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

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Elder Clayton's approach is no different than the great many other straight-forward warnings of the prophets found throughout the scriptures. Since the dawn of man, there have always been those who decry the prophets for their bluntness in declaring the truth because such people take the truth to be hard. The so-called loyal opposition has always been present in the Church of God in every dispensation. Why should anyone expect the Chuch of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times be any different? Because there must needs be opposition in all things, there will always be critics of the living prophets found in every age of the Church. It's a tough and thankless jod, but somebody's got to do it so that the great test of mortality can be thoroughly rigorous and complete.

While I essentially agree with you Bobbie, I thought the point of this church is for every member to be a missionary - this involves showing others how to overcome the world. Essentially, I will engage all those willing to engage me on reasonable terms. I don't leave that job to the GAs. Yes, the prophets did try to warn against false prophets, but some such as Jeremy Runnells become anti-Christs. I believe I could possibly engage Jeremy - I haven't tried so I don't know how he would be - but he seems like he might discuss issues at a reasonable level. The thing is Jeremy seems to want or demand objective evidence for his belief. That is not how God operates, so he has rejected God and his Savior in toto. Until he can open his heart to the still small voice of the Spirit, I believe Jeremy will have trouble with belief in God - period. These people are probably the "backbone" of the "opposition" you speak of. However, I don't believe there will always be opposition, for the scriptures tell me that Satan's "hands" will be bound for at least a few hundred years, until the end of the "millennium."

[mfbukowski]

2 hours 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-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

Thanks for being the first to actually QUOTE (with a link to the audio for remaining skeptics about the accuracy of the transcription) the talk.  I was appalled that no one else did.

I agree completely.

Quite honestly I personally need to disconnect from this board on occasion and take a "spiritual shower" to get the dirt off so I can feel the spirit at all.

Yet I return to what I consider the "good fight" to take on those who distort and mock our faith.

I take Elder Clayton's admonition seriously, from that perspective.  Sometimes I find this board disgusting, but I find it necessary to return to shovel out the muck, or at least point it out so that others don't step in it.

Somebody has to, and I know many of us are here for the same reason.

And I think that was pretty much all Elder Clayton was saying.  We must not take the muck to heart, but recognize it for what it is, and wash off with the spirit.

Not everyone is called to shovel it, but some of us are, and I think it is a dirty but necessary job.

[Nevo]

It's clear to me that Elder Clayton was warning BYU grads to avoid websites that criticize the Church, its leaders, and its history, since "online tours of the territory of the faithless" compounded with spiritual laxness can cause people to wander off from the strait and narrow path and become lost. He urges students who find themselves visiting these websites—one thinks here of Zelph on the Shelf, exmormon reddit, Mormon Think, CES Letter, etc.—to "disconnect" and instead "reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit."

That's probably sound advice for people who have lived sheltered lives and are totally unprepared to deal with the uncorrelated version of Mormon history and doctrine found on the Internet. But promoting insularity only gets us so far. Hopefully the Church will eventually stop mass-producing folks like Jeremy Runnells and instead produce a rising generation that is well-informed about sensitive historical and doctrinal issues and isn't so brittle, that has the spiritual and intellectual resources to confront hard questions rather than simply ignore them. As Michael Otterson remarked in his recent UVU address, "How much of our listening is to reinforce our own settled conclusions or bias? If that’s all we do, we have established our own mental boundaries that are just as rigid as those found in any institution."

Edited April 25, 2016 by Nevo

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for being the first to actually QUOTE (with a link to the audio for remaining skeptics about the accuracy of the transcription) the talk.  I was appalled that no one else did.

I agree completely.

Quite honestly I personally need to disconnect from this board on occasion and take a "spiritual shower" to get the dirt off so I can feel the spirit at all.

Yet I return to what I consider the "good fight" to take on those who distort and mock our faith.

I take Elder Clayton's admonition seriously, from that perspective.  Sometimes I find this board disgusting, but I find it necessary to return to shovel out the muck, or at least point it out so that others don't step in it.

Somebody has to, and I know many of us are here for the same reason.

And I think that was pretty much all Elder Clayton was saying.  We must not take the muck to heart, but recognize it for what it is, and wash off with the spirit.

Not everyone is called to shovel it, but some of us are, and I think it is a dirty but necessary job.

I hope you have some spiritual soap.  People like me are hard to wash off.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jeanne

[Mars]

i'm not afraid to engage.

i'm not afraid to ask.

i've turned to google because it's easier than combing through books.

at a certain point, though, i make a value judgment about someone else's intents and motives in their conclusions.  how much i engage the source or person once i've reached that conclusion is a function of it.  if i don't think you care about me, if i think you're just convinced the church is some evil monolith - homophobic, misogynist, deceitful, and/or discriminatory - and you want me to agree with you out of principle, then as far as discussing mormon stuff goes, you're out.  when i was a missionary, and in my missionary efforts today, sometimes people thought/think i'm just about trying to convert them and that i don't really care about anything other than scoring one for team mormon Jesus.  i dislike having my sincerity questioned, but i respected their position.

i'm annoyed at the general trend in this thread by people who think i need to continue listening to someone when i disagree with their motives and aims.  i don't want my faith destroyed, thanks.  examined? sure.  critiqued?  yes, even that.  but i get to judge the difference between critique, examination, and attempts to subvert or undermine.  AND i get to pick who does the critique and the examination.  so do you.  you may sit back and cluck your tongue and say "oh that mars, he's just afraid to ask the tough questions of someone who really can make him think.  someone like me, or someone who thinks like me."  that just feels like a ploy, like a provocation.  manipulation; playing on human fears of being beyond reason or too weak.

[mfbukowski]

In fact this thread is a good representation of the muck that needs to be shoveled

A distorted and crafted quote out of context leads to a big fuss with no one actually reading the words spoken.  More muck.

I need a scriptural shower.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Mars said:

i'm not afraid to engage.

i'm not afraid to ask.

i've turned to google because it's easier than combing through books.

at a certain point, though, i make a value judgment about someone else's intents and motives in their conclusions.  how much i engage the source or person once i've reached that conclusion is a function of it.  if i don't think you care about me, if i think you're just convinced the church is some evil monolith - homophobic, misogynist, deceitful, and/or discriminatory - and you want me to agree with you out of principle, then as far as discussing mormon stuff goes, you're out.  when i was a missionary, and in my missionary efforts today, sometimes people thought/think i'm just about trying to convert them and that i don't really care about anything other than scoring one for team mormon Jesus.  i dislike having my sincerity questioned, but i respected their position.

i'm annoyed at the general trend in this thread by people who think i need to continue listening to someone when i disagree with their motives and aims.  i don't want my faith destroyed, thanks.  examined? sure.  critiqued?  yes, even that.  but i get to judge the difference between critique, examination, and attempts to subvert or undermine.  AND i get to pick who does the critique and the examination.  so do you.  you may sit back and cluck your tongue and say "oh that mars, he's just afraid to ask the tough questions of someone who really can make him think.  someone like me, or someone who thinks like me."  that just feels like a ploy, like a provocation.  manipulation; playing on human fears of being beyond reason or too weak.

This is great.  You love the church and yet you think for yourself and know your boundaries.  Nothing wrong with that and I commend you! 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Mars said:

i'm not afraid to engage.

i'm not afraid to ask.

i've turned to google because it's easier than combing through books.

at a certain point, though, i make a value judgment about someone else's intents and motives in their conclusions.  how much i engage the source or person once i've reached that conclusion is a function of it.  if i don't think you care about me, if i think you're just convinced the church is some evil monolith - homophobic, misogynist, deceitful, and/or discriminatory - and you want me to agree with you out of principle, then as far as discussing mormon stuff goes, you're out.  when i was a missionary, and in my missionary efforts today, sometimes people thought/think i'm just about trying to convert them and that i don't really care about anything other than scoring one for team mormon Jesus.  i dislike having my sincerity questioned, but i respected their position.

i'm annoyed at the general trend in this thread by people who think i need to continue listening to someone when i disagree with their motives and aims.  i don't want my faith destroyed, thanks.  examined? sure.  critiqued?  yes, even that.  but i get to judge the difference between critique, examination, and attempts to subvert or undermine.  AND i get to pick who does the critique and the examination.  so do you.  you may sit back and cluck your tongue and say "oh that mars, he's just afraid to ask the tough questions of someone who really can make him think.  someone like me, or someone who thinks like me."  that just feels like a ploy, like a provocation.  manipulation; playing on human fears of being beyond reason or too weak.

Why is there any ongoing assumption that our faith can be destroyed by an outsider?  Are we, as individuals, incapable of interacting with people with whom we may disagree without our faith somehow being harmed?  If so, what's wrong with our faith?

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for your reply.  Perhaps if Elder Clayton had clarified a little more.  It is hard to discern is some ways.  I am glad you recognize the existence of such scenarios. 

Herein lies the problem. NO GA, ever, could possibly be precise enough to satisfy the unreasonable scrutiny that their talks face in the aftermath without pages and pages of footnotes or diverging so much from the point of the talk as to render it worthless. Anybody, and I mean anybody, who has parsed Elder Clayton words to read in meaning so as to find fault are offenders for a word. Nothing more. There is no satisfying such individuals.

[Mars]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why is there any ongoing assumption that our faith can be destroyed by an outsider?  Are we, as individuals, incapable of interacting with people with whom we may disagree without our faith somehow being harmed?  If so, what's wrong with our faith?

 

a. because i'm convinced that faith can be destroyed.  it can be destroyed by lie and half baked info.  i don't understand you - are you saying that faith can't be destroyed by an outsider?  i suppose that ultimately it's up to us to make that decision, but tons of people make foolish decisions with half baked information all the time...  you might need to clarify this one for me because i'm not sure i get where you're coming from.

b. i can't emphasize this enough: there is a difference between someone who talks to me about my faith in, well...  (dept of redundancy dept, please take a seat and sit down) good faith and someone who does not display good faith.  i've talked with atheists who respect mormon belief and wouldn't call it a racist church, but would agree that there are racist elements in our church history and people.  and then i've had people laugh in my face that i'd belong to a racist church who hates black people.  the former, i will talk to all day.  the latter get none of my time.  your mileage my vary.

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mars

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Herein lies the problem. NO GA, ever, could possibly be precise enough to satisfy the unreasonable scrutiny that their talks face in the aftermath without pages and pages of footnotes or diverging so much from the point of the talk as to render it worthless. Anybody, and I mean anybody, who has parsed Elder Clayton words to read in meaning so as to find fault are offenders for a word. Nothing more. There is no satisfying such individuals.

I agree that it is hard to be precise.  But one can only get from it what is said...not intentions.

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't know who are what Elder Clayton had in mind when he made the statement to stop listening to their proselyting efforts.  But, I will say this... I didn't turn to sources outside of the church for answers UNTIL I realized that the Church sources weren't providing me with complete and honest answers.

It is time for all of us in the church, members and leaders alike, to be asking ourselves the question:  Why do members turn to google for answers?  Why do they turn on Mormon Stories?  Why would they read CES letter?

Because they have not yet learned to rely and trust the Spirit to answer the questions that matter.

[Mystery Meat]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I agree that it is hard to be precise.  But one can only get from it what is said...not intentions.

That is clearly not true as you and others in this thread have read in plenty of intentions to his words that were not explicitly said.

[stemelbow]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard the 'we can all learn from satan.  He probably comes off worse than he really was' line of reasoning before, but I don't understand it.

That's not what I said, Bluebell.  Are you saying people who leave the faith are comparable to Satan?  That seems extreme. 

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Elder Clayton's remarks continue to portray the LDS Church as afraid to engage in any meaningful discussion regarding its truth claims.

Shoot.  Simply, put that's what I should have said from the start here.  I agree.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Mystery Meat said:

That is clearly not true as you and others in this thread have read in plenty of intentions to his words that were not explicitly said.

Okay.  We are just being our manipulative selves you know.

[Mars]

Just now, stemelbow said:

That's not what I said, Bluebell.  Are you saying people who leave the faith are comparable to Satan?  That seems extreme. 

bluebell has posted on here enough to demonstrate, imo, that that's the last thing she thinks.  please have more confidence in her.

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for being the first to actually QUOTE (with a link to the audio for remaining skeptics about the accuracy of the transcription) the talk.  I was appalled that no one else did.

I agree completely.

Quite honestly I personally need to disconnect from this board on occasion and take a "spiritual shower" to get the dirt off so I can feel the spirit at all.

Yet I return to what I consider the "good fight" to take on those who distort and mock our faith.

I take Elder Clayton's admonition seriously, from that perspective.  Sometimes I find this board disgusting, but I find it necessary to return to shovel out the muck, or at least point it out so that others don't step in it.

Somebody has to, and I know many of us are here for the same reason.

And I think that was pretty much all Elder Clayton was saying.  We must not take the muck to heart, but recognize it for what it is, and wash off with the spirit.

Not everyone is called to shovel it, but some of us are, and I think it is a dirty but necessary job.

What a second...are you a faithless? 

The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naiveté.

Couldn't be.  It appears though, Elder Clayton's complaint about the faithless can be squarely directed at many a member as well.  Thanks for demonstrating. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Mars said:

bluebell has posted on here enough to demonstrate, imo, that that's the last thing she thinks.  please have more confidence in her.

In like manner she knows I did not suggest anything about Satan.  It was an unfair way to spin it, on her end.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Here is the pertinent quote from Elder Clayton's BYU commencement address:

"The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naiveté. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Corihors and Nehors and Sharoms 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."

Notice Elder Clayton didn't say to totally disconnect in every way from those who have lost their faith. What he actually said was that the faithful should "disconnect immediately and completely from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith" I've been able to have friendly visits with some of those who have lost their faith, as long as intense religious discussions aren't the focus of our interactions.

If you read the actual quote, it's easy to see that he wasn't proposing anything sinister or scary, but instead just good common sense.

After all, who isn't better off for "disconnecting" from people who disagree with us about something and would try to use logic or persuasion to change our minds? 

As a big fan of Windows OS, isn't it common sense for me to "disconnect" from my (former) friends who hated Windows and would try to tell me how Macs are better?  As a conservative, why wouldn't I "disconnect" from my former liberal friends who would often try to show me why their political positions were preferable?  After all, if I continued to engage (or tolerate) them there is a very real chance that I might start to think like them.   As someone who doesn't believe moon landing was real, I've found much peace of mind ever since I stopped hanging out with people who would insist (sometimes using convincing arguments and evidences) otherwise.

In all these cases, and countless others, the Mac-drone, liberal, NASA-loving-sycophants would see my willingness to engage with them as a sign of weakness and malleability.  Surely, the best way to show them the strength and superiority of my position is to cut off communication.  Sometimes the best defense is to not play the game.

[Gray]

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. Is it unreasonable for a general authority to ask fellow members of the church not to listen to messages designed to make people lose their faith? The mission of general authorities is to encourage faith, right? In context it doesn't sound like he's encouraging shunning (although in some cases that might be a biproduct, admittedly). 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Elder Clayton's remarks continue to portray the LDS Church as afraid to engage in any meaningful discussion regarding its truth claims.

I think Elder Clayton's remarks are more tactical in nature.  Generally speaking, in a situation where an LDS is talking with an "assertive apostate", there are only two realistic outcomes.  The faith of the LDS is unchanged or slightly diminished, or the faith of the LDS is fundamentally altered for the worse (or even destroyed).  Elder Clayton is simply acknowledging that the odds of the average LDS making a positive impact on hardened atheists is almost nil, so the most prudent course for faith preservation is to cut your losses.

But more interestingly, Elder Clayton invokes the stories of Sherem and Korihor  as a reason to "disconnect", as if the average LDS hearing his talk should understand these stories as warning us of the dangers of crafty apostates to believers.  But that's not what these stories teach!  In both cases, Sherem and Korihor are confronted by strong, faithful believers who use their faith and priesthood to work miracles and defeat these enemies!  There is no indication that the Lord's preferred method is to disengage when faced by such enemies.

If modern day proselytizing "people who have lost their faith" are the equivalent of Sherem and Korihor, than we can only conclude that these modern day enemies are actually far more powerful than Sherem or Korihor was, or that the modern day defenders are weaker than Jacob and Alma were.  Either way, we're screwed, and the counsel to "disconnect" is the sad, weak attempt to deal with something that they are otherwise totally incapable of dealing with.

So any chance we could get Elder Clayton to clarify which he thinks is the case?  Are modern enemies of Church mega-Sherems and Mega-Korihors?  Or is the capacity of modern LDS diminished to the point that we can't deal with them in the way that believers used to (curse with priesthood power, confound with wisdom from God etc.) Because if it's the latter, it might be good to know what happened, and to find more analogous stories in which the faith and priesthood of the Saints isn't up to the task of facing those who would argue against the Church, lest the wrong message be sent.

Edited April 25, 2016 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think Elder Clayton's remarks are more tactical in nature.  Generally speaking, in a situation where an LDS is talking with an "assertive apostate", there are only two realistic outcomes.  The faith of the LDS is unchanged or slightly diminished, or the faith of the LDS is fundamentally altered for the worse (or even destroyed).  Elder Clayton is simply acknowledging that the odds of the average LDS making a positive impact on hardened atheists is almost nil, so the most prudent course for faith preservation is to cut your losses.

But more interestingly, Elder Clayton invokes the stories of Sherem and Korihor  as a reason to "disconnect", as if the average LDS hearing his talk should understand these stories as warning us of the dangers of crafty apostates to believers.  But that's not what these stories teach!  In both cases, Sherem and Korihor are confronted by strong, faithful believers who use their faith and priesthood to work miracles and defeat these enemies!  There is no indication that the Lord's preferred method is to disengage when faced by such enemies.

If modern day proselytizing "people who have lost their faith" are the equivalent of Sherem and Korihor, than we can only include that these modern day enemies are actually far more powerful than Sherem or Korihor was, or that the modern day defenders are weaker than Jacob and Alma were.

So any chance we could get Elder Clayton to clarify which he thinks is the case?  And if it's the latter, it might be good to know what happened, and to find more analogous stories, lest the wrong message be sent.

Alright, buster.  It's time to tune you out.  Challenging an Elder?  That there is as assertive as you'll find. 

 

[Mars]

snark level: orange.

[Bobbieaware]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

While I essentially agree with you Bobbie, I thought the point of this church is for every member to be a missionary - this involves showing others how to overcome the world. Essentially, I will engage all those willing to engage me on reasonable terms. I don't leave that job to the GAs. Yes, the prophets did try to warn against false prophets, but some such as Jeremy Runnells become anti-Christs. I believe I could possibly engage Jeremy - I haven't tried so I don't know how he would be - but he seems like he might discuss issues at a reasonable level. The thing is Jeremy seems to want or demand objective evidence for his belief. That is not how God operates, so he has rejected God and his Savior in toto. Until he can open his heart to the still small voice of the Spirit, I believe Jeremy will have trouble with belief in God - period. These people are probably the "backbone" of the "opposition" you speak of. However, I don't believe there will always be opposition, for the scriptures tell me that Satan's "hands" will be bound for at least a few hundred years, until the end of the "millennium."

As long as there are choices to be made, there will always be opposition in some form. There were even choices to be made in heaven while we lived in the immediate presence of God, hence the rebellion and deadly spiritual warfare that boiled-over in that most unlikely of places.

The Mormon Dialogue and Discussiom Board is a gathering place of individuals who tend to have a better than average Gospel knowledge, and a better than average ability to think critically. You may be numbered among those who could successfully engage the modern-day Korihors in verbal combat -- with the hope that they might possibly be awkened from the sleep of death -- but I wouldn't recommend average Church members engage in such contests unless they at least have unshakable testimonies. In order to be able to successfully defend the Restored Gospel, such individuals must be clad in the whole armor of God, as well as be well-trained and experienced in the defense of the truth.

There's a reason why the adversary deliberately uses individuals of high intelligence to do his dirty work. Within the framework of eternal opposition in all things, upon which all existence is affirmed, the Lord must allow the arguments arrayed in opposition to the Restored Gospel to be just as powerful and convincing in their own way as the arguments arrayed in defense of the Restored Truth. For this reason, those who defend the truth must have a good understanding of the sophistry, methods and wiles of the devil. But even then, very rarely do such battles end in anything worthwhile.