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

[wenglund]

Wade...we all, ultimately, believe "whatever we want", whether it is to believe every word of what we decide is "scripture" or decide to, perhaps, accept some of it and leave the rest, based on conscience, spiritual promptings, or just plain old common sense.

Yes...though some of us do so to such an extraordinary extent as to essentially form our own unique faith tradition--which, in case you missed it, was my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Indeed.

It's also interesting the differences between your response, and Wades.

Cheer-leading aside, it is also interesting to learn that you see more than one of me responding. Have you had your eyes checked recently?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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?

Your comments continue to have a cartoonish quality about them. Are you reading our posts using a funny house mirror?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nominee]

Well...I want to make this point very very clear....I give my 100% endorsement of members monitoring and policing the random comments of other members, teachers and priesthood leaders to make sure that every comment or thought expressed is pure, orthodox and church approved. I also completely endorse members turning in these "other members" to their priesthood leaders for corrective doctrinal therapy and if needed church discipline for having unapproved thoughts.

I think that I will also take the opportunity cede defeat to the orthodox posters of this board who have carried the day and won the argument…every member needs to be on guard against heterodoxy in the church. Every member needs to worry about what their neighbor believes and thinks and make certain that those beliefs are all in conformity with approved beliefs. You never really know who that wolf in sheep’s clothing really is lurking in the shadows or maybe even sitting next to you in Sunday school class seeking to destroy the church from within. Those evil free thinkers need to be rooted out and exposed….and who better to do it than you….you noble discerners of orthodoxy.

You drama is commendable but the continued manipulation of the subject at hand is just ~ see through. So for the sake of anyone jumping in to this thread and not wanting to read the whole thing. NO ONE here is behaving in the way you have just described. I accuse you of laying this (your) quote out in sarcasm to make it appear as though you were mocking the orthodox posters in this thread for things they have said. The truth is that the orthodox posters in thread have said NOTHING that would resemble or be in agreement with what you so colorfully displayed here.

You actually just continued on with your completely incorrect idea that this thread has anything to do with simple "random comments of other members". Your words, not mine. Again, Thank you. You make my point. This thread is not about "random comments of other members" it is about those secretly seeking to destroy the church.

~ Naomi

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Once we recognize them [those seeking to destroy the Church], what should we do to combat the things they are doing?

The answer to this question is very clear.

In December of 1833, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation from the Lord instructing the Saints to seek redress of grievances brought about by the Church’s enemies (many of whom came from within). The Saints were to gather the information together and submit their complaints to the proper authorities with the following promise:

“And if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the nation; And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and unjust stewards and appoint them their portion among hypocrites, and unbelievers” (D&C 101:89-90).

Note that the language makes clear that in addition to the nation, that this severe punishment is directed towards members of the Church who had caused problems from within.

By March of 1839 (over six years later), the Prophet Joseph had had enough of dealing with the Church’s enemies with patience, and felt that the time was long overdue for the Lord to fulfill his promise to “come forth out of his hiding place” and with his fury cut off those wicked, unfaithful, and unjust stewards. Invoking the Lord’s promise to punish the Church's enemies in D&C 101, the Prophet prayed:

“O God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place? How long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries? Yea, O Lord, how long shall they suffer these wrongs and unlawful oppressions, before thine heart shall be softened toward them, and thy bowels be moved with compassion toward them? O Lord God… let thy hiding place no longer be covered… Let thine anger be kindled against our enemies; and, in the fury of thine heart, with thy sword avenge us of our wrongs” (vv. 1-5).

This is the context by which the Lord explained to the Latter-day Church how to deal with their enemies. The response was very clear, and unfortunately, all too frequently ignored by LDS apologists:

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without ^hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy” (vv. 41-43).

The Lord has made clear through latter-day revelation the way members of the Church are to deal with perceived “enemies,” both from without and from within: with gentleness, meekness, kindness, and love. Not confrontation, which is of the devil. If punishments are to be handed out, they are to come from God, not over zealous defenders of the faith.

And lest anyone feel confused on the meaning of “reproving with sharpness,” the expression has been interpreted by Latter-day Church leaders:

"Perhaps we should consider what it means to reprove with sharpness. Reproving with sharpness means reproving with clarity, with loving firmness, with serious intent. It does not mean reproving with sarcasm, or with bitterness, or with clenched teeth and raised voice. One who reproves as the Lord has directed deals in principles, not personalities. He does not attack character or humiliate or demean an individual." H. Burke Peterson, Unrighteous Dominion in Marriage, Ensign, July 1989

“In practice, however, when we undertake to reprove we frequently are prompted not by the Holy Ghost but by ego. Moreover, we often fail to reprove ‘betimes,’ meaning speedily and early on. Time can harden feelings as surely as the sun bakes wet clay. Neal A. Maxwell, A Wonderful Flood of Light (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,1990), 113.

So in answer to this question, the Lord has made clear how to deal with “enemies” of the Church, including those wolves in sheep clothing seeking its destruction.

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.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[Senator]

Cheer-leading aside, it is also interesting to learn that you see more than one of me responding. Have you had your eyes checked recently?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The difference between your response and Seth's is indeed interesting, and telling.

[Nominee]

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.

I think you will find if you read through this thread that most everyone here agrees with you. Even the apologist who defines the enemy as "seeking to destroy the Church."

[Deborah]

Well...I want to make this point very very clear....I give my 100% endorsement of members monitoring and policing the random comments of other members, teachers and priesthood leaders to make sure that every comment or thought expressed is pure, orthodox and church approved. I also completely endorse members turning in these "other members" to their priesthood leaders for corrective doctrinal therapy and if needed church discipline for having unapproved thoughts.

You must have a problem with reading comprehension since nothing like this was suggested. There are cases where it is very clear that something is not right. These things should be addressed in the proper manner.

[CASteinman]

I didn't mean that he would literally lose or forego his authority. I meant that as far as his interactions relative to the other posters are concerned, he would be operating on the same level as the rest of them. That would be especially true if he were operating in anonymity. If he declared his identity then things might be different. But there is no way he can command authority while at the same time acting in anonymity.

Yes, in this world, the authority of God may not count for much among people. This reminds me of Jesus before Pilate.

Jesus answered

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him

Art thou a king then?

Jesus answered

Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

....

Then saith Pilate unto him

knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

Jesus answered,

Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

[William Schryver]

/snip/ classic example of apostate evangelist propaganda

It is always very predictable that the apostates and apostates-in-progress will attempt to turn tables and misapply scripture in order to achieve their objective of silencing those who are exposing them and their methods.

... the Lord has made clear how to deal with “enemies” of the Church, including those wolves in sheep clothing seeking its destruction.

Yes, He has. In fact, I have cited several instances in this thread, this being one of them:

Alma 5

59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

[ERayR]

I do not believe you have much choice other than appeal to Priesthood chains. If you attempt any other action, it will be you steadying the ark.

I have a tendency to stay in class and when something especially egregious is taught I speak up and as non-confrontational as possible say "I don't understand it that way. Here is how I understand it." At the very worst the outcome is that the rest of the class is aware that there is more than one view and they can weigh them.

[cinepro]

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.

And most of the "examples" suggested in this thread for "wolves in sheep's clothing" don't work for one obvious reason: they're not actually hiding. They're "wolves in wolves clothing", or "sheep that are a different color than me and I don't like it so I'm going to call them a wolf" or they're some other farm animal that co-exists with the sheep without wanting to kill them.

So I'm not buying it. I don't think there is an epidemic in the Church of subversive members who are seeking to destroy the Church. I think the Church is what it has always been, a collection of people who see a lot of things very similarly, and a lot of things not so similarly. And people don't see things that they want changed in the Church because they're a "wolf", they see things that could be changed because they have a brain.

Edited June 8, 2012 by cinepro

[wenglund]

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.

I agree. It is just that meekness, kindness, love, and reproving betimes with sharpness may entail different things in different situations. In some cases it may entail suffering the little children, and in other cases it may entail clearing the temple with brandished whip (or, in some instances, lash of the tongue).

As evidence of the latter, years after receiving the revelation you referenced earlier, we have the public and private scathing reaction of Joseph Smith and others to the deplorable actions of John C. Bennett, with much of reaction being motivated by the intent "that he [bennett] may not injure the innocent by gaining credence with you." (See History of the Church, Vol 5, the Introduction and chapters 1-4, 7, etc.).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Thank you. You make my point. We are not just discussing random comments made by members. And is the 'poster pointing out the lunicy' Volgadon? I don't know that he would agree with you. But you probably know this. Only real point to make here is that you are taking a conversation about those who actively seek to lead members astray and seek to destroy the church and responding as if we are discussing generally good faithful members with a loose tongue.

Yes, he is overstating in the extreme in order to intimidate you.

[Craig Paxton]

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.

And most of the "examples" suggested in this thread for "wolves in sheep's clothing" don't work for one obvious reason: they're not actually hiding.

Frankly, I'm not buying it. I don't think there is an epidemic in the Church of subversive members who are seeking to destroy the Church. I think the Church is what it has always been, a collection of people who see a lot of things very similarly, and a lot of things not so similarly. People don't see things that they want changed in the Church because they're a "wolf", they see things that could be changed because they have a brain.

Where's the "LIKE" button???

[Senator]

Yes, He has. In fact, I have cited several instances in this thread, this being one of them:

59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

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

[wenglund]

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

Ever hear of the parable of the lost sheep?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cushan Rishathaim]

It is always very predictable that the apostates and apostates-in-progress will attempt to turn tables and misapply scripture in order to achieve their objective of silencing those who are exposing them and their methods.

Yes, He has. In fact, I have cited several instances in this thread, this being one of them:

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.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

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.

And most of the "examples" suggested in this thread for "wolves in sheep's clothing" don't work for one obvious reason: they're not actually hiding. They're "wolves in wolves clothing", or "sheep that are a different color than me and I don't like it so I'm going to call them a wolf" or they're some other farm animal that co-exists with the sheep without wanting to kill them.

So I'm not buying it. I don't think there is an epidemic in the Church of subversive members who are seeking to destroy the Church. I think the Church is what it has always been, a collection of people who see a lot of things very similarly, and a lot of things not so similarly. And people don't see things that they want changed in the Church because they're a "wolf", they see things that could be changed because they have a brain.

Awesome!! Thank you for this clarification.

[Senator]

Ever hear of the parable of the lost sheep?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your point...?

[treehugger]

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.

And most of the "examples" suggested in this thread for "wolves in sheep's clothing" don't work for one obvious reason: they're not actually hiding. They're "wolves in wolves clothing", or "sheep that are a different color than me and I don't like it so I'm going to call them a wolf" or they're some other farm animal that co-exists with the sheep without wanting to kill them.

So I'm not buying it. I don't think there is an epidemic in the Church of subversive members who are seeking to destroy the Church. I think the Church is what it has always been, a collection of people who see a lot of things very similarly, and a lot of things not so similarly. And people don't see things that they want changed in the Church because they're a "wolf", they see things that could be changed because they have a brain.

What you posted has been my experience with people who use labels. Labels are used to shut down conversation and to sear the labeler that she is correct.

It is not our duty to pluck the tares from the wheat. Why is it not our duty? Because wheat and tares look identical, so if one presumptiously and prematurely sets out to separate the wheat and the tares, that person is very likely to put tares in with the wheat and wheat in with the tares.

[Craig Paxton]

You drama is commendable but the continued manipulation of the subject at hand is just ~ see through. So for the sake of anyone jumping in to this thread and not wanting to read the whole thing. NO ONE here is behaving in the way you have just described. I accuse you of laying this (your) quote out in sarcasm to make it appear as though you were mocking the orthodox posters in this thread for things they have said. The truth is that the orthodox posters in thread have said NOTHING that would resemble or be in agreement with what you so colorfully displayed here.

You actually just continued on with your completely incorrect idea that this thread has anything to do with simple "random comments of other members". Your words, not mine. Again, Thank you. You make my point. This thread is not about "random comments of other members" it is about those secretly seeking to destroy the church.

~ Naomi

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?

[cinepro]

What you posted has been my experience with people who use labels. Labels are used to shut down conversation and to sear the labeler that she is correct.

Someone could suggest that the labels "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon" are just as ill founded, but I would point out that at least there is some degree of description for each of them.

For example, I can say "If an LDS firmly believes that Noah's flood was global, and when they hear something from an Apostle in General Conference that they disagree with and they immediately change their mind to agree with the apostle, they exhibit qualities of a Chapel Mormon."

Can someone do the same for the "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing"?

"If an LDS ___________________________________________, then they exhibit the qualities of Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (WSC)"

Edited June 8, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

Yes, in this world, the authority of God may not count for much among people. This reminds me of Jesus before Pilate.

Nay; more like D&C 43:7:

For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

Also D&C 42:11:

Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

In other words, he will not come in wearing a mask. If he does, then he has authority only to the extent that his words are manifestly spoken by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost--the same as everybody else.

Edited June 8, 2012 by zerinus

[wenglund]

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

I am thinking your post illustrates an inclination to read scriptures in an overly rigid and narrow way, which creates an impediment to appropriately generalizing certain precepts and a possible inclination to consider good as bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-