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

[alter idem]

As I looked through this thread the words of the Savior to the Nephites seems appropriate (3 Nephi chapter 18:28-34);

He gave instructions to his leaders, the 12 disciples about dealing with members who were not worthy to take the sacrament. He told them in verse 30 not to cast these members out, but to 'minister' and 'pray' for them. And he continued in verse 31 by saying;

"But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered."

Now, this kind of member might be perceived by some members as a 'wolf in sheeps' clothing' and yet, the Savior told his leaders in verse 32 regarding these non-repentant people who could even pose a threat to the members by his own admission;

verse 32 "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them."

If you don't think this is possible, just look at Alma the Younger and the four sons of Mosiah. They were textbook examples of 'wolves in sheeps' clothing' and they came to Christ and were healed.

I think the danger of searching out or even labeling members this way is that we can hurt the atmosphere of love and fellowship which Saints should enjoy within LDS congregations.

There is one person I can think of recently who really was secretly going about to destroy the church: Mark Hofmann. Many people criticized Pres. Hinckley for not 'discerning' in his first visits that Mark Hofmann was being deceptive and was a liar, but I've always felt that they were wrong in this criticism. Pres. HInckley was a follower of Christ and when he met people, he was not looking for blackness and evil in their hearts--he looked on them as Children of God and believed the best of professed members of the church. I think it's best to follow Pres. Hinckley's example and try to look first for the good in people. If, as you get to know someone, you feel uncomfortable or concerned, then you look deeper into their hearts, as Pres. Hinckley did as he had more association with Hofmann and reason to question his true intentions.

I think it would be hard to develop Charity for our fellow men if we are too critical of them or are quick to judge their motives as nefarious or subversive.

I think that if we are close to the spirit we cannot be led astray by someone who actually has evil intentions and I think that if we pray for our leaders; that they will have divine guidance in filling their callings to watch over the 'flock' in a righteous, inspired manner, we can help them beware of dangers which may exist.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I would suggest that yes there are people who are nuanced but believing members, and those who hide. I've stated here that I am not a practicing member. However I do not go about preaching radical reformation nor destruction of the church.

I am a believer in the gospel, God, and Jesus Christ. If I were to go about preaching it would be that just because you do not believe in some minor things or choose to not to be sycophantic in your dealings with a member who happens to have a calling does not equal a sorched earth approach to religion, Mormonism and faith.

I suppose there are some possibly many that consider that to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. However I have seen the genuine wolves in sheep's clothing that do hide and wish ill upon the church or to reform it radically to suit thier needs.

You can believe in the Gospel and be faithful and have dissenting views however I believe that there are lines you simply cannot cross and still make an arguement that you are in good standing and productive member of the church. I'm not all that familliar with Dr. Petersen's work or what his exact stance is. He and I would disagree on many topics I believe in all probability. I think we would agree that there are many wolves in sheep's clothing though.

[sethpayne]

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.

Hi William,

How should we combat Bushman's wolvishness? I have it on pretty good authority that he is currently serving as a High Priest Group Leader and I am deeply concerned for the bretheren under his stewardship.

Also, I have to admit I am curious as to what views Bushman holds that are "manifestly false." That is a pretty serious charge given that Bushman is a man who has sent a good portion of his career stuyding the life of the Prophet and has published several books from well-respected academic presses about Joseph Smith. Harvard doesn't generally bestow Ph.Ds to those who are in the habit of putting forth ideas which are "manifestly false." Given your academic pedigree and extensive publishing history in peer-reviewed journals ... oh wait, never mind.

Also, Bushman is a Temple sealer, former Stake President, etc.... so to accuse his work of being faith-destroying is pretty gutsy on your part.

Again, please enlighten us on the weakness of Bushman's academic work. I, for one, would be incredibly grateful to you if you would be so kind.

Thanks, William.

Seth

Edited June 16, 2012 by sethpayne

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

Even though I am not active, Dr. Bushman's book renewed my faith in many, many ways. He showed me that Joseph was human and truely a seeker of God and wanted to bring some light, knowledge and faith into the world. I appreciate RSR very much and have recomended it to many who have struggled with their faith.

[Log]

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.

QFT

[volgadon]

Even though I am not active, Dr. Bushman's book renewed my faith in many, many ways. He showed me that Joseph was human and truely a seeker of God and wanted to bring some light, knowledge and faith into the world. I appreciate RSR very much and have recomended it to many who have struggled with their faith.

I can quote for truth too, I think this is the great value of Bushman's work, going beyond placing the study of JS on firm academic footing.