Blog Post: "angry Ex-Mormon-Anti-Mormons"

[sethpayne]

Knowing Mormons and Mormonism as I do, and having observed the behavior of vitriolic anti- or ex-Mormons, I can't accept that the line is all that thin.

 

Again, it's not merely a matter of having differing religious beliefs; it's a matter of avowed enmity of one party toward the religious faith of another.

 

That's a substantial and qualitative difference.

 

Scott, I think you are falling victim to what we all do.  Loud voices do not indicate a majority.  If we were to trust online message boards then yes, I would agree that your assessment is correct.

 

However, given the large number of people who have left the Church, a few Steve Benson's represent the lunatic fringe.  The vast vast vast vast majority of exmos may take issue with some aspects of Mormonism -- doctrine, policy, whatever -- but most are not out there trying to destroy faith.  Broadly speaking they are sociological leave takers.

 

The reason I say this is because I made a similar mistake in my Dialogue article last year.  The way I presented my research implied that the whole of ex-Mormons are part of oppositional coalitions.  My discussion was centered on these coalitions but I, unfortunately, I didn't present my research clearly enough to make the explicit distinction between Mormon leave-takers and those who align with oppositional coalitions.  The latter are by far the loudest, but the former are the majority (if we are to believe Albrecht's study out of BYU -- which is a bit dated now).

 

Ryan Cragun offered up a critique of my discussion of ex-Mormons and he was absolutely right that my use of language had painted with too broad of a brush and, I think, it was because my view of ex-Mormons became too heavily influenced by the loud RfM types.  In any case, I hope I clarified my position in my response to Cragun.  Don't get me wrong.  I still think my work has value -- but I needed to be more clear about delineating between various types of ex-Mormons.  I alluded to it.... but needed to be more explicit.

[teddyaware]

BUT the active LDS view the ex-mo just like the Baptist views the Mormon. They are going to hell.

The ex-mo may mock the Mormon for some beliefs (which I think is wrong and it would be charitable if they did not mock anyone for religious beliefs) but they don't necessarily think they're going to a hell many of them don't believe in any way.

 

Much of the alienation comes from the judgements of Mormons against their ex-mo brothers and sisters.

 

Yes. Mormons become defensive and judge others to protect their testimony and valued beliefs to a point of persecution of ex-mos who return the favor. BTW- I do not believe this is one sided. There is plenty of blame on both sides. My only attempt is to help others see that there is fault on the side of the church members as well. Lord, is it I?

Not true. The Latter-day Saints believe the Baptists will be saved in one of the Father's many mansions of heavenly glory. In case you don't remember, that doctrine is Mormonism 101.

38 Yea, verily, the (sons of perdition are the) only ones who shall not be REDEEMED in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

39 For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made.

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us— (D&C 76)

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Not true. The Latter-day Saints believe the Baptists will be saved in one of the Father's many mansions of heavenly glory. In case you don't remember, that doctrine is Mormonism 101.

 

TeddyAware, you need to reread my post. You keep arguing against something I am not stating. At no point am I arguing what the LDS feel about the baptists. I'm illustrating that Mormons view Ex-mormons the same way Baptists view Mormons. I hope that is more clear

[Scott Lloyd]

Ha, that's too funny.  She has come around though.  That was several years back.  She does call just say she loves me now and what a great husband to her daughter I am and a great father to her grandchildren. 

Well thanks for getting around to providing the rest of the story. It sounds like there wasn't really any shunning or ostracism in play here, just initially some understandable shock and grief that her loved ones had abandoned the cherished faith, followed by some repenting, charity, patience and tolerance. I think ultimately your mother-in-law behaved admirably under the circumstances and doesn't deserve any lingering resentment or grudge-holding for her initial reaction.

 

So Nehor's vehement indignation was premature, it would seem. It is often thus with reaction to rumor and one-sided or incomplete narrative.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I think you are falling victim to what we all do.  Loud voices do not indicate a majority.  If we were to trust online message boards then yes, I would agree that your assessment is correct.

 

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree that I have thus fallen victim. Nowhere in my comments here have I stated or implied that all or even a majority of ex-Mormons behave this way. Consider the terminology in the thread title: "angry Ex-Mormon-Anti-Mormons." As I indicated earlier, the prefix anti- in itself implies substantial aggressiveness and belligerence, and adding "angry" to it makes it all the more so. You can be ex-Mormon and not necessarily be anti-Mormon; I get that.

 

What I was doing in the post you quoted was taking issue with Happy Jack Wagon's comparison of people who won't let their kids play with Mormon kids (merely because they're Mormon) to Mormons who are guarded about letting family members associate with aggressive anti-Mormons (and I use the italics there deliberately). He said there's a thin line; I responded -- and I stand by it -- that the line is not all that thin.

[wenglund]

It should come as no surprise that reviling breeds reviling (as ye sow, so shall ye reap), and in my weakness as a human I have oft returned the reviling for reviling from angry-anti-ex-Mormons, not unlike what is humorously done in the blog linked in the OP.

 

However, I feel called to repentance by Elder Oaks in his last Conference address in which he, under the inspired mantle of God, advised against contention and reviling against reviling, but instead act with kindness and respect differing points of view, while standing firm in our convictions.

 

So, while the natural part of me is inclined to applaud Cannon's bitingly clever humor and spot-on criticism, the spiritual part of me prods me to abide Oaks' counsel, and to treat the angry-anti-ex-Mormons with kindness.

 

Since the latter bears sway at this point (I cant promise that my natural side won't manifest itself from time to time in the future), I wish to express my best wishes to the angry-anti-ex-Mormons, along with the deepest hope that they may one day rid themselves of their anger.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

It should come as no surprise that reviling breeds reviling (as ye sow, so shall ye reap), and in my weakness as a human I have oft returned the reviling for reviling from angry-anti-ex-Mormons, not unlike what is humorously done in the blog linked in the OP.

 

However, I feel called to repentance by Elder Oaks in his last Conference address in which he, under the inspired mantle of God, advised against contention and reviling against reviling, but instead act with kindness and respect differing points of view, while standing firm in our convictions.

 

So, while the natural part of me is inclined to applaud Cannon's bitingly clever humor and spot-on criticism, the spiritual part of me prods me to abide Oaks' counsel, and to treat the angry-anti-ex-Mormons with kindness.

 

In that same talk, Elder Oaks admonished that, while being kind, we must stand fast in our convictions.

 

Given that proviso, I don't accept that following his admonition to be kind means I have to let false and damaging public statements remain uncontradicted or bad public policy remain unopposed.

 

As a case in point, I would note that in Elder Oaks's own sermon at the previous general conference, he ruffled some feathers with his candid statements of conviction. Ergo, someone getting upset about statements one makes is not necessarily a good indicator of whether or not one has been kind.

 

The use of humor, satire and parody is one form of contradiction. It can be effective, though some don't like it when they are thus opposed.

 

I suppose that, as with anything else, we should try to let the Spirit be our guide in the approach we use from time to time.

 

Since the latter bears sway at this point (I cant promise that my natural side won't manifest itself from time to time in the future), I wish to express my best wishes to the angry-anti-ex-Mormons, along with the deepest hope that they may one day rid themselves of their anger.

 

 

 

I have the feeling that at least some of them won't take kindly to your implied suggestion that they need to thus rid themselves.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sdc999]

Well thanks for getting around to providing the rest of the story. It sounds like there wasn't really any shunning or ostracism in play here, just initially some understandable shock and grief that her loved ones had abandoned the cherished faith, followed by some repenting, charity, patience and tolerance. I think ultimately your mother-in-law behaved admirably under the circumstances and doesn't deserve any lingering resentment or grudge-holding for her initial reaction.

 

So Nehor's vehement indignation was premature, it would seem. It is often thus with reaction to rumor and one-sided or incomplete narrative.

You and I have a really HUGE difference in what 'behaved admirably' means.   When someone hears something they don't agree with and they sulk and don't speak to you for over a half a year, according to you, they are acting admirably?

Wikipedia definition of shunning:  Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or emotional distance. In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group.

 

So,  can I have your personal opinion of what shunning is?  Maybe Websters, wikipedia and all other sites got it wrong and you can set them straight.

 

I understand shock and grief.  I've been shocked by some things my kids have done, family, etc.  I didn't say I'll get back to you in 7 months when I'm through pouting.  That's what little children do - and immature people.   

I really am baffled by your response.

[Scott Lloyd]

You and I have a really HUGE difference in what 'behaved admirably' means.   When someone hears something they don't agree with and they sulk and don't speak to you for over a half a year, according to you, they are acting admirably? ...

 

I understand shock and grief.  I've been shocked by some things my kids have done, family, etc.  I didn't say I'll get back to you in 7 months when I'm through pouting.  That's what little children do - and immature people.   

I really am baffled by your response.

Well it seems that with each reference to this incident you reveal some detail that you had not disclosed before.

 

I'm done with trying to analyze your anecdote, as you seem prone to being self-serving in your narrative.

 

And by the way, once someone has repented of prior behavior and shown a determination to make amends (which is what I meant when I said "behaved admirably"; did you notice that I used the word ultimately?), mature people don't continue to hold grudges and to disparage the person in public statements.

 

Wikipedia definition of shunning:  Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or emotional distance. In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group.

 

So,  can I have your personal opinion of what shunning is?  Maybe Websters, wikipedia and all other sites got it wrong and you can set them straight.

 

 

Mine pretty much matches what you have quoted here from Wikipedia. Your definition apparently doesn't.

 

In the religious context that is Mormonism, and in the context of the incident you have related here, there has been no "formal decision by a denomination or congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group." To my knowledge, the Church of Jesus Christ has never taught, encouraged or practiced such a thing, and in fact, preaches against it.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

It should come as no surprise that reviling breeds reviling (as ye sow, so shall ye reap), and in my weakness as a human I have oft returned the reviling for reviling from angry-anti-ex-Mormons, not unlike what is humorously done in the blog linked in the OP.

 

However, I feel called to repentance by Elder Oaks in his last Conference address in which he, under the inspired mantle of God, advised against contention and reviling against reviling, but instead act with kindness and respect differing points of view, while standing firm in our convictions.

 

So, while the natural part of me is inclined to applaud Cannon's bitingly clever humor and spot-on criticism, the spiritual part of me prods me to abide Oaks' counsel, and to treat the angry-anti-ex-Mormons with kindness.

 

Since the latter bears sway at this point (I cant promise that my natural side won't manifest itself from time to time in the future), I wish to express my best wishes to the angry-anti-ex-Mormons, along with the deepest hope that they may one day rid themselves of their anger.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Great post, I was thinking somewhat similar.

 

I think it is sad, and disappointing that, Chet Cannon - apparently in the defense of the LDS Faith and Jesus Christ - would post such mocking derision. What is also disappointing is that individuals associated with Mormon Interpreter would use Cannons ridicule as an oppurtunity to laugh and play along with the mocking and derision.

 

 

"Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation..., but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down." - Michael Otterson, representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 2010, mormonnewsroom.org)

Edited October 13, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Great post, I was thinking somewhat similar.

 

I think it is sad, and disappointing that, Chet Cannon - apparently in the defense of the LDS Faith and Jesus Christ - would post such mocking derision. What is also disappointing is that individuals associated with Mormon Interpreter would use Cannons ridicule as an oppurtunity to laugh and play along with the mocking and derision.

 

 

"Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation..., but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down." - Michael Otterson, representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 2010, mormonnewsroom.org)

What is "Mormon Interpreter"?

[sethpayne]

What is "Mormon Interpreter"?

 

You can find it here:

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/

 

Or you can type "Mormon Interpreter" into Google and it will take you to the same place.

 

Of course, we all know the name of the journal is: "Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture."  But calling it "Mormon Interpreter" -- colloquially -- seems more than appropriate given the journal's URL.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can find it here:

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/

 

Or you can type "Mormon Interpreter" into Google and it will take you to the same place.

 

 

I'm aware of the URL. That's all it is, a URL

 

Of course, we all know the name of the journal is: "Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture."  But calling it "Mormon Interpreter" -- colloquially -- seems more than appropriate given the journal's URL.

 

 

I'm not sure everyone does know. I wanted to see if tonie knew.

 

I make an issue of it because I've seen its founder and chairman, Daniel Peterson, give correction on the name before on more than one occasion, reminding folks that it is Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, or, if a shortened form is to be used, simply Interpreter.

 

Maybe it's the journalist's sense in me, but I think it a matter of courtesy to refer to an institution or an enterprise by that entity's accurate title.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

I'm aware of the URL. That's all it is, a URL

 

 

I'm not sure everyone does know. I wanted to see if tonie knew.

 

I make an issue of it because I've seen its founder and chairman, Daniel Peterson, give correction on the name before on more than one occasion, reminding folks that it is Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, or, if a shortened form is to be used, simply Interpreter.

 

Maybe it's the journalist's sense in me, but I think it a matter of courtesy to refer to an institution or an enterprise but that entity's accurate title.

 

I tend to agree with you.  But at the same time I don't think it is -- necessarily -- rude or incorrect to refer to Interpreter as the "Mormon Interpreter."  Controlling one's own brand can be very difficult.  But often it actually works in its favor.  "Post-its", "Googling" etc... are all deviations from corporate branding guidelines but, in these particular cases, actually do more to help promote the brand than anything else.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I tend to agree with you.  But at the same time I don't think it is -- necessarily -- rude or incorrect to refer to Interpreter as the "Mormon Interpreter."  Controlling one's own brand can be very difficult.  But often it actually works in its favor.  "Post-its", "Googling" etc... are all deviations from corporate branding guidelines but, in these particular cases, actually do more to help promote the brand than anything else.  

You raise an interesting point about branding.

 

My observation is that -- for the most part -- those who insist on calling it "Mormon Interpreter" tend to be among its antagonists -- in which case it might be viewed as hostility to insist on incessantly calling it by the wrong name -- though I hasten to acknowledge that's not the case in every single instance.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

You raise an interesting point about branding.

 

My observation is that -- for the most part -- those who insist on calling it "Mormon Interpreter" tend to be among its antagonists -- in which case it might be viewed as hostility to insist on incessantly calling it by the wrong name -- though I hasten to acknowledge that's not the case in every single instance.

 

I think you are right, Scott.  

 

Perhaps if the domain names "interpreterjournal.com" or something similar is still available it would silence that particular (and silly) attack as well as make things more clear.  But from my outside viewpoint, I actually think "Mormon Interpreter" is a cool "shortcut" name for the journal.

[wenglund]

In that same talk, Elder Oaks admonished that, while being kind, we must stand fast in our convictions.

 

Given that proviso, I don't accept that following his admonition to be kind means I have to let false and damaging public statements remain uncontradicted or bad public policy remain unopposed.

 

As a case in point, I would note that in Elder Oaks's own sermon at the previous general conference, he ruffled some feathers with his candid statements of conviction. Ergo, someone getting upset about statements one makes is not necessarily a good indicator of whether or not one has been kind.

 

The use of humor, satire and parody is one form of contradiction. It can be effective, though some don't like it when they are thus opposed.

 

I suppose that, as with anything else, we should try to let the Spirit be our guide in the approach we use from time to time.

 

I have the feeling that at least some of them won't take kindly to your implied suggestion that they need to thus rid themselves.

 

For the most part I agree. And, you are right that people may get ruffled whether it was intended or not. It is just that with the presence of humor (making fun), the intent seems to be to ruffle, or at the very least the risk of ruffling is very high. This has been my experience as an avid satirist, To me, humor is a powerful but oft abrasive instructional tool, particularly with people in bad (angry) tempers and lacking in sense of humor.

 

So, even though I have tried to be lighthearted and equal opportunity in my humorous jabs over the years, it is clear that my humor has further alienated a lot of people on all sides, and since that isn't the result I had hoped for, I take Oaks' talk as a reason to scale way back in that regard if not all together. Others are free to think otherwise.

 

Does this mean that I won't be standing as firm in my convictions? Not at all. It just means that I will be less apt to poke fun of others when they stand firm in their differing opinions--though old habits die hard.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Great post, I was thinking somewhat similar.

 

I think it is sad, and disappointing that, Chet Cannon - apparently in the defense of the LDS Faith and Jesus Christ - would post such mocking derision. What is also disappointing is that individuals associated with Mormon Interpreter would use Cannons ridicule as an oppurtunity to laugh and play along with the mocking and derision.

 

 

"Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation..., but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down." - Michael Otterson, representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October 2010, mormonnewsroom.org)

 

Even though I have set the bar differently for myself, the Golden Rule obliges me to allow other people their humanity--including founders of Interpreter, particularly in cases of motes in comparison to beams, as well as on balance. I do myself and others a great service by lightening up and kindly reacting to what others have said--including links posted by founders of Interpreter, and this in addition to kindly acting towards others. The world seems a better place when people are less judgmental and are given reason to smile. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2014 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

For the most part I agree. And, you are right that people may get ruffled whether it was intended or not. It is just that with the presence of humor (making fun), the intent seems to be to ruffle, or at the very least the risk of ruffling is very high. This has been my experience as an avid satirist, To me, humor is a powerful but oft abrasive instructional tool, particularly with people in bad (angry) tempers and and lacking in sense of humor.

 

So, even though I have tried to be lighthearted and equal opportunity in my humorous jabs over the years, it is clear that my humor has further alienated a lot of people on all sides, and since that isn't the result I had hoped for, I take Oaks' talk as a reason to scale way back in that regard if not all together. Others are free to think otherwise.

 

Does this mean that I won't be standing as firm in my convictions? Not at all. It just means that I will be less apt to poke fun of others when they stand firm in their differing opinions--though old habits die hard.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand your angst, as there is nothing I appreciate more than good, deft and well-placed satire. And we both know there are things that are deserving of being satirized -- so much so that it could be considered poetic justice for them to be so skewered.

 

But I also get your point about using the "soft answer," as it were. Compounding the problem is that people get so invested in their opinions that they take it very personally when they are opposed -- satirically or otherwise. Which, again, makes it challenging to forthrightly contradict error while considering the feelings of others.

 

I think Elder Oaks outlined the two considerations quite well in his talk.

 

Edited to add:

 

Satire is a means of making the error in a thing clear. So if people get upset about their arguments being satirized, it occurs to me they would be just as bothered by a lucid and forthright statement pointing out the error in their arguments -- which seems to me to be the very thing Elder Oaks expressed approval for in his talk.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

What is "Mormon Interpreter"?

 

The minutiae that peeks your interest.

 

Stephen Smoot, Daniel Peterson, are associated with mormoninterperter.com. I am not so sure about Russell Mcgregor's association with mormoninterperter.com. However, all 3 seem apt to resort to derision or ridicule when addressing those they deem critics or anti-mormon.

 

 

Question though, do you consider the use of satire - which is synonymous with mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, - part of building up another person rather than tearing them down?

[Scott Lloyd]

The minutiae that peeks [piques(?)] your interest.

 

I've already expressed that I think it's a matter of courtesy to refer to an entity by its proper and accurate name. I wonder why you are so steadfastly resistant to doing so in this instance.

 

 

Question though, do you consider the use of satire - which is synonymous with mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, - part of building up another person rather than tearing them down?

 

It all depends.

 

In its essence, satire can be defined as the humorous use of irony to point out error. For third-party observers, that could be a means of building them up in that it makes them aware of error and thereby renders them less vulnerable to it. "Knowledge is power" and "the truth shall make you free" are two truisms that come to mind.

 

Whether it stands to build up the perpetrator of the error and his/her sympathizers depends, of course, on how open they are to correction.

 

But as I've already noted, all of this could be said of non-satirical, forthright, direct contradiction and denunciation of error, which even Elder Oaks did not seem to preclude in his conference sermon on being kind while at the same time holding to one's convictions.

 

You seem not to have a very high esteem for satire. I wonder whether you object to any and all uses of it or only when it is employed by those whom you dislike or whose opinions you disapprove of.

 

I'm currently focusing my Bible study on the Book of Isaiah. I note that this inspired prophet, whose writings were endorsed by the Savior Himself as "great" (see 3 Nephi 23:1), made occasional use of irony, even sarcasm, among other literary devices, including his derision of idol makers (see 40:19-20) and a rather lengthy taunting of the king of Babylon (see 14:4-23 and chapters 24-27).

 

Stephen Smoot, Daniel Peterson, are associated with mormoninterperter.com. I am not so sure about Russell Mcgregor's association with mormoninterperter.com. However, all 3 seem apt to resort to derision or ridicule when addressing those they deem critics or anti-mormon.

 

 

 

I wonder: Does lashing out by name on this thread at three individuals, none of whom are contributors to it and two of whom have not even been mentioned until now, build them up or tear them down?

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

I've already expressed that I think it's a matter of courtesy to refer to an entity by its proper and accurate name. Why are you so steadfastly resistant to doing so in this instance?

 

 

It all depends.

 

In its essence, satire can be defined as the humorous use of irony to point out error. For third-party observers, that could be a means of building them up in that it makes them aware of error and thereby renders them less vulnerable to it. "Knowledge is power" and "the truth shall make you free" are two truisms that come to mind.

 

Whether it stands to build up the perpetrator of the error and his/her sympathizers depends, of course, on how open they are to correction.

 

But as I've already noted, all of this could be said of non-satirical, forthright, direct contradiction and denunciation of error, which even Elder Oaks did not seem to preclude in his conference sermon on being kind while at the same time holding to one's convictions.

 

You seem not to have a very high esteem for satire. I wonder whether you object to any and all uses of it or only when it is employed by those whom you dislike or whose opinions you disapprove of.

 

I'm currently focusing my Bible study on the Book of Isaiah. I note that this inspired prophet, whose writings were endorsed by the Savior Himself as "great" (see 3 Nephi 23:1), made occasional use of sarcasm, including a rather lengthy taunting of the king of Babylon (see 14:4-23 and chapters 24-27).

 

 

I wonder: Does lashing out by name on this thread at three individuals, none of whom are contributors to it and two of whom have not even been mentioned until now, build them up or tear them down?

 

From what I have observed, I suspect he is tonie deaf to his own unwitting irony (or hypocrisy as the case may be), and thus undeterred in his seemingly imbalanced and unwarranted harsh if not tangential criticism of assumed associates of Interpreter. Evidently in his or her case, motes and beams is what others do, though we shall see

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 14, 2014 by wenglund

[tonie]

I'm currently focusing my Bible study on the Book of Isaiah. I note that this inspired prophet, whose writings were endorsed by the Savior Himself as "great" (see 3 Nephi 23:1), made occasional use of irony, even sarcasm, among other literary devices, including his derision of idol makers (see 40:19-20) and a rather lengthy taunting of the king of Babylon (see 14:4-23 and chapters 24-27).

 

Why is it important to listen to and follow the living prophets?

 

We sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord. They give us instruction, warnings, and counsel from the Lord for our day. We are blessed with safety, peace, and spiritual strength when we listen to and obey their counsel.

Edited October 14, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is it important to listen to and follow the living prophets?

 

We sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord. They give us instruction, warnings, and counsel from the Lord for our day. We are blessed with safety, peace, and spiritual strength when we listen to and obey their counsel.

I've not denied nor disputed that we should follow living prophets. There's no reason to infer that I do, just because I spoke approvingly of Isaiah's writings (and cited Jesus Christ as doing the same).

 

This is an example of the strawman fallacy, perhaps the most obvious and blatant that I've seen.

 

And guess what: Living prophets like Isaiah too, and quote from him. See here, for example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/stand-in-holy-places?lang=eng

 

FYI:

 

Here is what Jesus Christ said to the Nephites regarding Isaiah:

 

1 And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah.

2 For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles.

3 And all things that he spake have been and shall be, even according to the words which he spake.

 

(3 Nephi 23:1)

 

The reference to the Gentiles makes this statement applicable to these, the latter days, as this is the dispensation in which the gospel is carried to the Gentiles and they are brought into the fold of God.

 

And I'm confident any of the "living prophets" would affirm the validity and value of Isaiah's words and their applicability to our day.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

I've not denied nor disputed that we should follow living prophets. There's no reason to infer that I do, just because I spoke approvingly of Isaiah's writings (and cited Jesus Christ as doing the same).

 

This is an example of the strawman fallacy, perhaps the most obvious and blatant that I've seen.

 

And guess what: Living prophets like Isaiah too, and quote from him. See here, for example: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/stand-in-holy-places?lang=eng

 

Speaking of strawman fallacy, where did I suggest complete rejection of Isaiah? Perhaps we should consider Wenglund's post about motes and beams.

 

Sunday School, the last few weeks, has been an enjoyable study of Isaiah.

 

You wish to use Isaiah to defend present day mockery of others.  I suggested we follow the living Prophets counsel on how we should interact with others.

Edited October 14, 2014 by tonie