BYU comm speech "disconnect from those who have lost their faith"

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If the information were false then I agree with you.  IME or IMO, just as many can leave the church over the church essays or FAIRMormon and have.  Are we to completely run from the sources sanctioned by the church also?  No one has an answer for this it seems, yes it's a faithful approach, but it's still the same information.  

I heard today that Jeremy Runnells' wife would have left him had it not been for the church essays coming out just in time.  In that respect, thank heavens for the essays, but in other cases the essays cause harm just as much as the anti's.  And maybe even more so, because it's going to be the truth coming from the church wherein if it comes from anti's than it's taken with a grain of salt.  

I think the church needs to show a softer side, more understanding and loving of the situation.  Elder Clayton doesn't seem to really know what's going on IMO.  

Can you share why you think you know better what's going on than Elder Clayton?  It's an easy accusation to make so i'd like to understand the evidence that you are using to support that conclusion.

It's not about true and false, its about who is trying to help someone's faith grow, and who wants someone's faith to die.  I'll go back to the analogy of marriage.  Every marriage has good and bad and there are often true revelations in marriage that are painful and can harm.  But someone who loves their spouse and wants to stay married isn't going to hang out with someone who is actively trying to get them to get divorced (unless they are stupid, i guess).  That's just common sense.

Likewise, if you care about your testimony and want to keep it, then you will hang out with people who want that for you as well.  You won't spend a lot of time and energy with people who are actively trying to harm your testimony.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

His view makes me feel like the caricaturized description of the Pharisees, long condemned, should be a noble path for us to follow. 

If we aren't willing to engage people with different views we'll lose.  If we aren't willing to treat those in our family, or our close friends with love and a listening ear, we'll be defeated, int he long run.

I agree.  People should be able to test their faith and their knowledge.  Isn't that what it is all about?

[Jeanne]

As a non member, I listen to LDS POV all day..from many places.  I don't let that dictate my own faith in what I believe.

Discussion is good, but you can't have that without communication and at least some open thought.  That is the tough part for LDS and those staunch in any religion, open thought.  This is what I treasure most.  I listen to you guys and I keep what I love and debate what I don't understand.  You guys should be able to do that too.

[smac97]

Here is a link to a purported, and plainly unofficial, transcript of Elder Clayton's remarks.  The theme of his talk is "connections" (he uses the word or variations of it 53 times):

Quote

The word “connect” comes from the Latin word “connectere”, meaning, “to bind”. As I watched that smartphone advertisement about connecting with friends, my recurring thought was that the connection, the binding, that matters most, is the one we have with God. We connect with God most securely when we do so by covenant. When we are baptised, we covenant to keep the commandments, to take upon us the name of Christ, and to always remember Him. We are promised that if we do so, we will always have his spirit to be with us. We renew and recommit ourselves to this covenant every Sunday when we partake of the sacrament. Additional covenants made in receiving the priesthood and in the temples of God bind us ever more closely to him. These covenantal connections to him become the guideposts for our lives. They help us measure where we are on the straight and narrow path. They lead us to the fruit of the atonement. Forgiveness, peace of conscious, and love. They help us stay worthy to help us enjoy the blessings of the holy spirit. Whatever we do that may tend to weaken our connection, our binding with Heaven, should be assessed with {wariness}. Everything that we do that tends to reinforce faith and promotes keeping our covenants should be embraced. Our connection with Heaven is the most valuable blessing we have, and the most important one we can secure. It strengthens every other worthy connection is our lives.

Pertaining to this theme, Elder Clayton presents "a few thoughts about connections" (emphases added):

Quote

 

First, nearly all of you who graduate today are intimately connected to people who, over a lifetime, helped you to qualify to attend BYU. These connections include your parents, grandparents, and family. ... Your life-long faithfulness and devotion to the savior and his restored church will be the highest demonstration of gratitude that you can offer to your parents.

Second, a number of you have formed your own families while you have been at BYU, connecting profoundly and eternally with each other. Nothing else that you did while you were here, no matter what degrees or academic distinctions you achieved, is more valuable to you than this eternal connection. 

...

Third, some of you became parents during your time here at BYU. Your children are connected to you and you to them in ways parents have to experience to understand. As the years go by, your connection to your progeny will become ever more precious and meaningful.
...

Fourth, you have also consciously, or perhaps unconsciously become more closely connected to the church and it’s members worldwide.

...

Fifth, I believe you know have a duty to stay connected to BYU. The alumni association’s motto is “connected for good”. Your education enables you to help BYU go forward in good ways.

 

These five points all seem good and unobjectionable.  Here is his sixth point:

Quote

Sixth, I hope as well that you will stay connected in appropriate ways with friends, classmates, and professors from BYU. The world is small, especially in the church, and your friendships can be perpetuated and enhanced as the years go by. Those connections will circle around over the years to bless and help you in happy, righteous ways. For example, some of my present quorum associates in church service met each other as roommates at BYU, and have friendships that extend back for decades. In these regards, however, 3 brief reminders seem important:

• Just as there are connections that should be strengthened, there are others that should be relegated to history.  Some of you have had dating connections during your years here that did not result in marriage, and either you or your former interest married someone else. If so, wisdom suggests that you disconnect from that association. Staying in touch with each other electronically or otherwise after eternal covenants or connections have been made is spiritually unwise, and unfortunately all too often dangerous by permitting or encouraging familiarity to exist when such closeness is no longer appropriate. Don’t do anything that exposes your own or someone else’s eternal connection to a spouse to hazards in any way. In matters of such consequence, there is no room for error. 
• A similar warning should be sounded about the perils of pornography. Though church leaders continually fire off warning flares about the seriousness of this selfish and gullible sin, too many still fail to make the lasting behavioral change required. The transgression is serious enough by itself, and the risk of greater evil it entails is real. Any closeness to this temptation should be abruptly disconnected, and effort focused on seeking help from church leaders and through the atonement of Jesus Christ.  
• A few of you may have run into some who cease to hold fast to the iron rod {and} wandered off the straight and narrow path, and have become lost. They started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless. This indiscretion is often accompanied by failing to earnestly study The Book of Mormon everyday, and by the companion problem of gradually becoming lax in keeping other commandments. This sometimes leads to listening and then hearkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history. The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naivete. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Korihors and Nehors and Sharems of The Book of Mormon. We should disconnect immediately and completely from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith, and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit. The adversary sees spiritual apathy and half-hearted obedience as opportunities to encircle us with his chains and bind us, and he hopes to destroy us. We escape his chains as we voluntarily chose to bind ourselves instead to God. In what at first may seem ironic, our choosing to bind or connect with Heaven frees and empowers us to become all that we possibly can in this life and the next through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

So from the above remarks the OP somehow came up with the remarkably misleading, holy-cow-that's-a-flagrant-distorting/misrepresenting, straight-up-in-bad-faith "quote" of Elder Clayton urging the Saints to  "disconnect from those who have lost their faith."

Elder Clayton was not speaking of people who, broadly speaking, are struggling with their faith, but rather of people who have "cease{d} to hold fast to the iron rod wandered off the straight and narrow path," who are "hearkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history," and who have become "assertive apostates" akin to "the Korihors and Nehors and Sharems of The Book of Mormon" who are actively proselytizing the Saints to reject the Restored Gospel in favor of their self-aggrandizing, apostate worldview.

Elder Clayton was not recommending "disconnect{ion} from those who have lost their faith."  That is a flagrant miquote, a distortion, a fabrication, a calumny, for which the OP should be quite ashamed.  Rather, Elder Clayton was recommending that Latter-day Saints "disconnect" from and not "listen" to the "proselytizing efforts" of heavy-duty apostates, and to instead "reconnect ... with the Holy Spirit," to "bind ourselves to God," and to "become all that we possibly can . . . through the atonement of Jesus Christ."

Context matters, does it not?

Which kinda sorta makes you wonder why we were not provided it in the first instance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2016 by smac97

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

SOunds like you're reading tons into his words.  He merely said the "faithless", not those who have left the Church and are "anti-LDS zealots who are actively proselytizing against the Church".  But I do appreciate your more nuanced view. 

So in other words he is comparing anyone who he considers faithless to the worst of characters he can imagine.  I think treating people who have left the faith as such is a huge ol' problem.  It does feel like you disagree with him on that, at least to some extent, as you are willing to actually engage with some of them. 

There's no nuance needed because Elder Clayton makes himself perfectly clear by referring to the kinds people he is speaking of as being modern-day Korihors. Korihor is the quintessential anti-Christ missionary, with a name that has become synonymous with the spirit of anti-Christ. If you will remember, Korihor wasn't satisfied to just leave the Churvh after he lost his faith, but he ranged the countryside in a highly-focused and intensely-proactive effort to destroy the Church of Christ. I find it perplexing that you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between a Korihor and meek and humble former believers who have lost their faith.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing that Elder Clayton assumes that those who are listening to him are capable of common sense.  He's giving general advice about those people who actively try to harm the faith of others, not telling people they should never talk about beliefs with anyone who believes differently than they do.  

The problem goes pretty deep, unfortunately.  There have been generalized statements about certain people by leaders and the membership has taken these statements as rules.  And over the years we hear of non-LDS in heavy LDS populated areas being ignored and mistreated, as a result, or some other such negative result.  Our leaders need to have far more common sense when addressing these sensitive issues.  you can't make blanket statements about the faithless, treat them as enemies and not expect negative repurcussions.  To respond by saying, "well the listener should have had enough common sense that I actually meant something other than I said." 

This is not about anyone's beliefs.  He's talking to people about those in their families or close friends who have left.  Now, to reclarlify, that does not mean someone who knows people who have left don't need to set certain limits in conversation and engagement with those who have left.  They might.  But it's a case by case decision to make.  In the long run we're far better off approaching life with less fear and less skepticism of others. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Bluebell,  I fell like you are misunderstanding the complaint here.  There is no doubt that some individuals need to make the tough choice with certain other individuals to disengage to some level, to protect oneself, quite often.  Sure.  There are no doubt many people who have left the Church that I would say it wise to set limits on in terms of interactions.  But I would also argue the same is true for many individuals whether they are in the Church or not.  The problem comes in when those who have left the faith are marked as faithless, treated as BoM villains (which are really just caricatures of the real people named), grouped as those who we need to disconnect from to some level.  But as Bobbie points out, there are plenty of people that have left who are good to engage.  It's really damaging to treat all faithless as people to disconnect from.

If someone is faithless, it's no insult to call the faithless.  Atheists, for example, are faithless.  I don't think we hurt their feelings when we call them that. 

As to the bolded part, Elder Clayton did not tell anyone to disconnect from all faithless people. 

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It won't hurt the church, but that doesn't mean that it won't hurt someone personally.  If the church is true, for example, then everyone who has left the church because of the CES letter has been  greatly damaged (and their families and in some cases future posterity) by listening to the proselytizing of someone who has left the faith.

Just like we are taught to protect our marriages and we would not feel it to be appropriate to listen to someone who was trying to talk us into committing adultery, we have to safeguard our testimonies as well.  There's nothing evil or underhanded about such a teaching.  

We can't always blame a CES letter.  The church itself, way before the letter and essays, greatly damaged a lot of families.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you share why you think you know better what's going on than Elder Clayton?  It's an easy accusation to make so i'd like to understand the evidence that you are using to support that conclusion.

It's not about true and false, its about who is trying to help someone's faith grow, and who wants someone's faith to die.  I'll go back to the analogy of marriage.  Every marriage has good and bad and there are often true revelations in marriage that are painful and can harm.  But someone who loves their spouse and wants to stay married isn't going to hang out with someone who is actively trying to get them to get divorced (unless they are stupid, i guess).  That's just common sense.

Likewise, if you care about your testimony and want to keep it, then you will hang out with people who want that for you as well.  You won't spend a lot of time and energy with people who are actively trying to harm your testimony.  

No evidence that Elder Clayton is just a bit ignorant of what he's talking about, just my estimation.  It doesn't appear that he understands that there are so many members trying to deal with information and maintain belief, and hold onto marriages and families.  If their families read statements like Elder Clayton's, then they may see their loved one's anti sentiments as bad, and disconnect or even divorce them.    

Is truth important?  Or if the church is false, it doesn't matter.  That's where I'm at right now.  I don't know.  I go to church and feel really good about the church, then I read statements like Elder Clayton and I go two steps back.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

There's no nuance needed because Elder Clayton makes himself perfectly clear by referring to the kinds people he is speaking of as being modern-day Korihors. Korihor is the quintessential anti-Christ missionary, with a name that has become synonymous with the spirit of anti-Christ. If you will remember, Korihor wasn't satisfied to just leave the Churvh after he lost his faith, but he ranged the countryside in a highly-focused and intensely-proactive effort to destroy the Church of Christ. I find it perplexing that you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between a Korihor and meek and humble former believers who have lost their faith.

He doesn't say anything about humble former believers who have lost their faith.  His words make it seem like there is no such people out there.  But we all know there are.  So he should have said as much, at the very least.  Instead he seems to treat all those who have left as those who should be shut out by the faithful, at least when it comes to discussing their problems with the Church.  That's silly, and a terrible idea.  Indeed, many members have problems with the Church.  We can't treat each other as enemies, as his words seem to promote.

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

The problem goes pretty deep, unfortunately.  There have been generalized statements about certain people by leaders and the membership has taken these statements as rules.  And over the years we hear of non-LDS in heavy LDS populated areas being ignored and mistreated, as a result, or some other such negative result.  Our leaders need to have far more common sense when addressing these sensitive issues.  you can't make blanket statements about the faithless, treat them as enemies and not expect negative repurcussions.  To respond by saying, "well the listener should have had enough common sense that I actually meant something other than I said." 

This is not about anyone's beliefs.  He's talking to people about those in their families or close friends who have left.  Now, to reclarlify, that does not mean someone who knows people who have left don't need to set certain limits in conversation and engagement with those who have left.  They might.  But it's a case by case decision to make.  In the long run we're far better off approaching life with less fear and less skepticism of others. 

The bolded part just seems absurd to me.  People are jerks because they are jerks.  Not because the leaders implied they should be jerks.  

We hear, practically nonstop, that we need to be true friends to everyone regardless of their interest in the mormon church.  If the words of the leaders had as much control over the members actions as you believe they do, then the bolded part wouldn't even exist because we've been told not to do it more times than i can count.  You are right that there are people who misunderstand the words of the leaders and do dumb stuff, but that's going to happen no matter what the leaders say.  There is no way to say anything that someone can't misunderstand or twist.  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As a non member, I listen to LDS POV all day..from many places.  I don't let that dictate my own faith in what I believe.

Discussion is good, but you can't have that without communication and at least some open thought.  That is the tough part for LDS and those staunch in any religion, open thought.  This is what I treasure most.  I listen to you guys and I keep what I love and debate what I don't understand.  You guys should be able to do that too.

We do, pretty constantly (as you obviously know since you are here seeing us do it).

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

We can't always blame a CES letter.  The church itself, way before the letter and essays, greatly damaged a lot of families.

As i said, it was an example.  Only one example out of many.

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

We do, pretty constantly (as you obviously know since you are here seeing us do it).

You do bluebell, you listen. Some here have a hard time with that and have already made up their minds about how to respond to people like me.  For this, I admire you.  I do understand where you are coming from..but I feel marginalized sometimes and lumped into a group that I don't belong to. Thanks so much for you reply and smiley face here.  I appreciate your friendship and understanding.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here is a link to a purported, and plainly unofficial, transcript of Elder Clayton's remarks.  The theme of his talk is "connections" (he uses the word or variations of it 53 times):

Pertaining to this theme, Elder Clayton presents "a few thoughts about connections" (emphases added):

These five points all seem good and unobjectionable.  Here is his sixth point:

So from the above remarks the OP somehow came up with the remarkably misleading, holy-cow-that's-a-flagrant-distortion/misrepresentation, straight-up-in-bad-faith "quote" of Elder Clayton urging the Saints to  "disconnect from those who have lost their faith."

Elder Clayton was not speaking of people who, broadly speaking, are struggling with their faith, but rather of people who have "cease{d} to hold fast to the iron rod wandered off the straight and narrow path," who are "hearkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history," and who have become "assertive apostates" akin to "the Korihors and Nehors and Sharems of The Book of Mormon."  

Elder Clayton was not recommending "disconnect{ion} from those who have lost their faith."  That is a flagrant miquote, a distortion, a fabrication, a calumny, for which the OP should be quite ashamed.  Rather, Elder Clayton was recommending that Latter-day Saints "disconnect" and not "listen" to the "proselytizing efforts" of heavy-duty apostates, and to instead "reconnect ... with the Holy Spirit," to "bind ourselves to God," and to "become all that we possibly can . . . through the atonement of Jesus Christ."

Context matters, does it not?

Which kinda sorta makes you wonder why we were not provided it in the first instance.

Thanks,

-Smac

IMO it's all the same.  If your wife were to start mentioning anti Mormon things and warns you about things in the church that may be true or not true and it's not faithful sentiment would you slowly want to withdraw from her... feeling as if it jeopardizes your standing before the Lord?  Who comes first, your wife or the Lord?  That's where it gets tough.  

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He doesn't say anything about humble former believers who have lost their faith.  His words make it seem like there is no such people out there.  But we all know there are.  So he should have said as much, at the very least.  Instead he seems to treat all those who have left as those who should be shut out by the faithful, at least when it comes to discussing their problems with the Church.  That's silly, and a terrible idea.  Indeed, many members have problems with the Church.  We can't treat each other as enemies, as his words seem to promote.

Read smac97's post above. If you still don't "get it" after reading his post, I'll leave you to your own devices.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bolded part just seems absurd to me.  People are jerks because they are jerks.  Not because the leaders implied they should be jerks.  

We hear, practically nonstop, that we need to be true friends to everyone regardless of their interest in the mormon church.  If the words of the leaders had as much control over the members actions as you believe they do, then the bolded part wouldn't even exist because we've been told not to do it more times than i can count.  You are right that there are people who misunderstand the words of the leaders and do dumb stuff, but that's going to happen no matter what the leaders say.  There is no way to say anything that someone can't misunderstand or twist.  

I agree, today and even in the past 30-40 years we don't hear of that as much.  But it used to be more common.  That's why they have to make it more explicitly clear these days, though.  Because it's been a problem. 

There's no reason whatsoever to promote the disconnection of a certain type of people.  Each individual should be deciding engagement limits with each person he/she knows. 

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

There's no reason whatsoever to promote the disconnection of a certain type of people.  Each individual should be deciding engagement limits with each person he/she knows. 

I disagree.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Read smac97's post above. If you still don't "get it" after reading his post, I'll leave you to your own devices.

I read it.  I think it's a noble effort to defend.  But that doesn't change my mind.  The point raised by Elder Clayton is problematic and more levels than I can count.  I'm glad you see it differently than the message instructs.  But given Smac's post it still does not mention humble non-believers.  It's more like he's trying to say such do not exist at all.  he should have been, at least, more careful to spell that out.  Either way, I stick by my first comment in this thread--this is far more pharisaic sounding than I'm comfortable with. 

[Boanerges]

Elder Calyton is farther down on my list of favorite general authorities, but I will say that even as someone who had a faith crisis and who still has questions and doubts I get what Elder Calyton is saying and agree. Even during my faith crisis I did not like constant negativity or attempts as "converting" me to apostasy. That doesn't mean that I don't know or associate with any apostates, even some vocal ones. It also doesn't mean I entertain their ideas nor do I ask that they entertain mine. I always took a stance of "do no harm" to anyone else's faith, and while I am willing to talk to those who want to listen to my questions, I require it of no one and likewise reserve the right not to listen to anyone else's "testimony" (mutual respect) or accept apologetic answers as "truth." I think Elder Clayton was referring to those openly hostile apostates who see it as their role to dissuade others from the faith (very much like a couple atheists I know who constantly post on Facebook). While I do believe I have gained some "great oaks of understanding" (firmly planted in sandy soil) I see it as your own faith journey to come to your own understandings in the way that you need to - and that's usually not hearing it from me, even if I do consider myself wiser.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.

That's great. I'm not sure you what you disagree with, though.  Are you saying we individually should not be able to decide for ourselves who in our lives we need to set limits with?  We should be told groups of people we should set limits with in spite of our own feelings and discernment.  Because if you do, then wowser, no wonder why we disagree as to the viability and credibility of Elder Clayton's talk. 

[smac97]

On 4/25/2016 at 9:21 AM, Tacenda said:

IMO it's all the same.  If your wife were to start mentioning anti Mormon things and warns you about things in the church that may be true or not true and it's not faithful sentiment would you slowly want to withdraw from her... feeling as if it jeopardizes your standing before the Lord?  Who comes first, your wife or the Lord?  That's where it gets tough.  

No, it's not "all the same."  Elder Clayton was not speaking of the circumstances in your hypothetical.  He was speaking of the "faithless" who have become "assertive apostates" akin to Korihor and Nehor and Sherem, who "promote themselves as the wise" (and, I think, as voices alternative and superior to the Brethren), and who are engaging in "proselytizing efforts" to their faithless, apostate, I'm-smarter-than-the-prophets-and-apostles worldview.

In any event, to answer your question ("Who comes first, your wife or the Lord?"), that's a no-brainer.  The Lord comes first.  Always.  Matthew 10:37 provides: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  I think one's spouse should likewise be so valued (that is, valued a lot, but still subordinate to one's relationship with God).  See also D&C 98:15 ("For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.").  

If I ever am so faithless, so depraved, so self-absorbed, so lost in apostasy, so craven as to create an unavoidable dichotomy wherein my wife must choose between loyalty to me and loyalty to God, I hope - for her sake - that she chooses the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not "all the same."  Elder Clayton was not speaking of the circumstances in your hypothetical.  He was speaking of the "faithless" who have become "assertive apostates" akin to Korihor and Nehor and Sherem, who "promote themselves as the wise" (and, I think, as voices alternative and superior to the Brethren), and who are engaging in "proselytizing efforts" to their faithless, apostate, I'm-smarter-than-the-prophets-and-apostles worldview.

In any event, to answer your question ("Who comes first, your wife or the Lord?"), that's a no-brainer.  The Lord comes first.  Always.  Matthew 10:37 provides: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  I think one's spouse should likewise be so valued (that is, valued a lot, but still subordinate to one's relationship with God).  See also D&C 98:15 ("For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.").  

If I ever am so faithless, so depraved, so self-absorbed, so lost in apostasy, so craven as to create an unavoidable dichotomy wherein my wife must choose between loyalty to me and loyalty to God, I hope - for her sake - that she chooses the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, whether he was talking about what Tacenda was talking about or not.  These scenarios exist in a very real way.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't get this philosophy, perhaps some of you faithful can clue me in how to accomplish this.                                                                       From my point, this request is neither realistic nor achievable, in this age of information.                                                                                 Elder L. Whitney Clayton should know the impossibility of this request.                                                                                                       Even in early1980's when I was in SLC this was not possible, I wanted to know about the church and immediately found                               Tanner's book, little later, I read "No Man knows my History", "Nightfall at Navuoo".                                                                                          Church hierarchy should know this type of advice will not bear any fruit.

I'd like to know what you think or if you would have a better alternative.                                                                                                                

I don't see anything wrong with avoiding apostate zealots. I myself am going to avoid someone who insists on yelling at me, and won't engage in serious and level-headed debate no matter who they are. If they aren't willing to engage with another view, why should I waste my time trying to show them one?

That being said I do read what critics have to say. I don't recommend that to others, but I feel I need to engage their POV in order to be a more effective missionary of the gospel. Hence, I have read Jeremy Runnell's "Letter to a CES Director" which I would characterize as a work of an "anti-LDS zealot." Heck he called those at his hearing a "kangaroo court" which I felt was rather rude. I have read various works of other critics like one on the Spaulding Manuscript, etc. I wouldn't waste my time on Tanners' books, because I don't find them to be reliable reporters of facts. I find perusing their website and videos is enough without handing them any money for their work of subversion and regurgitation of the same old stuff. They tend to buy into every possible third hand account of critics and even appeared to believe in the forgeries of Mark Hoffman while criticizing the Church for buying some.

While it may be wise for new converts of the Church to avoid works of critics, I believe eventually their testimonies will have to be able to withstand the "darts of the wicked one" if they are going to continue to grow in the gospel. This includes recognizing the tactics used by the devil in critics of the Church such as gathering 2nd and 3rd hand rumors and unverifiable opinions such as those which appeared in works such as "Mormonism Unvailed," and seeing just how incorrect they were. When the Spaulding Manuscript eventually showed up all the affidavits and one-sided facts were revealed for what they were - maybe 1/4 fact and 3/4 spin with some incorrect fact recollection probably helped along by an excommunicated apostate. Even Fawn Brodie seemed to recognize that. Basically, there are those who are opposed to the Church for various theological reasons such as polygamy and apotheosis, and throw every "good sounding" rumor and spin they can into their anti-Mormon books. Seeing that this is the type of thing most anti-LDS works contain should help people learn that this is how Satan works - spreading "half-truths" and lies. Thus, the investigator should expect a lot of these kinds of tactics against a true church, since Satan is going to do his utmost against such a church. Is there a "better alternative?" I don't think reading every anti-LDS work out there is a better alternative - one can get the general flavor of modern critics by seeing what happened to Jeremy Runnells. One or two such works is enough. But understanding the tactics of critics over the course of the history of the Church is definitely beneficial to seeing what may appear to be a solid case against the restored gospel can be just a lot of spin and fluff. While I may not have "an answer" other than faith and personal revelation for every criticism leveled at the Church, I feel I do have an appropriate response to most of them - because the majority of it is still spin and opinion, just like it has always been.

[smac97]

On 4/25/2016 at 9:36 AM, Jeanne said:

Smac, whether he was talking about what Tacenda was talking about or not.  These scenarios exist in a very real way.

I did not say that such scenarios do not exist.  Of course they do.

Rather, I was disputing the false claim that Elder Clayton was speaking of "these scenarios," or that that "these scenarios" and "listening-to-aggressively-proselytizing-apostates" are are "all the same."

Elder Clayton was cautioning against the former, not the latter.  It is a flagrant falsehood to suggest otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac