finally "all ye" who commit the "wickedness" defined in the previous verses through the repetition of the phrase "persist in."

No indication that Alma had in mind those questioning the Church and/or its leaders as the "wolves" who should be "destroyed."

Again you continue to mischaracterize the discussion with your last phrase. I pointed it out to you in my previous post; "questioning the Church and/or its leaders" is not what we're talking about here, so it's irrelevant.

We're talking about those seeking to destroy the church as wolves through their wickedness, or secretly through flattery. Alma was keenly aware of both types, given the experiences he went through, and that is the context in which he speaks.

What's clear from verses 57 thru 60 - despite your attempts to disallow for the definition of wickedness to include those who seek to destroy the church - verse 56, including the initial phrase, makes a general break with what he was talking about before. The analogy of wolves not only includes those who devour the poor, but also those who prey upon others spiritually. Indeed, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are very clear that attempted spiritual destruction is no less grievous than physical destruction, and wolves is an apt description of those who prey on the membership of the church both spiritually and physically. Indeed, the items mentioned by Alma in verses 53 thru 55 include (in verse 54) spiritual predators, those who persecute those who are followers of Christ. And these are ostensible members of the church doing the persecution.

As you are aware, persecution can take many forms. Secretly using flattery to sow seeds of doubt is one of those; that's why Alma and the sons of Mosiah, as they went about to destroy the church secretly through such means, were condemned for their persecution.

With that in mind, the use of wolves as a description of those in the church that need to be sought out and removed because of their many forms of wickedness - as I have described above - is very apt in verses 56 thru 60.

[jwhitlock]

I agree with you that the Nephites did not see false teachings as benign. I also agree that they punish false teachers in accordance with their law, whener they were able to. That only serves to strengthen my point. If there a provision in the law for executing false teachers, it would have been applied to Nehor, his followers, and Korihor.

The Nephites were not above physically restraining those who sought to destroy them through their teachings. Korihor was bound, because the people of Ammon were "more wise" about the situation. Later on the Gadianton Robbers were rooted out by righteous Lamanites who were specifically search for wolves amidst them.

To bring it all back to the point of the OP, Will has asked what we're supposed to do concerning such wolves among us. It's been clarified to only concern those who go about to destroy the church. I think that it's pretty clear that we need to watch for such individuals and remove them from us because of their demonstrated, destructive actions.

[volgadon]

I think that it's pretty clear that we need to watch for such individuals and remove them from us because of their demonstrated, destructive actions.

We don't get to remove them from us. Removing them is for our priesthood leaders to decide.

[jwhitlock]

We don't get to remove them from us. Removing them is for our priesthood leaders to decide.

As has been noted, our part in the removal is identifying them so that our priesthood leaders can do something about them.

And again, lest anyone else (not you) misrepresent what I'm saying, I'm talking about clearly destructive individuals, and not about differences of opinion.

Edited June 9, 2012 by jwhitlock

[Nominee]

I agree with you that the Nephites did not see false teachings as benign. I also agree that they punish false teachers in accordance with their law, whener they were able to. That only serves to strengthen my point. If there a provision in the law for executing false teachers, it would have been applied to Nehor, his followers, and Korihor.

I am behind in reading the posts in this thread so I may be repeating something here; nevertheless, I think that v 17 says something important/relevant to this topic ~ "...and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief."

Regards, Naomi

[CASteinman]

I am behind in reading the posts in this thread so I may be repeating something here; nevertheless, I think that v 17 says something important/relevant to this topic ~ "...and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief."

But apparently for sometimes expressing that belief -- as in teaching it -- the Law could. For they would call it "lying". And that was illegal.

[treehugger]

an issue which seems to not be addressed is "Who gets to decide"?

It is very likely that one mans heresy is another mans Heavenly gift. This becomes likeunto conservatives labeling each other as "not a real conservative". The same thing happens with members of the Church claiming that another member is not really a member or not member enough. This is all in the eye. I know members who will not allow caffienated drinks in their home. I know other members who do not allow any sort of card game that involves a traditional deck of cards. I know members who play outside on Sunday, I know other members who require their children remain in the Church clothes all day on Sunday.

I support the notion that those we need to worry about are the ones who promote their own gospel hobbies; these same people of concern are people who have a penchant for "name dropping".

Edited June 9, 2012 by treehugger

[CASteinman]

an issue which seems to not be addressed is "Who gets to decide"?

It is very likely that one mans heresy is another mans Heavenly gift. This becomes likeunto conservatives labeling each other as "not a real conservative". The same thing happens with members of the Church claiming that another member is not really a member or not member enough. This is all in the eye. I know members who will not allow caffienated drinks in their home. I know other members who do not allow any sort of card game that involves a traditional deck of cards. I know members who play outside on Sunday, I know other members who require their children remain in the Church clothes all day on Sunday.

Seems to me you are talking about something entirely different from the Wolves among the Flock issue.

[Nominee]

But apparently for sometimes expressing that belief -- as in teaching it -- the Law could. For they would call it "lying". And that was illegal.

Yes, it was tricky but even if you were busted for lying ~ the law did not execute you for lying. Liars were punished, not executed.

As Volgadon mentioned, "...that the Nephites did not see false teachings as benign. I also agree that they punish false teachers in accordance with their law, whenever they were able to."

I wasn't trying to rob anyone of the full verse, I just wanted to hit on the part unmentioned. The full reading of Alma 1:17-18 is as follows:

Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief. And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

Regards, Naomi

[volgadon]

As has been noted, our part in the removal is identifying them so that our priesthood leaders can do something about them.

And again, lest anyone else (not you) misrepresent what I'm saying, I'm talking about clearly destructive individuals, and not about differences of opinion.

Fair enough.

[treehugger]

Seems to me you are talking about something entirely different from the Wolves among the Flock issue.

I consider those that flaunt their own gospel hobbies as gospel truth, wolves, or otherwise persons who pose a spiritual danger to others. I see those people who say things akin too "not Mormon enough" as wolves. For a historical reference I see them as modern day Cromwell. Those who would promote themself to the leader of the witch hunt patrol pose a spiritual danger to others.

[jwhitlock]

I consider those that flaunt their own gospel hobbies as gospel truth, wolves, or otherwise persons who pose a spiritual danger to others. I see those people who say things akin too "not Mormon enough" as wolves. For a historical reference I see them as modern day Cromwell. Those who would promote themself to the leader of the witch hunt patrol pose a spiritual danger to others.

It's a good thing no one's calling for a witch hunt on this thread.

I am curious, however. Do you agree with Will's observation that the Book of Mormon speaks to our day, and that just as the Book of Mormon describes those who secretly go about the church, the same kinds of people exist in our day?

If so, what do you think we should do about them and/or their actions?

Edited June 9, 2012 by jwhitlock

[thesometimesaint]

Nothing by way of civil law, but once having been informed of actual Church doctrine, if they continue to teach false doctrine. The most we should do is try them for their membership in the Church.

[Log]

But apparently for sometimes expressing that belief -- as in teaching it -- the Law could. For they would call it "lying". And that was illegal.

Ah, the book makes a more subtle point than that: "Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief."

So long as they didn't say publicly that what they were preaching was true, or that it was a matter of knowledge, they were in the clear.

Thus Korihor: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log