What Constitutes A Wolf In Sheep'S Clothing

[Brian 2.0]

If a faithful member loses his faith, but still attends, that obviously doesn't necessarily denote him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, I assume. And I would think the answer would be that he becomes one if he's targeting people and teaching people things with the intent to lead them out.

But it gets messy if for example the attending but non-believing member is telling a faithful member or questioning member their issues about why they don't believe because they were asked about it in detail, and then those words are taken in by the faithful member who then starts a process of themselves become disaffected. The disaffected wasn't seeking out people to tell. The disaffected was trying to get the faithful member to leave and come to his viewpoint on the matter. So how exactly can we differentiate between someone sharing their experiences and thoughts on a certain topic to someone who asks, and a "wolf in sheep's clothing"

Label aren't great to use, but the labels of "Mormon" "Apostate" "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" are used enough that it seems some clarification would be nice.

[pmccombs1]

If a faithful member loses his faith, but still attends, that obviously doesn't necessarily denote him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, I assume. And I would think the answer would be that he becomes one if he's targeting people and teaching people things with the intent to lead them out.

But it gets messy if for example the attending but non-believing member is telling a faithful member or questioning member their issues about why they don't believe because they were asked about it in detail, and then those words are taken in by the faithful member who then starts a process of themselves become disaffected. The disaffected wasn't seeking out people to tell. The disaffected was trying to get the faithful member to leave and come to his viewpoint on the matter. So how exactly can we differentiate between someone sharing their experiences and thoughts on a certain topic to someone who asks, and a "wolf in sheep's clothing"

Label aren't great to use, but the labels of "Mormon" "Apostate" "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" are used enough that it seems some clarification would be nice.

The metaphor, wolf in sheep's clothing, conjures the image of a ravenous creature who uses some sort of misleading disguise to come among an unsuspecting flock for a very specific, devious purpose. The disguise masks the wolf's true intent and makes him a trusted member of the flock until it is time to spring the trap. The intent of the wolf, of course, is to destroy as much of the flock as possible for his own gain and glory. The wolf may actually see himself and his destructive ways as a sort of "savior" in a crusade against evil.

I suspect that most disaffected members who still attend do not have the intent to do harm to the flock. However, like you say, it is difficult to keep up appearances indefinitely, and eventually questions arise and the disaffected is outed. This isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing, however; but perhaps a disguised walrus, or a sparrow, or a lump of dirt. The revelation that the individual is not as he or she seemed is a difficult one for the flock, and maybe it causes them to retreat to less-startling pastures. Some few may be curious and begin to see certain qualities in that which they now see, so in a sense, there is a possibility that these individuals will also wreak a certain mayhem among the flock.

[Storm Rider]

The context of the discussion is important to me...I dislike hypotheticals because of all the assumptions that need to be made. These are tender, if not sacred, discussions. Faith is expressed through both the mind and the heart; it is the heart that makes it both tender and sacred. There is a big difference between: "I have studied XX and I cannot seem to get over YY" and "Did you know that Joseph Smith did X, and then he also did Y, and then to top it all off he did Z". One is an expression of personal challenges and the other presumes to actually know the "facts" about a certain matter and is devoid of context, understanding, but the worst is the motivation for the statements. They are intended to shock, to destabilize, to bring another to one's side of an argument. Each of us should have the space to express our feelings, our doubts, and our challenges, but we each need to choose those situations carefully. On this board it is easy to simply say what is on your mind, ask questions, etc. while shrouded in anonymity, but it is different when talking at church or even in our own homes. We become a stumbling block, a wolf if you will, when our intention is to destroy the faith of others. I know it is trite, but if this is a conversation that you can have with the Savior then it is a good conversation to have with another person.

[CV75]

The disaffected wasn't seeking out people to tell. The disaffected was trying to get the faithful member to leave and come to his viewpoint on the matter.

This is telling, and this is the problem, even if it is just a Freudian slip. Not seeking out people to tell, and at the same time trying to get a faithful member to leave? Our motives don't always match our actions or even our deeper drives, but we can tell when something is "off." Who and what we are always affects ourselves and others, the people we are drawn to, the way we affect others and allow them to affect us, etc. If we are uncomfortable with something, even something as superfical as a label that might be applied to us, it's time to get really, really honest with ourselves.

[alter idem]

Label aren't great to use, but the labels of "Mormon" "Apostate" "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" are used enough that it seems some clarification would be nice.

Jesus warned his followers concerning the danger of 'wolves in sheep's clothing':

15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matt. 7:15

And later, Paul recognized that there were some 'apostates' or dissenters who he perceived as a fulfillment of Jesus' warning and in turn, warned ;

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:29-30

In the Book of Mormon, the explanation of what Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah were doing is an excellent description of 'wolves in sheep's clothing':

Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an ^bidolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much ^cflattery to the people; therefore he ^dled many of the people to do after the manner of his ^einiquities. And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his ^bpower over them. Now it came to pass that while he was going about to

destroy the church of God, for he did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church, and to lead astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God, or even the king—

I think that these descriptions help clarify these terms. Bold emphasis added.

[Brian 2.0]

This is telling, and this is the problem, even if it is just a Freudian slip. Not seeking out people to tell, and at the same time trying to get a faithful member to leave? Our motives don't always match our actions or even our deeper drives, but we can tell when something is "off." Who and what we are always affects ourselves and others, the people we are drawn to, the way we affect others and allow them to affect us, etc. If we are uncomfortable with something, even something as superfical as a label that might be applied to us, it's time to get really, really honest with ourselves.

It was a typo. I meant to say the disaffected "wasn't" trying to get the people to leave. That typo certainly changes what it looked like it was saying.

[theplains]

We become a stumbling block, a wolf if you will, when our intention is to destroy the faith of others.

Another example of a wolf in sheep's clothing is one who comes into the church in the hopes

of leading people to worship a false God or stop people from worshipping Jesus by trying to

convince them that he's Michael the Archangel.

Thanks,

Jim

Edited February 2, 2013 by theplains

[teddyaware]

If a faithful member loses his faith, but still attends, that obviously doesn't necessarily denote him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, I assume. And I would think the answer would be that he becomes one if he's targeting people and teaching people things with the intent to lead them out.

But it gets messy if for example the attending but non-believing member is telling a faithful member or questioning member their issues about why they don't believe because they were asked about it in detail, and then those words are taken in by the faithful member who then starts a process of themselves become disaffected. The disaffected wasn't seeking out people to tell. The disaffected was trying to get the faithful member to leave and come to his viewpoint on the matter. So how exactly can we differentiate between someone sharing their experiences and thoughts on a certain topic to someone who asks, and a "wolf in sheep's clothing"

Label aren't great to use, but the labels of "Mormon" "Apostate" "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" are used enough that it seems some clarification would be nice.

You, my friend, seem to be almost the diameteric opposite of a wolf in sheep's clothing. In the case of the Latter-day Saints, said wolf would cloak himself in all the trappings of a faithful, testimony bearing member of the church, but would look stealthily for predatory opportunities to prey on those crept in unawares, and then set about to craftily and almost imperceptively undermine the faith of those so targeted. Finally, after the target's faith had been sufficiently weakened and undermined, he would reveal himself for what he really is and strike without mercy to devouer what remains. Another classic way of describing this phenomenon is to say our surrepticious destroyer of faith and testimony is a devil who transforms into a seeming angel of light.

Now remember, I said you were almost the diametric opposite of a wolf in sheeps clothing. The fact that you've revealed your loss of faith to some others, especially to those in authority, can be a good and honest thing to do. But the fact that you're inviting others to immerse themselves in recitations on how you've lost nearly all of your faith is somewhat problematic. I would be very carefull to only discuss your crisis of faith with those who have the deepest knowledge and unshakable testimonies of the Restored Gospel.

Edited February 2, 2013 by teddyaware

[Brian 2.0]

But the fact that you're inviting others to immerse themselves in recitations on how you've lost nearly all of your faith is somewhat problematic. I would be very carefull to only discuss your crisis of faith with those who have the deepest knowledge and unshakable testimonies of the Restored Gospel.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression but I'm not inviting anyone to hear my loss of faith journey or hear my doubts. I only talk about it with others when I'm approached about it. And even then I'll be pretty vague to the believer as to why. But I've had to go into more detail with others (like my inquiring parents when they found out I was washing a load off boxers instead of garments).

[CV75]

So how exactly can we differentiate between someone sharing their experiences and thoughts on a certain topic to someone who asks, and a "wolf in sheep's clothing"

Pray, study, serve and otherwise live our religion on a regular basis, and wait upon the Lord in the event we find ourselves even needing to differentiate.

Edited February 3, 2013 by CV75