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

[Cushan Rishathaim]

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.

To help, could you kindly return and point out where I in any comment referred to "members of the Church" as apologists in any manner, let alone in a "derogatory" way.

If I have offended anyone by using this specific word, I apologize. Could you perhaps suggest an alternative? I would be happy to use it instead to avoid such offense. Because honestly, in the context of this discussion, I simply don't know what other word to use for the issue we're addressing.

The initial post asks the question what members of the Church should do to combat the efforts of those seeking to destroy the Church.

The second a member takes up the charge to defend the Church against those seeking to destroy it, that member becomes an "apologist," meaning "a defender of the faith." I can't see, therefore, how in the context of this discussion, it is "derogatory" to identify them as such.

I'm certainly not intentionally trying to belittle "members" or "apologists."

Thank you.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[zerinus]

On the subject of “wolves in sheep clothing,” it is worth remembering what the Lord originally meant by it. He did not mean a kind of “fifth column” within the Church; but any deceiver or imposter in or outside of the Church—including people who had never been member of the Church. Any false teacher or preacher, priest or minister, who seeks to lead people astray, or away from the true gospel, qualifies. It applies to any kind of a “false prophet,” which has a very broad definition. According to Joseph Smith, the sectarian ministers of his day (who were bitterly opposing and persecuting him) qualified for the definition of a false prophets. So basically any false teacher masquerading as a true one, claiming to lead men to God, while drawing them away form Him, or away from the true Church or servants of God, classify as wolves in sheep’s clothing. And there are an awful lot of those. They include apostates who actively campaign against the Church, as well as people who had never been Church members who do so. To us they may not appear as though they are wearing any sheep clothing, but to the unwary whom they beguile, they are.

[Nominee]

To help, could you kindly return and point out where I in any comment referred to "members of the Church" as apologists in any manner, let alone in a "derogatory" way.

If I have offended anyone by using this specific word, I apologize. Could you perhaps suggest an alternative? I would be happy to use it instead to avoid such offense. Because honestly, in the context of this discussion, I simply don't know what other word to use for the issue we're addressing.

The initial post asks the question what members of the Church should do to combat the efforts of those seeking to destroy the Church.

The second a member takes up the charge to defend the Church against those seeking to destroy it, that member becomes an "apologist," meaning "a defender of the faith." I can't see, therefore, how in the context of this discussion, it is "derogatory" to identify them as such.

I'm certainly not intentionally trying to belittle "members" or "apologists."

Thank you.

All LDS are defenders of the faith, from the moment they are baptized. So referring to us who defend our faith as Latter-day Saints will suffice. There are, of course, LDS apologists. Still, you SERIOUSLY over generalize in a HUGE way. I am, personally, not offended as I would be honored to be called an apologist. I am a great defender of my faith but I am simply a Latter-day Saint. However, if you are not as ignorant as you present yourself to be then shame on you.

Here is scripture that is applied to every saint, not just to the apologists, Mosiah 18:8-9:

And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another's burdens, that they may be light; Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life-

Regards, Naomi

[Nominee]

The second a member takes up the charge to defend the Church against those seeking to destroy it, that member becomes an "apologist," meaning "a defender of the faith."

This is most inaccurate in the context of this discussion.

edit to add: And it has led you to (even if in ignorance) misuse and abuse the title of those that we have great respect for ~ apologists.

~ Naomi

Edited June 9, 2012 by Nominee

[Minos]

To help, could you kindly return and point out where I in any comment referred to "members of the Church" as apologists in any manner, let alone in a "derogatory" way.

If I have offended anyone by using this specific word, I apologize. Could you perhaps suggest an alternative? I would be happy to use it instead to avoid such offense. Because honestly, in the context of this discussion, I simply don't know what other word to use for the issue we're addressing.

The initial post asks the question what members of the Church should do to combat the efforts of those seeking to destroy the Church.

The second a member takes up the charge to defend the Church against those seeking to destroy it, that member becomes an "apologist," meaning "a defender of the faith." I can't see, therefore, how in the context of this discussion, it is "derogatory" to identify them as such.

I'm certainly not intentionally trying to belittle "members" or "apologists."

Thank you.

Thank you for your courtesy. I previously explained to you that all faithful members would consider themselves apologists. You also have to realize that anyone defending any position are apologists for that position. When you use a term that describes both sides to only describe the side you disrespect it takes on a negative tone that you paint all church members with. It has become a useless term on this board because it is usually used to poison the well rather than deal with individual viewpoints of individual posters. The same thing happens when anti-Mormon is overused and you will notice that this board uses the word critic and posters have for the most part been gracious about treating those that disagree with Mormonism as individuals rather than a faceless member of a group called anti-Mormons.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Thank you for your courtesy. I previously explained to you that all faithful members would consider themselves apologists. You also have to realize that anyone defending any position are apologists for that position. When you use a term that describes both sides to only describe the side you disrespect it takes on a negative tone that you paint all church members with. It has become a useless term on this board because it is usually used to poison the well rather than deal with individual viewpoints of individual posters. The same thing happens when anti-Mormon is overused and you will notice that this board uses the word critic and posters have for the most part been gracious about treating those that disagree with Mormonism as individuals rather than a faceless member of a group called anti-Mormons.

Thank you. I'll avoid using the term so as not to offend. To clarify, I don't hold any disrespect for those seeking to defend Mormonism (I simply believe that such efforts should take a specific form) and I was not intentionally using the word in a derogatory manner.

We appreciate that. Carry on.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Minos

[Lightbearer]

I realize I am rather late coming to the party. I have scanned through the various answers and arguments on this thread but I did not find the following quote:

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 71:7 - 10)

I agree that there are wolves in the fold and that they should be dealt with by the presiding authorities. But it is part of our calling in the priesthood to "watch over the church" and see to it that there is no "iniquity in the church" so that we will not be decieved by these wolves. As the following indicates:

"And unto the bishop of the church, and unto such as God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church, are to have it given unto them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 46:27)

Now as far as a having a "witch-hunt" that is not indicated, what is important is that we personally are not deceived by the false teachings of these apostates and that we not allow the sheep under our care (every bearer of the priesthood are shepherds who are charged with watching over the flock, ie hometeachers etc.) so yes that is our place. We cannot excommunicate anyone (that duty belongs to the bishops and stake presidents and high councils) but we can counteract the effects of false teachings by declaring the truth according to the teachings of the First Presidency and council of the twelve. The following may be applicable:

"And also Satan hath sought to deceive you, that he might overthrow you. Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name. But blessed are they who are faithful and endure, whether in life or in death, for they shall inherit eternal life. But wo unto them that are deceivers and hypocrites, for, thus saith the Lord, I will bring them to judgment. Behold, verily I say unto you, there are hypocrites among you, who have deceived some, which has given the adversary power; but behold such shall be reclaimed; But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 50:3 - 9)

A hypocrite as mentioned above is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Note that even if they are not detected in this life God will detect them in he next. I think the reason for Alma's warning is so that each individual that reads and accepts the teachings of the Book of Mormon are aware of the presence of these wolves who seek the destruction of the Lord's Church. Of course they try to deny their presence, how else could they operate? Unless they do it in secret or with much flattery of speech the Saints could not be fooled. They may only want to sow discord or doubt where none should exist. We must be in the attitude of "watching" and being faithful to the teachings of the leaders of the church:

"And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:14 - 16)

That is what makes this very important, we are not to believe our own opinions or speculations, but what the Lord has revealed to His servants.

[DBMormon]

We better be real careful in advocating one member deciding when another is a wolf and seeing to it that they are dealt with..... that is not appropriate on any level unles you are the Bishop or Stake President. You may bring it to their attention but your stewardship stops there. you are to be proactive in positive reinforcement and yes speaking out against false Doctrine but each of us do that at times (say or think something incorrect), your responsibility ends when you decide who is a wolf and who isn't.

[Scott Lloyd]

We better be real careful in advocating one member deciding when another is a wolf and seeing to it that they are dealt with..... that is not appropriate on any level unles you are the Bishop or Stake President. You may bring it to their attention but your stewardship stops there. you are to be proactive in positive reinforcement and yes speaking out against false Doctrine but each of us do that at times (say or think something incorrect), your responsibility ends when you decide who is a wolf and who isn't.

There is a degree of judgment involved even in the limited responsibility you describe above. For a great many minor things, it is better just to let them pass, while more serious things should be brought to the attention of the authorities called to deal with them.

I'm saying there is a great deal of difference between a minor misstatement or fact error made in a Sunday School class and a blatant effort by someone using a Church venue to disparage the Brethren or contradict an institutional position of the Church on one topic or another. The former could just as well be ignored; the latter warrants attention by someone in charge.

[William Schryver]

Lightbearer:

I realize I am rather late coming to the party. I have scanned through the various answers and arguments on this thread but I did not find the following quote:

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 71:7 - 10)

I agree that there are wolves in the fold and that they should be dealt with by the presiding authorities. But it is part of our calling in the priesthood to "watch over the church" and see to it that there is no "iniquity in the church" so that we will not be decieved by these wolves. As the following indicates:

"And unto the bishop of the church, and unto such as God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church, are to have it given unto them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 46:27)

Now as far as a having a "witch-hunt" that is not indicated, what is important is that we personally are not deceived by the false teachings of these apostates and that we not allow the sheep under our care (every bearer of the priesthood are shepherds who are charged with watching over the flock, ie hometeachers etc.) so yes that is our place. We cannot excommunicate anyone (that duty belongs to the bishops and stake presidents and high councils) but we can counteract the effects of false teachings by declaring the truth according to the teachings of the First Presidency and council of the twelve. The following may be applicable:

"And also Satan hath sought to deceive you, that he might overthrow you. Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name. But blessed are they who are faithful and endure, whether in life or in death, for they shall inherit eternal life. But wo unto them that are deceivers and hypocrites, for, thus saith the Lord, I will bring them to judgment. Behold, verily I say unto you, there are hypocrites among you, who have deceived some, which has given the adversary power; but behold such shall be reclaimed; But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 50:3 - 9)

A hypocrite as mentioned above is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Note that even if they are not detected in this life God will detect them in he next. I think the reason for Alma's warning is so that each individual that reads and accepts the teachings of the Book of Mormon are aware of the presence of these wolves who seek the destruction of the Lord's Church. Of course they try to deny their presence, how else could they operate? Unless they do it in secret or with much flattery of speech the Saints could not be fooled. They may only want to sow discord or doubt where none should exist. We must be in the attitude of "watching" and being faithful to the teachings of the leaders of the church:

"And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:14 - 16)

That is what makes this very important, we are not to believe our own opinions or speculations, but what the Lord has revealed to His servants.

Excellent observations. I especially agree with the portion of your comments that I bolded above.

You also include several appropriate citations from the Doctrine & Covenants.

Well done.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I think the real wolves are the self-righteous on either side of the issue.

As far as groups like NOM or StayLDS the people are there in many cases because of lousy treatment, instruction, discipline, etc of Right-wing self-righteous members with un-tempered testimonies which haven't ever been seriously tried. They hide because they are afraid of losing family relationships, etc.

Then there are the disgruntled Left-wing, Self-Righteous, Agnostic/Atheists who like the aforementioned disaffected, seek new converts to essentially an evangelical-athiesm based soley on science and socially liberal extremism whilst basking in social justice and belittlement of thier right-wing cousins within the church.

This has far more to do with pride. Pride that you have the absolute truth for or against the church. BOTH sides are working for the same side known as contention.

[Nominee]

Quote

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 71:7 - 10)

Excellent! This makes all the right points. I have brought to attention two of the phrases in this scripture that I find to have great meaning that can be easily missed among all that is being said here.

~Naomi

[Log]

Quote

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 71:7 - 10)

Excellent! This makes all the right points. I have brought to attention two of the phrases in this scripture that I find to have great meaning that can be easily missed among all that is being said here.

~Naomi

It also means we may not prevail in the initial encounters, but don't be discouraged.

[Nominee]

It also means we may not prevail in the initial encounters, but don't be discouraged.

True, true. This reminds me of a poster I put on my Facebook page recently that says, "The best angle from which to approach any problem is the try-angle."

[escottmusicstudio]

I am new here; I am a fan of both Dr. Peterson and Will Schryver.

This thread is so long, and I have to admit, I have not read all 19 pages. Please forgive me if what I am about to ask has already been discussed. If you would humor me, I would really appreciate it.

Dr. Peterson, could you please clarify who you were referring to in your article when you spoke of enemies to the Church? And, Will, maybe you could also comment?

When I think of a NOM, I think of a good-standing member of the Church who holds a calling, has a temple recommend, but who just doesn't agree with all of the tenets. He/she may disagree with polygamy, and just doesn't quite know how to accept it.

Would this type of NOM be considered "an enemy of the Church"?

If this NOM participates on message boards, and voices his/her confusion or disagreements with those tenets, and yet, he/she is not trying to influence anyone in a negative way toward the Church, is he/she an enemy?

Thank you for your help, and thank you for the nice welcome here!

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I am new here; I am a fan of both Dr. Peterson and Will Schryver.

This thread is so long, and I have to admit, I have not read all 19 pages. Please forgive me if what I am about to ask has already been discussed. If you would humor me, I would really appreciate it.

Dr. Peterson, could you please clarify who you were referring to in your article when you spoke of enemies to the Church? And, Will, maybe you could also comment?

When I think of a NOM, I think of a good-standing member of the Church who holds a calling, has a temple recommend, but who just doesn't agree with all of the tenets. He/she may disagree with polygamy, and just doesn't quite know how to accept it.

Would this type of NOM be considered "an enemy of the Church"?

If this NOM participates on message boards, and voices his/her confusion or disagreements with those tenets, and yet, he/she is not trying to influence anyone in a negative way toward the Church, is he/she an enemy?

Thank you for your help, and thank you for the nice welcome here!

The problem I see with the NOM movement or thought process is that it and the major proponents of such, are not really seeking the supposed "third way". Not all but many.

I've heard the NOM website called a way station for people who want out of the church but are waiting for various reasons or say they are hiding due to family and carreer issues. Most of the moderators there are athiest or agnostic with very little regard for much or all of Mormonism and don't even want the cultural ties associated with Mormonism.

Some are seeking to reform of core tenants of the church. Many want full disclosure from the church ranging from issues of polygamy and on up to a full appology for Prop 8. Generally speaking it is a theologically left with heavy overtones to secular humanism. It is touted as being a good place for people struggling with testimony issues and the like. It is not in my opinion.

I know there are people here including myself who have or do participate there I'm not trying to shut them down or stop them from making thier points/opinions. I think however the motives and statement of mission is highly misleading. While it has never specifically been said the presumed postion of is a support and scholarly pursuit coming from a Sunstone or Dr. Bushman-like position. While not absolutely untrue it is a far cry from faithful or non-agressive stance against the church or"TBMs".

Case in point is John Dehlin he is or was at one point in good standing. He has been investigated by leaders and was pretty much absolved. He says he is trying to bridge gaps between the different perspectives of belief in the church and is an advocate for many opositional movements from within and without the the church. By a wide a very wide deffinition he is following a "middle-way".

My personal belief is that yes one may diverge from doctrine and teachings and still be a member or "good" member but where should the line be drawn there should be a line in the sand. If these people had to be baptized again how could they honestly do so? If You have no belief meaning absolutely no belief in the BOM not even as a spritual work of fiction, no belief in Joseph Smith, The Restoration, you're not sure or don't believe in Christ or God, and you pretty much don't like anything that the church has done, what exactly is the point? How is that possibly a middle way?

I can buy nuanced belief everyone to some extent is nuanced but there is a line in the sand. It's not critcism but I wish someone could explain how the views of many if not most NOMs are compatible with even the slightest level of participation within the LDS church?

[Calm]

Dr. Bushman-like position. While not absolutely untrue it is a far cry from faithful or non-agressive stance against the church or"TBMs".

Richard Bushman is a faithful LDS. His approach in RSR (which is what I am assuming you are referring to) was a neutral, non-aggressive academic attempt. He has been more obvious about his personal faith in JS as a prophet in other writings. Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

Richard Bushman is a faithful LDS. His approach in RSR (which is what I am assuming you are referring to) was a neutral, non-aggressive academic attempt. He has been more obvious about his personal faith in JS as a prophet in other writings.

I didn't mean to imply that of Dr. Bushman. What I meant was he is faithfull member in good standing and his name gets co-opted on many occasions by NOMs while thier own views are far different from his. He gets lumped in frequently to many discussions as probably a NOM. He is frequently refferenced as " a good" read but "not as good as Fawn Brodie".

I actually enjoy Dr Bushman's book RSR very much. I was simply stating that I feel his name is used by NOMs a lot as a trump card. His wife's work is also used much for the same purposes. I could also point out Levi Petersen and others whom are faithful LDS with nuanced views but frequently get lumped in to give credibilty to the "middle way".

It's not that I have any problem with people having some dissenting views or nuanced belief but there are those who claim to be nuanced or faithful dessenters but are clearly just dissenters. I don't have a problem with people who choose to follow "the middle way". I just don't like when people co-opt the names of people and scholars who are faithful and use them as a shield or spring board from a view that are clearly divergent from those faithful scholars and writers.

[William Schryver]

Richard Bushman is a faithful LDS. His approach in RSR (which is what I am assuming you are referring to) was a neutral, non-aggressive academic attempt. He has been more obvious about his personal faith in JS as a prophet in other writings.

By and large, I thought Rough Stone Rolling was a satisfactory biography of Joseph Smith. That said, I am of the opinion that, in many cases--and unnecessarily so--Bushman pandered to the critics of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church. Or, if he was not intentionally pandering to the critics, he holds to some views of Joseph Smith that I believe to be manifestly false, and he incorrectly interprets some events in Joseph Smith's history, such that Rough Stone Rolling can definitely be a faith-eroding book in the hands of those whose knowledge and understanding of LDS Church history is deficient in certain respects.

That Rough Stone Rolling is considered by many to be, at this date, the "definitive" biography of Joseph Smith is, in my judgment, more a commentary on the mediocrity of its competitors than it is a valid assessment of the relative quality of the work itself.

[Calm]

I didn't mean to imply that of Dr. Bushman. What I meant was he is faithfull member in good standing and his name gets co-opted on many occasions by NOMs while thier own views are far different from his. He gets lumped in frequently to many discussions as probably a NOM. He is frequently refferenced as " a good" read but "not as good as Fawn Brodie"....

Got it.

[escottmusicstudio]

I can buy nuanced belief everyone to some extent is nuanced but there is a line in the sand.

"Nuanced belief".....I like that!

Maybe I have been miscategorizing myself. This gives me some things to think about. Thanks for your comments' date=' Anti!

So, let's look at my prior post one more time:

Dr. Peterson, could you please clarify who you were referring to in your article when you spoke of enemies to the Church? And, Will, maybe you could also comment?

When I think of a NOM, I think of a good-standing member of the Church who holds a calling, has a temple recommend, but who just doesn't agree with all of the tenets. He/she may disagree with polygamy, and just doesn't quite know how to accept it.

Would this type of NOM be considered "an enemy of the Church"?

If this NOM participates on message boards, and voices his/her confusion or disagreements with those tenets, and yet, he/she is not trying to influence anyone in a negative way toward the Church, is he/she an enemy?

Maybe this person, who I have labeled a NOM, really isn't a NOM at all, and more of a nuanced member? That being the case, would this type of nuanced member be considered an enemy to the Church, and was it this type of member that Dr. Peterson and Will were referring to?

Dr. Peterson and Will, I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate a response when you have a moment.

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone!

[Somebodyz]

"Nuanced belief".....I like that!

Maybe I have been miscategorizing myself. This gives me some things to think about. Thanks for your comments, Anti!

So, let's look at my prior post one more time:

Maybe this person, who I have labeled a NOM, really isn't a NOM at all, and more of a nuanced member? That being the case, would this type of nuanced member be considered an enemy to the Church, and was it this type of member that Dr. Peterson and Will were referring to?

Dr. Peterson and Will, I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate a response when you have a moment.

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone!

Why do you keep asking for a poster who hasn't even posted on this thread, to reply to you? .....or have I missed Mr Peterson's post?

[escottmusicstudio]

Why do you keep asking for a poster who hasn't even posted on this thread, to reply to you? .....or have I missed Mr Peterson's post?

Since the OP was touching on an article that Dr. Peterson wrote, I thought it appropriate to hear his response as to specifically what he was referring to. As I stated previously, I have not read the full 19 pages of thread. I had honestly assumed that Dr. Peterson had posted something on the thread during that time. If he has not, I apologize, but would still like to hear his take on the matter.

[Calm]

Dr. Peterson and Will, I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate a response when you have a moment.

Dr. Peterson is unlikely to be reading this thread at this time. He doesn't spend much time on the board these days and is currently overseas, IIRC.

[escottmusicstudio]

Dr. Peterson is unlikely to be reading this thread at this time. He doesn't spend much time on the board these days and is currently overseas, IIRC.

Is he traveling again? I thought he just got back. I may shoot him an email. Thanks for the tip!

At any rate, I would appreciate Will's response. Since he is the thread starter, I am sure he will be checking in..when he is not busy with his new grandson!