consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Mars said: Fair enough. I don't think Elder Nelson was attempting to create an enemy in order to rally the troops. ymmv. Then why did he use the pejorative language of "servants of Satan"?
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 19, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: President Nelson said in his now famous YSA address last week: President Nelson did not define what he meant by "servants of Satan." I would like to know what people here think. And try not to make it personal. Okay? I think "servants of Satan" is not that hard to define. What you are looking for, I think, is individuals or groups to whom we think such a label applies. As to that, I will not comment. I have my views on this subject, but I will not speak of them publicly, and will instead reserve my thoughts for those who are within my stewardship. I see this thread as devolving very quickly into A) a morass of judgmentalism, B) an attempt to goad the Saints into saying intemperate things about others, C) a pot-stirring exercise, designed to foment and spread ill-will, or D) some combination of the above. Thanks, but no thanks. -Smac 5
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Anyone that is used by Satan to draw people off the one true path to return to God. Are you okay with the fact that many faithful Mormons would apply that definition to you?
Mars Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: So if you ran into an investigator who was a member of another faith, you didn't try to convince them to be baptized into the LDS Church? This is news. Of course I tried. I asked them to hear me out and take it to God in prayer and then act accordingly. That's not the same as undermining their faith. The method matters. I never tried to tear down what their leaders said. I never tried to poke holes in their belief structure. In fact, many people who converted speak praisingly of their experiences as religious person prior to their conversion. I take this as a sign that missionaries in general aren't out destroy, but to ask other people to add to what they already believe to be good. 3
smac97 Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Mars said: Is that how you view Mormon missionaries? Or are you being facetious and saying one man's satanic servant is another man's angelic visitor, bearing good news of the restored gospel? This is not a good faith discussion. I suspected that even before I read his nigh-unto-inevitable slur against the Church. -Smac 4
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: He knows how fallible we all are and I'm sure he knows how easy it is for each of us to replace our own feelings and ideas with God's and then try to convince others we are right. You do realize how ironic this comment is, given the fact President Nelson used this language in the same talk where he declared "feelings" he had to be of God, and then convince others he is right? Edited January 19, 2016 by consiglieri
Mars Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Then why did he use the pejorative language of "servants of Satan"? I have no idea. What do you think?
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mars said: No, I would think that it's up to me listen to them to believe that there even is such a thing as a servant of Satan and then use my own brain to figure it out. Is that before or after you used your own brain to figure out whether there even is such a thing as a servant of Satan? 1
Mars Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: This is not a good faith discussion. I suspected that even before I read his nigh-unto-inevitable slur against the Church. -Smac I had the same suspicions.
Mars Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: Is that before or after you used your own brain to figure out whether there even is such a thing as a servant of Satan? After, I guess. Maybe before. No, after.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think "servants of Satan" is not that hard to define. What you are looking for, I think, is individuals or groups to whom we think such a label applies. As to that, I will not comment. I have my views on this subject, but I will not speak of them publicly, and will instead reserve my thoughts for those who are within my stewardship. Okay, then. But to what purpose does President Nelson use the appellation "servants of Satan" if it is not to refer to specific individuals or groups? CA Steve may be right. It looks more and more like an attempt to create some ambiguous and ubiquitous enemy to rally the saints against.
Mars Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: Okay, then. But to what purpose does President Nelson use the appellation "servants of Satan" if it is not to refer to specific individuals or groups? CA Steve may be right. It looks more and more like an attempt to create some ambiguous and ubiquitous enemy to rally the saints against. Seriously, dude, next time just lead with that. 2
smac97 Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: Okay, then. But to what purpose does President Nelson use the appellation "servants of Satan" if it is not to refer to specific individuals or groups? CA Steve may be right. It looks more and more like an attempt to create some ambiguous and ubiquitous enemy to rally the saints against. If I thought this thread was an attempt to have a good faith discussion about a serious and sensitive and difficult topic, I would provide some substantive comments about this issue. But I don't, so I won't. Thanks, -Smac 2
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mars said: Of course I tried. I asked them to hear me out and take it to God in prayer and then act accordingly. That's not the same as undermining their faith. The method matters. I never tried to tear down what their leaders said. I never tried to poke holes in their belief structure. In fact, many people who converted speak praisingly of their experiences as religious person prior to their conversion. I take this as a sign that missionaries in general aren't out destroy, but to ask other people to add to what they already believe to be good. Surely this is a common trope. But are you saying that if an investigator believed in the creedal formulation of the Trinity, you never asked them to read the Matthean account of Jesus's baptism in order to show the three members of the Godhead in different places at the same time? Is this not "poking holes" in their belief structure? And if you had an investigator who believed that salvation came by grace alone, are you saying you never asked them to read James chapter two where it says that faith without works is dead? Is this not undermining their faith?
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: This is not a good faith discussion. I suspected that even before I read his nigh-unto-inevitable slur against the Church. -Smac It is a good faith discussion, Smac. All I did was show that Gillebre's attempt to define "servants of Satan" applied with equal force to Mormon missionaries. Do you deny this? And why do you consider it a slur?
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Mars said: I have no idea. What do you think? I am tending to agree with CA Steve. It is a "poisoning the well" tactic used by President Nelson to get his audience to believe anything they encounter critical of the Church must be the product of a "servant of Satan." And as such, it can readily be disregarded.
Mars Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: Surely this is a common trope. But are you saying that if an investigator believed in the creedal formulation of the Trinity, you never asked them to read the Matthean account of Jesus's baptism in order to show the three members of the Godhead in different places at the same time? Is this not "poking holes" in their belief structure? And if you had an investigator who believed that salvation came by grace alone, are you saying you never asked them to read James chapter two where it says that faith without works is dead? Is this not undermining their faith? Now I'm just feeling like repeating myself, which means you're repeating yourself, which means the discussion is over. If that's how you see it, so be it. I disagree with your assessment, but that's that.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Mars said: Now I'm just feeling like repeating myself, which means you're repeating yourself, which means the discussion is over. If that's how you see it, so be it. I disagree with your assessment, but that's that. I accept your surrender. 1
smac97 Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: It is a good faith discussion, Smac. No, I don't think it is. Quote All I did was show that Gillebre's attempt to define "servants of Satan" applied with equal force to Mormon missionaries. Do you deny this? I do deny it. I do not believe this thread is an effort to confer in good faith. "All I did" indeed... Thanks, -Smac 4
Zakuska Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I am tending to agree with CA Steve. It is a "poisoning the well" tactic used by President Nelson to get his audience to believe anything they encounter critical of the Church must be the product of a "servant of Satan." And as such, it can readily be disregarded. The boogy man under the bed or the monsters in the closet.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: No, I don't think it is. I do deny it. I do not believe this thread is an effort to confer in good faith. "All I did" indeed... Thanks, -Smac See how I keep roping you back into the conversation even after you said you wouldn't play? But actually, it is in good faith. I am interested in hearing what others think on the issue.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Zakuska said: The boogy man under the bed or the monsters in the closet. It really is just a variation on the old theme of you can't trust anti-Mormon literature, isn't it?
JLHPROF Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 19 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Are you okay with the fact that many faithful Mormons would apply that definition to you? Completely. You asked for the definition. I gave it. Application of the definition is relative. Reality of the definition is not.
Recommended Posts