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

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In seventh grade I learned what a direct object of a sentence was, and an indirect object.

Perhaps you missed that day.

All you have to do is look at the sentence and ask- "What is happening here?  Who is doing what to whom?"

What is the subject of the sentence? 

"WE".

What is the predicate?

"Should disconnect"

What should we disconnect from??

"Proselyting efforts"

See how it works?  Glad to have taught you a little about how the English language works.  Of course others have said the same thing.

But we should not disconnect from that.  We'll lose for sure if we do.  It's bad advice, it appears to be an attempt to bring pharisaic practice to our faith, or keep it going.  It's insular, breeding fear and lack of faith in the listener. 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

Should non-Mormons or post-Mormons also disconnect immediately and completely from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have kept their LDS faith?

I suppose that if they don't want to be influenced by those perspectives, then the answer would reasonably be "yes."

What he doesn't say, and what is unreasonably getting people into a "tizz", is that they should disconnect with the people. It's a very technical and specific statement. He advises people to disconnect from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith.

He doesn't say: disconnect from those who have lost their faith

He doesn't even say: disconnect from those who have lost their faith and make proselytizing efforts

He does tell people to stop listening to the critical content about the church that comes from people who had lost their faith.

Personally, I think he could have articulated it better. I think it's easy for both the believer and non-believer to be left with the impression that the person should be disconnected from. I don't think that's what he intends to say, but it's easy to take that message when the people he talks about are compared to Book of Mormon anti-Christs. Not very conducive to dialogue is it.

Out of interest, what are you all doing on this forum? There are plenty of people here who have lost their faith and could be characterised as proselytizing. I'm not... I'm discussing. I wonder if he'd support the distinction.

It'll be interesting to see how widely people want to define things like "proselytizing efforts" and "assertive apostates".   To some, perhaps many, that's going to end up being members in the ward who support SSM and other such things, I'd guess. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

In other words, the caricaturizing of some creates people who do not exist in this instance.  No one is so unreasonable he/she won't have an open enough conversation with someone.  As has been suggested even the worst of bad guys in the BoM were addressed and engaged.  But here we're taught those who aren't near to the level of bad as those culprits in the BoM were, are too scary to even engage with.  It's pretty silly. 

I was mulling this over yesterday while mowing the lawn.

 

If we were talking about some other subject, such as flat-earthers versus round earth-earthers, it would probably look like this:

 

If you are a round-earther, you probably don’t need to be warned to disconnect from the flat-earthers for fear you will stop thinking the earth is round.

 

But can we say the same thing about flat-earthers . . .?

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So which person on this planet are you comparing to satan?  it sounds like you are saying some people are, but I don't know who that would be. 

I wasn't thinking of anyone specifically.  But yes, i do believe that some people are evil and that some actions are evil.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't thinking of anyone specifically.  But yes, i do believe that some people are evil and that some actions are evil.

I reserve such feelings for child rapists and such, not outspoken critics.  But even the Korihor's were addressed at one point.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I reserve such feelings for child rapists and such, not outspoken critics.  But even the Korihor's were addressed at one point.

I believe that convincing people that there is no Christ can be evil under the right circumstances.

But to get back to the point, Elder Clayton wasn't talking about everyone who loses faith, but only a select few.  As Juliann said pages ago, it's good advice.

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So have you turned in your TR and resigned from the Church? Are you living what you preach?

What is it with your obsession about whether other people hold recommends and maintain membership in the Church?  Frankly, the answer is none of your damn business.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ttribe

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe that convincing people that there is no Christ can be evil under the right circumstances.

But to get back to the point, Elder Clayton wasn't talking about everyone who loses faith, but only a select few.  As Juliann said pages ago, it's good advice.

Everyone does something evil, though.  I disagree it being good advice.  I did not say Elder Clayton was talking about everyone who loses faith. 

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, Mars said:

little sweet is happy

No, no, no...Little Sweet is Diet Dr. Pepper...I go fully loaded.

[Okrahomer]

Trying to avoid being a "drive-by" poster, but I don't always have time to check in everyday; nevertheless, I think Elder Clayton's advice was sound and good.  While I agree that we should engage in dialogue with folks who do not believe as we do, it makes little sense--and can quite quickly turn into a colossal waste of time--to continue to engage someone who is aggressively proselytizing me toward unbelief.  In my experience, there is little if any actual "dialogue" going on in these situations.  I think Elder Clayton was rightly advising the graduates to disconnect from such situations.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But to get back to the point, Elder Clayton wasn't talking about everyone who loses faith, but only a select few.  As Juliann said pages ago, it's good advice.

So why don't you have me on ignore? 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So why don't you have me on ignore? 

 

I believe that your bark is worse than your bite.

[smac97]

On 4/26/2016 at 10:17 AM, consiglieri said:

So why don't you have me on ignore? 

 

I can't speak for anyone else.  For myself, however, I do not have you on "ignore" because A) although I find many (most?) of your posts to be the drive-by potshots of a provocateur, B) there are some times when you contribute meaningful and seemingly-in-food-faith comments about our faith, so C) I try to interact with you when that happens and D) otherwise decline to enter into discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

23 hours 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?

External experiences impact internal ones.  How do we develop faith in the first place?  By receiving external information from others and the processing that internally.  How information is given will affect our internal experience.  Choosing to encounter information in more neutral or positive venues rather than those that are primarily negative seems to be wise to me.  It is not as if the sites that are anti-mormon are the only places to find the information they have on their sites.

Love is an internal process much like faith.  Is it therefore unreasonable to believe that if our love is strong it is impossible to be impacted/affected by what someone might say or do? That if they told us our spouse didn't love us and claimed to have seen her/him passionately kissing someone, wouldn't it be reasonable that might cause us to experience unpleasant feelings even if our spouse told us later that it was just a friendly kiss and we completely believed that?  And would we have good reasons to change the conversation or even avoid this individual if s/he continue whenever the subject of our family came up to make accusations against our spouse's faithfulness to us in a desire to get us to leave our spouse?

Do you really believe that if we choose to frequent the association of this individual who is trying to convince to leave our spouse that it won't affect our internal feelings at all?

[Calm]

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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

Perhaps some are, but most often I think it is assumptions that cause everyone to add to what is said.  It would appear to me that you have made a significant assumption about what mm said and thus added to what he actually said.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

External experiences impact internal ones.  How do we develop faith in the first place?  By receiving external information from others and the processing that internally.  How information is given will affect our internal experience.  Choosing to encounter information in more neutral or positive venues rather than those that are primarily negative seems to be wise to me.  It is not as if the sites that are anti-mormon are the only places to find the information they have on their sites.

Love is an internal process much like faith.  Is it therefore unreasonable to believe that if our love is strong it is impossible to be impacted/affected by what someone might say or do? That if they told us our spouse didn't love us and claimed to have seen her/him passionately kissing someone, wouldn't it be reasonable that might cause us to experience unpleasant feelings even if our spouse told us later that it was just a friendly kiss and we completely believed that?  And would we have good reasons to change the conversation or even avoid this individual if s/he continue whenever the subject of our family came up to make accusations against our spouse's faithfulness to us in a desire to get us to leave our spouse?

Do you really believe that if we choose to frequent the association of this individual who is trying to convince to leave our spouse that it won't affect our internal feelings at all?

I don't understand why there is this insistence to compare one's testimony to the relationship between spouses.  Moreover, I believe I clarified my position in a subsequent post.

That being said, I'll summarize by stating - I don't believe there are some magic words (e.g. Avada Kedavra) that can be uttered by an alleged "anti-Mormon" that are going to automatically wipe out someone's testimony.  Some of the discussion in this thread is the mirror of the warnings given to people of other faiths in TN and KY about me as a missionary.  I thought it was silly then.  I think it's reaching silly-levels to some extent in this thread (I'll not point out, where; sorry).

Edited April 26, 2016 by ttribe

[Mars]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

ttribe, i can't quote you even when i try to ctrl-right click to remove the quote to canard78...  so annoying...

the insistence ...  it's not an insistence.  we're trying to find other real world examples that demonstrate the principle in action, hoping to achieve some sort of "oh, hey, this sort of thing DOES happen in other walks of life, i see now what elder clayton is saying." i thought calm's comparison was a good one.  clearly it wasn't if it continues to mystify you why we're using other patterns to demonstrate the point.

i guess they're exercises in futility if they serve to continue to mystify you.  you don't agree with the whole "other people can influence you to change your mind, some will do it subversively" thing and that's that.  we can agree to disagree.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Mars

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I don't understand why there is this insistence to compare one's testimony to the relationship between spouses.  Moreover, I believe I clarified my position in a subsequent post.

That being said, I'll summarize by stating - I don't believe there are some magic words (e.g. Avada Kedavra) that can be uttered by an alleged "anti-Mormon" that are going to automatically wipe out someone's testimony.  Some of the discussion in this thread is the mirror of the warnings given to people of other faiths in TN and KY about me as a missionary.  I thought it was silly then.  I think it's reaching silly-levels to some extent in this thread (I'll not point out, where; sorry).

 

 

I totally agree with this.

 

This was always the way that Jehovah’s Witnesses acted about other religions, including Mormonism.

 

The Mormonism I grew up with openly encouraged its members to learn about other religions because, as the saying went, it will help you better appreciate the truth you have.

 

I always thought that attitude obviously came from a position of strength, or at least security.  (Of course, I have found out later that was probably said by local leaders who were not really aware of all the dirt the top leaders were busy suppressing.)

 

The icky feeling I deal with is that the Mormon Church is turning into the JW’s.

 

And I mean that not as a general slam on JW’s (my brother is one), but on the manner in which they discourage their members from accessing certain kinds of information.

 

I mean, really, if the negative information is just lies and baseless accusations, you would think that would be an easy matter to demonstrate.

 

It is because it is not just lies and baseless accusations that has the natives restless.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Mars said:

ttribe, i can't quote you even when i try to ctrl-right click to remove the quote to canard78...  so annoying...

the insistence ...  it's not an insistence.  we're trying to find other real world examples that demonstrate the principle in action, hoping to achieve some sort of "oh, hey, this sort of thing DOES happen in other walks of life, i see now what elder clayton is saying." i thought calm's comparison was a good one.  clearly it wasn't if it continues to mystify you why we're using other patterns to demonstrate the point.

i guess they're exercises in futility if they serve to continue to mystify you.  you don't agree that the principle of "other people can influence you to change your mind, some will do it subversively" and that's that.  we can agree to disagree.

That's not true and I said as much in one of my previous replies directly to you.  I do agree that's possible.  I don't agree, however, with the notion that entire classes of people should be characterized as having this ability.  I think there are far fewer people capable of such influence than we think.  We're creating bogey-men in this conversation and losing sight of the fact that these are people we are talking about.

[Mars]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's not true and I said as much in one of my previous replies directly to you.  I do agree that's possible.  I don't agree, however, with the notion that entire classes of people should be characterized as having this ability.  I think there are far fewer people capable of such influence than we think.  We're creating bogey-men in this conversation and losing sight of the fact that these are people we are talking about.

i'm sorry, i guess i missed it.  i'll go back and re-read to make sure i got you.  i thought you said that you didn't evaluate people based on their ability to pull that kind of thing off, which is why i thought what i did.

EDIT TO ADD - ok, i see where you said that you could see the most virulent of people doing it.  but then at the end of that same paragraph you said you didn't see how words could do it.  that seems contradictory to me, but i've probably just misunderstood you again.  i'm not trying to play 'gotcha' or pin you down or show you to be inconsistent or anything.  the more we talk, the more it seems like we just disagree on who is able to do it, how often they're able to do it, how they're able to do it, and who elder clayton was talking about and how big of a problem it is.  you don't have to answer the remainder of the post, if you don't want to.  i admit i'm still of a mind to try and prove to you that elder clayton has a point and that it's a good one and that you would do well to change your mind.  but...  i'm just some jackhole on the internet who doesn't know you from adam.  i shouldn't try to make it my business what you conclude and you are perfectly capable of thinking things through and coming up with your own conclusions without me to try to influence that.  sort of a meta microcosm here...  haha.  end edit.

in the interest of making sure i do understand:

you do think there are some people who have that ability but their numbers are marginal and inconsequential.  speaking of them as though they are numerous enough to merit attention is akin to inciting fearfulness.  we also dehumanize regular people ...  i've lost you, here.  how do elder clayton's words cause people like me who are taking his advice to heart lose sight of the fact that we're talking about people?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Mars

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps some are, but most often I think it is assumptions that cause everyone to add to what is said.  It would appear to me that you have made a significant assumption about what mm said and thus added to what he actually said.

I think I interpreted the only way I could. 

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, Mars said:

i'm sorry, i guess i missed it.  i'll go back and re-read to make sure i got you.  i thought you said that you didn't evaluate people based on their ability to pull that kind of thing off, which is why i thought what i did.

in the interest of making sure i do understand:

you do think there are some people who have that ability but their numbers are marginal and inconsequential.  speaking of them as though they are numerous enough to merit attention is akin to inciting fearfulness.  we also dehumanize regular people ...  i've lost you, here.  how do elder clayton's words cause people like me who are taking his advice to heart lose sight of the fact that we're talking about people?

I've not said a thing about Elder Clayton's advice.  I've only commented on the discussion occurring within the confines of this thread.

I've also not said anything about the number of people who are as persuasive in such a negative manner to be "inconsequential."  Significance is a subjective matter and is up to each individual.  I've objected to the creation of warnings/paranoia about entire groups of people; the same way the local "christian" college in Dayton, TN did when it took out a full-age ad in the (3-times a week) newspaper encouraging residents to avoid the "Mormon Missionaries" as if we could convert them and endanger their souls with some magic words.  Friends and family who were once active members of the Church, but who are now passionately and vocally out of the Church are still our friends and family.  A blanket approach of avoiding these people based solely on their alleged apostasy is foolishness, IMO.  I'm not saying Elder Clayton advocated such an approach.  Indeed many here have argued that he specifically didn't.  Nevertheless, the language is vague enough (again, IMO) that interpretations along those lines are inevitable.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So have you turned in your TR and resigned from the Church? Are you living what you preach?

You continue to focus on what you perceive to be the worthiness and hypocrisy of others instead of yourself. I'm impressed by your continued excellence in this endeavor.

Edited April 26, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Mars]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I've not said a thing about Elder Clayton's advice.  I've only commented on the discussion occurring within the confines of this thread.

I've also not said anything about the number of people who are as persuasive in such a negative manner to be "inconsequential."  Significance is a subjective matter and is up to each individual.  I've objected to the creation of warnings/paranoia about entire groups of people; the same way the local "christian" college in Dayton, TN did when it took out a full-age ad in the (3-times a week) newspaper encouraging residents to avoid the "Mormon Missionaries" as if we could convert them and endanger their souls with some magic words.  Friends and family who were once active members of the Church, but who are now passionately and vocally out of the Church are still our friends and family.  A blanket approach of avoiding these people based solely on their alleged apostasy is foolishness, IMO.  I'm not saying Elder Clayton advocated such an approach.  Indeed many here have argued that he specifically didn't.  Nevertheless, the language is vague enough (again, IMO) that interpretations along those lines are inevitable.

fair enough.

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You continue to focus on what you perceive to be the worthiness and hypocrisy of others instead of yourself. I'm impressed by your continued excellence in this endeavor.

Since rodheadlee's invitation to dissociate from the LDS Church was directed at me, I want to say a couple of things that need saying.

First, I do not go around trying to talk people out of membership in the LDS Church.  I am not out there "actively proselytizing."  I am not aware of a lot of disaffected Mormons who are, though doubtless there are some.

I met with some old friends a couple of hours south of my home over the weekend.  They were all TBM's then, and they are still TBM.

I am the odd man out.

I specifically made no mention of anything I now believe that might challenge their current understandings.

I am not out to make waves among people I know or cause them heartache or concern for me; at least not intentionally and knowingly.

Why would I do that?

Unlike Mormons, I do not think I have found the one way to heaven and they are on the road to hell.

All that would be accomplished by my mentioning such things would be to stir up controversy and make them disappointed and saddened.

I would much rather they be happy in their Mormonism.

If it works for them, great.

I mention this only because I think there may be some misperceptions by some on this board as to what I, and most others like me, are about.