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

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Bobbieaware, you also miss out some more nuanced passages in Romans
 

 

One can put a spin on Romans 16 all he wants, but to Yours Truly Paul's meaning is quite clear: have no fellowship with those who proactively declare and teach the Church and its leaders are out of the way

Where on this thread have I ever advocated that the weak in faith should not be sought out and strengthened? I have been engaged in doing just that for my entire life in the Church.

Taking Elder Clayton in context, he was clearly speaking of modern-day Korihors (whom among other infamous apostates he specifically listed as an example)  as the kind of evangelizing apostates who should be avoided. 

 

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is also a fundamental difference. LDS are sharing something. The proselyting heretics Clayton was talking about want to destroy something.

You do realize this is purely a matter of perspective?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You do realize this is purely a matter of perspective?

Agreed.  Sometimes you get the feeling LDS are trying to destroy something too, like when they/we misrepresent other's faiths in order to try and make a winning point about ours.  Just go to Church long enough in any ward and someone's likely to misrepresent other religions, whether knowingly or not. 

[Abulafia]

50 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

One can put a spin on Romans 16 all he wants, but to Yours Truly Paul's meaning is quite clear: have no fellowship with those who proactively declare and teach the Church and its leaders are out of the way

Where on this thread have I ever advocated that the weak in faith should not be sought out and strengthened? I have been engaged in doing just that for my entire life in the Church.

Taking Elder Clayton in context, he was clearly speaking of modern-day Korihors (whom among other infamous apostates he specifically listed as an example)  as the kind of evangelizing apostates who should be avoided. 

 

Paul's meaning must be seen at the best attempts at its historical context.  Paul was at odds with many of the Jerusalem contingent.  He was at odds with fellow christians who took a different approach to him.  Heck, he was even at odds with the pillars, James and Peter.  Who is the apostate?  For some, it was Paul.  For the writer of the epistle of James, it was probably Paul. For the writer of the Clementine Homilies in it's original form, it was probably Paul, for the Didachist it was probably Paul, for the author of Matthew it was probably Paul.  It's all a matter of perspective both ancient and modern.

[Abulafia]

Bobbieaware, when the author of the Johannine literature calls out others as 'anti-christs'  (against the Messiah) he was doing so pointing his rhetorical barbs at fellow Christians.  The division is there hidden in plain sight.

[Abulafia]

I am probably wrong on Matthew btw.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

You do realize this is purely a matter of perspective?

You do realize you're like Kahlil Gibran?

Someone asks you a direct question and you respond Quixotically.

"God made Truth with many doors to welcome every believer who knocks on them".

"I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers".

Edited April 28, 2016 by flameburns623
Even the typos I correct become typos.

[smac97]

On 4/27/2016 at 3:42 AM, Abulafia said:

Rico, I can give my anecdotal experience.   I attended an interfaith event at an LDS chapel sometime last year.  It was a wonderful event where Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Mormons and mainstream Christians (no Catholics at that event) could celebrate their connectedness whilst acknowledging their differences.   I spent the time talking to a Jew who was keen to talk and learn from my own experience.

Whilst the Stake President appeared to know of me from my fb posts and was welcoming, I felt a palpable distance from some who reacted to my attendance with confusion and *fear* for want of a better word.  Same thing happened when I went to a Givens fireside.   Why are you even here? Was one response from an old friend. 

This is how it has played out for me.  Many unsubscribing to my fb feed or unfriending me, which in effect cuts out our friendship since that is the platform for keeping in touch.

Mormons are told to use social media to proselytise, and they do.  Every day in many cases.  I don't mind, but should I put my twopenneth in, if history, leave takers, or ethics are discussed - and I will then be told to butt out because my contributions are seen as negative and it is assumed I think I know better.  I don't,  these are my authentic beliefs and I try and remain true to myself.

The upshot is that given that I appear to be hurting my active friends I have for the first time deleted them from my list.  Not because I wanted to.  I didn't.   I have come to feel that so many are just not ready for nuance.   

I can't speak for any particular circumstance.  But I have observed a fairly common dynamic amongst Latter-day Saints when interacting or attempting to interact with friends or family who are overtly hostile / contemptuous / insulting to their (LDS) faith.  Many Latter-day Saints take their faith very seriously.  Our faith is important to us.  It is sacred and special.  So when an acquaintance overtly treats that faith with hostility, contempt, insults, etc., the tendency will - understandably, I think - for the Latter-day Saint to put some distance in place.

When I was in the Army I had an acquaintance, Todd, who regularly belittled my faith either to my face or within earshot (we were in the same room in the barracks).  Particularly obnoxious were Todd's "intellectual" musings about Mormonism when he was drunk.  Being in the Army I did not have the option of getting away from this guy.  So I just refrained from speaking about any topic remotely related to religion when he was around.  Unfortunately, Todd was not willing to let me alone, and in fact took pains to seek me out and regale me with with observations about how stupid my religion was (though, perhaps somewhat to his credit, he was usually drunk during these incidents).  I eventually cut off all communication with him.  He insisted on insulting my faith, and doing so in venues where he knew I'd hear about it.  There are only so many intentional and malicious jibes and insults a person can take.

I have an acquaintance, "Tom," whose mother, "Sarah," was, for many years, overtly critical and harsh towards Tom's wife, "Kate."  Sarah constantly found fault with Kate's cooking, how she was raising her children, even how Kate dressed.  Sarah sometimes made these criticisms in the presence of Tom's and Kate's children.  Kate largely endured these unsolicited critiques and criticisms for quite a while.  However, one day Tom "put his foot down," so to speak.  He told Sarah that she was no longer allowed to make any negative comments of any sort about Kate, and that if she (Sarah) persisted he would cease visiting her and would not allow his children to visit either until she relented.  This led to something of a rift for a while between Tom and his mother, but his mother eventually came around, agreed to hold her tongue, and the previously-close-but-temporarily-chilled familial relationship was renewed.  I think Tom was exactly right to insist that his mother refrain from speaking against Kate.  I don't think Tom was under some delusion that Kate was perfect and without flaw.  Rather, I think he saw - correctly - that most (all?) of Sarah's critiques and criticisms were not based on any sort of love or kindness or desire to help, and were instead based on judgmentalism, arrogance, and perhaps even a bit of malice.  Tom was right to protect his wife from such repellant things.

I hope the foregoing two paragraphs may have some value as parable or analogy for the folks on this board who A) have some relationship with the LDS Church, B) are overtly hostile to and/or contemptuous of and/or critical and/or insulting to LDS doctrines / practices / leaders / members, and C) are somehow surprised when they find that some Latter-day Saints of their acquaintance might struggle with maintaining cordial relations with someone who is overtly hostile and/or contemptuously and/or critical and/or insulting to things which are profoundly sacred to Latter-day Saints.

Faithful Latter-day Saints come to this board for myriad reasons.  Many come, are offput by the often profane / insulting / contemptuous things said about their sacred beliefs, and so depart.  I don't blame or fault them one whit.  Being on this board ain't everyone's cuppa.  But then there are those who stay, again for myriad reasons.  For me, I stay because A) I am accustomed to studying / learning / discussing things in an adversarial context (law school will do that to you, I suppose), B) I enjoy the opportunity to use discussions on this board to sort out and refine my thoughts and knowledge of and perceptions about some (though certainly not all) aspects of my faith, C) I appreciate hearing from differing points of view, D) I have come to better understand the proper place and proportion of criticisms against my faith, and E) my faith is important, and hence worth discussing and defending.

Having been on this board for quite a while, I have come to have something of a thick skin.  And yet I still regularly mess up and, when confronted with insults and vituperation about matters I hold sacred, I will unfortunately respond in kind.  I'm getting better, I hope.  There are times when it's a tough slog to voluntarily hang out in a venue populated in part by people who are hostile and/or contemptuous and/or insulting and/or hateful about the things in life I hold most dear (particularly those who are members of the Church, who express and advocate such sentiments online, who do so while deceitfully hiding behind pseudonyms).  It takes a certain kind of person to abide and endure such things.  And it also takes quite a bit of time to develop the thick skin required for enduring such things.  I think the vast majority of Latter-day Saints are simply not inclined to put up with such things in their lives.  And again, I don't blame them a whit.  While the Latter-day Saints are all under a general mandate to study and improve their understanding of and adherence to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, I hardly think the mandate requires such study to take place in an adversarial context.  

So I can hardly fault Latter-day Saints who might prefer to put some distance between themselves and acquaintances who choose to publicly belittle / profane / castigate / ridicule LDS doctrines and beliefs.  Just like "Tom" described above, I think Latter-day Saints may sometimes be forced to choose between A) an extraordinarily precious and beautiful thing, and B) an ongoing close relationship with an acquaintance who insists on publicly slandering and ridiculing and criticizing that extraordinarily precious and beautiful thing.  

I guess it's possible that some of the above-described acquaintances might not be able to comprehend that their overt contempt / ridicule / hatred of LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, etc. may have a dampening effect on relationships with persons who hold those doctrines to be sacred.  But if one of these acquaintances actually tries to paint himself as somehow a victim of the big ol' mean Mormon Church because of this, I'm afraid I'll have snort and guffaw and that.  Likewise snort- and guffaw-worthy would be an attempt to fault an LDS leader for providing sound counsel to the members of his community of faith when it comes to dealing with efforts to damage or destroy that community.  That would just be absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 28, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak for any particular circumstance.  But I have observed a fairly common dynamic amongst Latter-day Saints when interacting or attempting to interact with friends or family who are overtly hostile / contemptuous / insulting to their (LDS) faith.  Many Latter-day Saints take their faith very seriously.  Our faith is important to us.  It is sacred and special.  So when an acquaintance overtly treats that faith with hostility, contempt, insults, etc., the tendency will - understandably, I think - for the Latter-day Saint to put some distance in place.

When I was in the Army I had an acquaintance, Todd, who regularly belittled my faith either to my face or within earshot (we were in the same room in the barracks).  Particularly obnoxious were Todd's "intellectual" musings about Mormonism when he was drunk.  Being in the Army I did not have the option of getting away from this guy.  So I just refrained from speaking about any topic remotely related to religion when he was around.  Unfortunately, Todd was not willing to let me alone, and in fact took pains to seek me out and regale me with with observations about how stupid my religion was (though, perhaps somewhat to his credit, he was usually drunk during these incidents).  I eventually cut off all communication with him.  He insisted on insulting my faith, and doing so in venues where he knew I'd hear about it.  There are only so many intentional and malicious jibes and insults a person can take.

I have an acquaintance, "Tom," whose mother, "Sarah," was, for many years, overtly critical and harsh towards Tom's wife, "Kate."  Sarah constantly found fault with Kate's cooking, how she was raising her children, even how Kate dressed.  Sarah sometimes made these criticisms in the presence of Tom's and Kate's children.  Kate largely endured these unsolicited critiques and criticisms for quite a while.  However, one day Tom "put his foot down," so to speak.  He told Sarah that she was no longer allowed to make any negative comments of any sort about Kate, and that if she (Sarah) persisted he would cease visiting her and would not allow his children to visit either until she relented.  This led to something of a rift for a while between Tom and his mother, but his mother eventually came around, agreed to hold her tongue, and the previously-close-but-temporarily-chilled familial relationship was renewed.  I think Tom was exactly right to insist that his mother refrain from speaking against Kate.  I don't think Tom was under some delusion that Kate was perfect and without flaw.  Rather, I think he saw - correctly - that most (all?) of Sarah's critiques and criticisms were not based on any sort of love or kindness or desire to help, and were instead based on judgmentalism, arrogance, and perhaps even a bit of malice.  Tom was right to protect his wife from such repellant things.

I hope the foregoing two paragraphs may have some value as parable or analogy for the folks on this board who A) have some relationship with the LDS Church, B) are overtly hostile and/or contemptuously and/or critical and/or insulting to LDS doctrines / practices / leaders / members, and C) are somehow surprised when they find that some Latter-day Saints of their acquaintance might struggle with maintaining cordial relations with someone who is overtly hostile and/or contemptuously and/or critical and/or insulting to things which are profoundly sacred to Latter-day Saints.

Faithful Latter-day Saints come to this board for myriad reasons.  Many come, are offput by the often profane / insulting / contemptuous things said about their sacred beliefs, and so depart.  I don't blame or fault them one whit.  Being on this board ain't everyone's cuppa.  But then there are those who stay, again for myriad reasons.  For me, I stay because A) I am accustomed to studying / learning / discussing things in an adversarial context (law school will do that to you, I suppose), B) I enjoy the opportunity to use discussions on this board sort out and refine my thoughts and knowledge of and perceptions about some (though certainly not all) aspects of my faith, C) I appreciate hearing from differing points of view, D) I have come to better understand the proper place and proportion of criticisms against my faith, and E) my faith is important, and hence worth discussing and defending.

Having been on this board for quite a while (12 years!), I have come to have something of a thick skin.  And yet I still regularly mess up and, when confronted with insults and vituperation about matters I hold sacred, I will unfortunately respond in kind.  I'm getting better, I hope.  There are times when it's a tough slog to voluntarily hang out in a venue populated in part by people who are hostile and/or contemptuous and/or insulting and/or hateful about the things in life I hold most dear (particularly those who are members of the Church, who express and advocate such sentiments, who do so online while deceitfully hiding behind pseudonyms).  It takes a certain kind of person to abide and endure such things.  And it also takes quite a bit of time to develop the thick skin required for enduring such things.  I think the vase majority of Latter-day Saints are simply not inclined to put up with such things in their lives.  And again, I don't blame them a whit.  While the Latter-day Saints are all under a general mandate to study and improve their understanding of and adherence to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, I hardly think the mandate requires such study to take place in an adversarial context.  

So I can hardly fault Latter-day Saints who might prefer to put some distance between themselves and acquaintances who choose to publicly belittle / profane / castigate / ridicule LDS doctrines and beliefs.  Just like "Tom" described above, I think Latter-day Saints may sometimes be forced to choose between A) an extraordinarily precious and beautiful thing, and B) an ongoing close relationship with an acquaintance who insists on publicly slandering and ridiculing and criticizing that extraordinarily precious and beautiful thing.  

I guess it's possible that some of the above-described acquaintances might not be able to comprehend that their overt contempt / ridicule / hatred of LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, etc. may have a dampening effect on relationships with persons who hold those doctrines to be sacred.  But if one of these acquaintances actually tries to paint himself as somehow a victim of the big ol' mean Mormon Church because of this, I'm afraid I'll have snort and guffaw and that.  Likewise snort- and guffaw-worthy would be an attempt to fault an LDS leader for providing sound counsel to the members of his community of faith when it comes to dealing with efforts to damage or destroy that community.  That would just be absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hi Smac,

I appreciate your perspective.  I often enjoy your posts and contribution, even if sometimes I may object or question your point.  And, here it is no different.  While I agree with most of what you said, I'm concerned with your take on those who are so opposed to our religion. 

Many come, are offput by the often profane / insulting / contemptuous things said about their sacred beliefs, and so depart.  

I admit, I have no idea what you are alluding to with the above.  I see nothing of the sort around here.  I see challenges, sure.  I see reasoned ocmplaints, sure.  But do I see "profane/insulting/contemptuous things" said about Mormonism?  No.  Not here.  This really has me wondering though.  When members complain about getting picked on, it seems largely that getting picked on is getting asked questions, or people concluding differently than Church members.  It feels like terribly extreme to suggest that criticisms here are "profane/insulting/contemptuous".  I think most here are reasonable.  Even the most virulent of critics will concede when they go too far, it seems. 

With that said, I completely agree, there are rare occasions int he world when someone in your life is being too difficult and you need to learn to set limits.  That can happen with any active LDS in yoru life as much as it might be any ex-LDS though. 

[Abulafia]

Smac, I tend to talk about issues that interest me.  Mormonism and Early Christianity are my passions.  I will critique things that I think are worth critiquing.  I'll also be positive where something good happens.   What interests me and I have mentioned it to a few of my friends who have private messaged me, is that I spend a lot of time critiquing the standard and orthodox narratives of the early christian movements and practices.  Not one LDS has ever taken that personally and hauled me over the coals for it.  If I critique Mormon history then it becomes a whole different matter.   That blindness has always intrigued me and I don't quite know how to explain it.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Paul's meaning must be seen at the best attempts at its historical context.  Paul was at odds with many of the Jerusalem contingent.  He was at odds with fellow christians who took a different approach to him.  Heck, he was even at odds with the pillars, James and Peter.  Who is the apostate?  For some, it was Paul.  For the writer of the epistle of James, it was probably Paul. For the writer of the Clementine Homilies in it's original form, it was probably Paul, for the Didachist it was probably Paul, for the author of Matthew it was probably Paul.  It's all a matter of perspective both ancient and modern.

Taken in their entirety, Paul"s writings indicate he was in general harmony with the Church leadership in Jerudalem and believed strongly in a unified Church, with duly-authorized apostles and prophets at the helm of that leadership. For every passage where you can demonstrate Paul's involvement in administrative bickering between himself and the apostolic leadership, I can produce three passages that demonstrate Paul"s support for the Church leaders.

The few differences between Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem were surely no more severe than the doctrinal rift that existed between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt -- and I certainly wouldn't call Elder Pratt an apostate, despite any doctrinal disagreements he might have had with President Young (Elder Pratt died in full fellowship as a member Quorum of the Twelve. Similarly, in his second general epistle, Peter refers to Paul as his beloved brother in the faith, declaring that Paul's teachings were true, but with the qualifier that Paul's doctrinal approach, while true, was simply hard for the unlearned to understand. 

[Abulafia]

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Bobbieaware said:

Taken in their entirety, Paul"s writings indicate he was in general harmony with the Church leadership in Jerudalem and believed strongly in a unified Church, with duly-authorized apostles and prophets at the helm of that leadership. For every passage where you can demonstrate Paul's involvement in administrative bickering between himself and the apostolic leadership, I can produce three passages that demonstrate Paul"s support for the Church leaders.The few differences between Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem were surely no more severe than the doctrinal rift that existed between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt -- and I certainly wouldn't call Elder Pratt an apostate, despite any doctrinal disagreements he might have had with President Young (Elder Pratt died in full fellowship as a member Quorum of the Twelve. Similarly, in his second general epistle, Peter refers to Paul as his beloved brother in the faith, declaring that Paul's teachings were true, but with the qualifier that Paul's doctrinal approach, while true, was simply hard for the unlearned to understand. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bobbieaware.  Arguable.  I guess.  Paul differed fundamentally with the Jerusalem contingent and asserts his Independence from them on a number of Issues -eating food sacrificed to Idols was a big no no but not for Paul.

 

[Abulafia]

See also Galatians

Quote

 

Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch

 

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 

 

 

[Abulafia]

Acts is even worse, it has him almost being killed by Jesus followers iirc.

[Abulafia]

Quote

13 “I know where ldou are living, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me[a] even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan lives. 14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols

Check also Revelation 2 above, which appears to be a direct condemnation of Paul' lax teachings on food sacrificed to I Idols ( Is the false apostle mentioned to the church at Ephesus Paul? )

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You do realize this is purely a matter of perspective?

No. You see, we are right so my perspective is the correct one on this issue.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Bobbieaware.  Arguable.  I guess.  Paul differed fundamentally with the Jerusalem contingent and asserts his Independence from them on a number of Issues -eating food sacrificed to Idols was a big no no but not for Paul.

 

Peter acknowledges Paul was his beloved brother in the Lord, and that "the apostle to the Gentiles" taught correct doctrine, but that his arcane approach was easily misunderstood by the unlesrned and spiritually unstable who twisted his words into meaning faithful obedience was unnecessary to salvation and continued spiritual growth. And if Paul wasn't unified with the other apostles and prophets of the Church, he was the worse of hypocrites because he often quite forcefully taught that the members could not be in full fellowship unless they cleaved to and remained loyal to the apostles and prophets the Lord himself placed at the head of the Church. I believe some of the practioners of textual criticism -- many of whom don't even believe the Gospel -- put unwarranted emphasis on Paul"s occasional disagreements with the presiding apostles, and then unfairly disregard all the other passages of the New Testament that speak to the contrary because they relish the notion that some of the leaders of the apostolic era Church were at war with one another other and were irreconcilably divided. Why would some relish such an idea? because such ideas undermine the teachings of a Lord, and his chosen apostles, in whom they do not believe. But please understand I'm not suggesting you are in the same category.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Abulafia]

Bobbieaware, can you provide references for that?   I think it is all relevant to the way those with differences are treated.  But the overriding point remains, which is there are far more passages which suggest not cutting off (discussion with) those who have lost or are weak in faith.   

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Bobbieaware, can you provide references for that?   I think it is all relevant to the way those with differences are treated.  But the overriding point remains, which is there are far more passages which suggest not cutting off (discussion with) those who have lost or are weak in faith.   

Well it's a good thing that Elder Clayton didn't suggest cutting of "those who have lost or are weak in faith" then, isn't it?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  Sometimes you get the feeling LDS are trying to destroy something too, like when they/we misrepresent other's faiths in order to try and make a winning point about ours.  Just go to Church long enough in any ward and someone's likely to misrepresent other religions, whether knowingly or not. 

Almost certainly not.

Everyone makes mistakes, and almost nobody really understands anyone else's faith. But willful misrepresentation of the anti-Mormon kind is something else entirely.

 

[Abulafia]

34 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well it's a good thing that Elder Clayton didn't suggest cutting of "those who have lost or are weak in faith" then, isn't it?

 

My own experience indicates that members can be very good at doing this without Elder Clayton's pointed remarks.  I have a couple of friends who have only just found out that when they were struggling and had stopped regularly attending, the local bishops had told members that they 'didn't want to be contacted'.  One friend only found this out this last week when she attended a funeral.  Of course she had stated no such thing and had wondered why nobody wanted to talk or contact her.  I am sure this doesn't happen all the time, but there is a tendency to treat those who are struggling or doubting, especially if they are open, as pariahs.  

Don't you think?

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Bobbieaware, can you provide references for that?   I think it is all relevant to the way those with differences are treated.  But the overriding point remains, which is there are far more passages which suggest not cutting off (discussion with) those who have lost or are weak in faith.   

Paul most emphatically embraced and wholeheartedly sustained the Church leadership structure established by the Savior, and he believed that structure needed to be maintained in perpetuity in order for the true Church of Christ to temain on the earth. His testimony that the apostles and prophets who stood at the head of the Lord's Church always needed to remain at the head of the Church, and that the members needed to always sustain and hold fast to those prophetic leaders, cannot be denied...

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4)

There was no need for debate on this thread as to the kind of individuals Elder Clayton was speaking of when he said the faithful should disengage from their zealous anti-Mormon proselytizing efforts. He likened such individuals to the notorious Book of Mormon anti-Christ, Korihor. By likening them to the highly-intellectual anti-God Korihor, it's plain he wasn't speaking of the lost sheep, who are not zealous anti-Mormons, though they are numbered among those who have lost their way. There's a very big difference between a modern-day Korihor and shell-shocked member of the Church who's going through a faith crisis. The fact that some here don't want to acknowledge this simple fact indicates to me that they are either being disingenuous or have  struggles when they try to thinking critically.

[Abulafia]

Bobbieaware, Paul most likely didn't write Ephesians, and it is not saying what you think it is saying imho.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Bobbieaware, Paul most likely didn't write Ephesians, and it is not saying what you think it is saying imho.

The curse of higher criticism strikes again. There'too little in common for us to have a fruitful dialogue on this subject. All the best to you till we engage on another thread on another subject.

[Abulafia]

You also.  All best.