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

[Abulafia]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I do agree that you highlight the very problem we as LDS are largely unable and unwilling to deal with.  It's a sad position to find ourselves in for sure.  I surely hope one day the fear, the skepticism, the defensiveness, the overall bad attitudes just leave us.  But they won't unless we're able to accept that it's there and we need to fix it. 

Thanks for your patience with us. 

I do agree that it goes both ways.  It is not easy to learn to talk respectfully to those with whom we differ.  I guess the hardest thing for me to get across is that I don't want my active friends to leave the church if they are happy and feel that is the right place for them.  At the same time I want to knock down barriers that have them seeing me as some kind of Satanic apostate that wants them to do evil or something.  I think most ex lds are as committed to living good, healthy, productive, lives as lds.  

I recently went to a Sunstone event over here in Birmingham UK and so loved sitting with both active LDS, inactive, C of C, scholars and interested parties. We ate together, sat together, enjoyed each other's company.  I was in heaven.  Dehlin gave a talk which was very loving to people who stay in the faith, and basically advised those who left to be tactful and not try to lead anyone out of the church.  It would just cause barriers and hurt.  So, I continue to be amazed and befuddled by those who call him anti-mormon.  He loves Mormonism.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

I do agree that it goes both ways.  It is not easy to learn to talk respectfully to those with whom we differ.  I guess the hardest thing for me to get across is that I don't want my active friends to leave the church if they are happy and feel that is the right place for them.  At the same time I want to knock down barriers that have them seeing me as some kind of Satanic apostate that wants them to do evil or something.  I think most ex lds are as committed to living good, healthy, productive, lives as lds.  

I recently went to a Sunstone event over here in Birmingham UK and so loved sitting with both active LDS, inactive, C of C, scholars and interested parties. We ate together, sat together, enjoyed each other's company.  I was in heaven.  Dehlin gave a talk which was very loving to people who stay in the faith, and basically advised those who left to be tactful and not try to lead anyone out of the church.  It would just cause barriers and hurt.  So, I continue to be amazed and befuddled by those who call him anti-mormon.  He loves Mormonism.  

Finding a place in which we all comfortably conclude "we're all in this together" in unison is exactly what I'm after.  Acknowledging that we along with Dehlin are broken together would be a big step forward. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I do agree that you highlight the very problem we as LDS are largely unable and unwilling to deal with.  It's a sad position to find ourselves in for sure.  I surely hope one day the fear, the skepticism, the defensiveness, the overall bad attitudes just leave us.  But they won't unless we're able to accept that it's there and we need to fix it. 

Thanks for your patience with us. 

Culturally I think there is a lot of fear of openly discussing issues related to religion where alternative viewpoints are included. There are a lot of religious schools that openly invite discourse with those of different or even hostile viewpoints. If you search on youtube for atheist vs apologist debates, you'll see that a lot of them are hosted at religious schools. But I don't think you'll see BYU hosting one any time soon. We're too afraid of contention, so we don't allow discussion to happen. We shut it down and walk away. 

I think this extends to a lot (but not all) of exmormons, who also seem to get very upset when they hear faithful discussion. Their viewpoint has changed but they retain the same cultural fear of hearing contrary ideas. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Gray

[Rico]

Russell,

Here is Flameburns623's description of what I had earlier considered to be "lost sheep" that should not be abandoned:

Quote

 

How do you persistently gloss over the qualifiers "proselytizing efforts" and "assertive apostates"?

That the ones described are said to be not merely "faithless" but seeking to "rescue the rest of us from our naivete"? 

These are not mere doubters, Less-Active or Inactive LDS, nor wounded seekers seeking reasons for faith.

These are scoffers and obstinate ones, uninterested in answers but only in doing harm to the Church.

Evangelical Atheists seeking to damage or destroy faith wherever it can be injured.

 

But his description applies neatly to wolves and wolves in sheep's disguise.  In his words, these seek "to damage or destroy faith wherever it can be injured."  These are not "lost sheep."  These are wolves.  In contrast, rustlers will not harm sheep because they know it has value.  If the sheep are hurt or wounded in the act of stealing, they will take care of them for what they're worth to them.

But wolves think only in terms of their belly.  They don't care what happens to the sheep.  They never think of the damage they do.  In using John 10:12-13, I am using the worst case scenario for the sheep.

And that heightens the error of Elder Clayton.  The Good Shepherd had to face wolves while trying to rescue lost sheep.  Elder Clayton thinks that mere avoidance of wolves will do the trick.  He thinks like a hireling; he is badly mistaken.  The wolves are smarter than him.

poster removed 

 

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, Rico said:

Bobbieaware,

To whom is the Apostle Paul addressing the verses in 2 Corinthians 6:15-18?  Is it to the "ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance"?

Or is it to the "lost sheep" themselves?

The clue is in verse 17: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

In the early years of the Church, Corinth has been notorious to the Apostle Paul because it is a city made wealthy through the lucrative trade that goes on its seaport.  Here you see all sorts of pagan philosophy and debauchery meeting each other in one place, thus making life extra difficult for the saints in Corinth.  The saints there, although they have believed the gospel and are baptized have to fight serious struggles against worldly lusts and temptations.  And they don't always succeed. Therefore, although they are considered sheep, yet they continuously wander away from the sheepfold.

Who then will seek out these wandering and straying sheep and tell them the message of verse 17 to "come out from among them" (ie, the pagans and other infidels) and "be separate" if Paul himself will not proselytize them?

Paul also says that the "ministry of reconciliation" was given to them (ie, the Apostles) and that God "was in Christ, reconciling the world to him" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).  Therefore, as "ambassadors of Christ" he announces to these wandering and straying sheep "BE RECONCILED TO GOD." (v.20).  The entire epistle will not mean anything if these were addressed to the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance."

Therefore, as an "ambassador of Christ" the Apostle Paul considers it his duty to seek out the lost sheep and tell them to be reconciled with God.  That will never happen if he disengages and refuses to listen to them.

 

I find the above explanation to be a rather strained and convoluted attempt to rationalize away the plain meaning of scripture. I wonder if you're not aware of the fact that tha Bible contains many warnings that the saints are to stay away from "evangelizing" apostates in a way exactly similar to Elder Clayton's remarks. Here"s just one of them:

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16)

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Rico said:

Russell,

Here is Flameburns623's description of what I had earlier considered to be "lost sheep" that should not be abandoned:

But his description applies neatly to wolves and wolves in sheep's disguise.  In his words, these seek "to damage or destroy faith wherever it can be injured."  These are not "lost sheep."  These are wolves.  In contrast, rustlers will not harm sheep because they know it has value.  If the sheep are hurt or wounded in the act of stealing, they will take care of them for what they're worth to them.

But wolves think only in terms of their belly.  They don't care what happens to the sheep.  They never think of the damage they do.  In using John 10:12-13, I am using the worst case scenario for the sheep.

And you are misapplying it.

Elder Clayton's advice is to the flock, not the shepherds.

4 hours ago, Rico said:

And that heightens the error of Elder Clayton.  The Good Shepherd had to face wolves while trying to rescue lost sheep.  Elder Clayton thinks that mere avoidance of wolves will do the trick.  He thinks like a hireling;

There is a delicious irony here. You are diligently proselytizing on behalf of the church which, more than any other, has raised the status of hirelings to a quasi-aristocratic caste; Elder Clayton, by contrast, spent many years in unpaid service in the Church before he was called to abandon his nets and follow the Lord by entering full-time Church service.

Elder Clayton is telling the flock to avoid the wolves. He's not telling the shepherds to flee.

As you know, because you so bitterly denounced him for so doing, there was a recent high-profile case of a wise spiritual shepherd confronting one of those wolves.

And in the end it was the wolf who fled.

4 hours ago, Rico said:

he is badly mistaken.  The wolves are smarter than him.

If you include yourself in that group, I suspect it is you who is mistaken.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

There is a delicious irony here. You are diligently proselytizing on behalf of the church which, more than any other, has raised the status of hirelings to a quasi-aristocratic caste; Elder Clayton, by contrast, spent many years in unpaid service in the Church before he was called to abandon his nets and follow the Lord by entering full-time Church service.

 

Also deliciously ironic is the fact Elder Clayton admonishes the BYU graduating class to "disconnect" from the proselytizing efforts of others.

Of course, LDS proselytizing efforts to convert non-Mormons are A-OK.

As with many things Mormon, there is an obvious double standard at play.

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I do agree that it goes both ways.  It is not easy to learn to talk respectfully to those with whom we differ.  I guess the hardest thing for me to get across is that I don't want my active friends to leave the church if they are happy and feel that is the right place for them.  At the same time I want to knock down barriers that have them seeing me as some kind of Satanic apostate that wants them to do evil or something.  I think most ex lds are as committed to living good, healthy, productive, lives as lds.  

I recently went to a Sunstone event over here in Birmingham UK and so loved sitting with both active LDS, inactive, C of C, scholars and interested parties. We ate together, sat together, enjoyed each other's company.  I was in heaven.  Dehlin gave a talk which was very loving to people who stay in the faith, and basically advised those who left to be tactful and not try to lead anyone out of the church.  It would just cause barriers and hurt.  So, I continue to be amazed and befuddled by those who call him anti-mormon.  He loves Mormonism.  

You so speak for me!  I hear you.  Sometimes I think if we could all get together and take the word religion out of the vocabulary, we would have so many great friends.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You so speak for me!  I hear you.  Sometimes I think if we could all get together and take the word religion out of the vocabulary, we would have so many great friends.

I have taken Elder Clayton's advice to heart and have been busy "disconnecting" today from a son, a daughter, and several friends.

I never said it would be easy . . .

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I have taken Elder Clayton's advice to heart and have been busy "disconnecting" today from a son, a daughter, and several friends.

I never said it would be easy . . .

And you know what?  Some good missionaries are going to show up at an answered door.  When someone converts, in all likely hood, this person will lose a part of family.  Time to put family first consig. 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And you know what?  Some good missionaries are going to show up at an answered door.  When someone converts, in all likely hood, this person will lose a part of family.  Time to put family first consig. 

Ummm, you do know I was joking, don't you?

But what I have actually been doing is contacting the above referenced people and asking them if they have heard about Elder Clayton's recent BYU commencement address.

They invariably ask me what he said.

To which I respond: "Let me put it to you this way.  You shouldn't even be talking to me!"

 

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Ummm, you do know I was joking, don't you?

But what I have actually been doing is contacting the above referenced people and asking them if they have heard about Elder Clayton's recent BYU commencement address.

They invariably ask me what he said.

To which I respond: "Let me put it to you this way.  You shouldn't even be talking to me!"

 

I did know you were joking.  But it is real to so many families.  What you and I have done here is walked in other people's shoes for  a moment.

[canard78]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Ummm, you do know I was joking, don't you?

But what I have actually been doing is contacting the above referenced people and asking them if they have heard about Elder Clayton's recent BYU commencement address.

They invariably ask me what he said.

To which I respond: "Let me put it to you this way.  You shouldn't even be talking to me!"

 

Why? Are you proselytising them? If you're not then they've got nothing to disconnect from.

I know you were joking and had a winky and all... But I'm just saying that he hasn't advised them to disconnect from you. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Why? Are you proselytising them? If you're not then they've got nothing to disconnect from.

I know you were joking and had a winky and all... But I'm just saying that he hasn't advised them to disconnect from you. 

I think it's the interpretation of what was meant by "proselytizing" (we make proper use of the letter "z" here in the States...) that is the source of much of the argument in this thread.

Edited April 27, 2016 by ttribe

[Russell C McGregor]

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Also deliciously ironic is the fact Elder Clayton admonishes the BYU graduating class to "disconnect" from the proselytizing efforts of others.

Thank you for admitting that he wasn't telling anyone to disconnect from family or friends.

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Of course, LDS proselytizing efforts to convert non-Mormons are A-OK.

As I'm sure you know, LDS proselytizing efforts don't involve attacking or debunking the beliefs of others.

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

As with many things Mormon, there is an obvious double standard at play.

You're right; there is.

But it's the critics who are embracing it.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Ummm, you do know I was joking, don't you?

But what I have actually been doing is contacting the above referenced people and asking them if they have heard about Elder Clayton's recent BYU commencement address.

They invariably ask me what he said.

To which I respond: "Let me put it to you this way.  You shouldn't even be talking to me!"

 

And in so saying, you are not being truthful.

Does that mean you are "joking?"

 

[canard78]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think it's the interpretation of what was meant by "proselytizing" (we make proper use of the letter "z" here in the States...) that is the source of much of the argument in this thread.

You've got the language on loan. I'll be spelling it the way it was intended

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And in so saying, you are not being truthful.

Does that mean you are "joking?"

 

I love the way you have this thing for me, Russ.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, canard78 said:

You've got the language on loan. I'll be spelling it the way it was intended

  Good one!

I spoke on the topic of employee theft at a conference in London last year and used that same joke (about the proper use of "z") when referring to one of my slides; the audience chuckled.

BTW, I absolutely fell in love with London.  Love.It.

[flameburns623]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And you are misapplying it.

Elder Clayton's advice is to the flock, not the shepherds.

There is a delicious irony here. You are diligently proselytizing on behalf of the church which, more than any other, has raised the status of hirelings to a quasi-aristocratic caste; Elder Clayton, by contrast, spent many years in unpaid service in the Church before he was called to abandon his nets and follow the Lord by entering full-time Church service.

Elder Clayton is telling the flock to avoid the wolves. He's not telling the shepherds to flee.

As you know, because you so bitterly denounced him for so doing, there was a recent high-profile case of a wise spiritual shepherd confronting one of those wolves.

And in the end it was the wolf who fled.

If you include yourself in that group, I suspect it is you who is mistaken.

The general principle applied in the Roman Catholic Church until the apostasy of the Second Vatican Council was this: certain people are indeed called to philosophy or to apologetics, and those who are troubled by specific questions may have to seek such faithful Catholic intellectuals to attain answersl to such difficulties.

In general, however, lay Catholics were traditionally forbidden to read material harmful to faith or to associate with people known to be deliberately hostile to Catholicism, except in matters not involving the Faith, as their situation in life might require.

Thus the Index of Prohibited Books, for example.

As well the Catholic system of reviewing and rating movies, common in national and Diocesan newspapers until the 1970's, designed to steer Catholics away from cultural influences deemed toxic to a simple faith.

Per the Baltimore Catechism:

 Does the sixth Commandment forbid the reading of bad and immodest books and newspapers?

A. The sixth Commandment does forbid the reading of bad and immodest books and newspapers.

Q. 1287. What should be done with immodest book and newspapers?

A. Immodest books and newspapers should be destroyed as soon as possible, and if we cannot destroy them ourselves we should induce their owners to do so.

Q. 1288. What books does the Church consider bad?

A. The Church considers bad all books containing teaching contrary to faith or morals, or that willfully misrepresent Catholic doctrine and practice.

Q. 1289. What places are dangerous to the virtue of purity?

A. Indecent theaters and similar places of amusement are dangerous to the virtue of purity, because their entertainments are frequently intended to suggest immodest things.

I see Elder Clayton's remarks along much the same line.

Edited April 28, 2016 by flameburns623
Typo/fragmented sentence/additional comment.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

If you include yourself in that group, I suspect it is you who is mistaken.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Also deliciously ironic is the fact Elder Clayton admonishes the BYU graduating class to "disconnect" from the proselytizing efforts of others.

Of course, LDS proselytizing efforts to convert non-Mormons are A-OK.

As with many things Mormon, there is an obvious double standard at play.

And if they want to disconnect from the missionaries they can. Many did to me.

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

[ladyshanae]

I compare ittoo family gatherings and the discussion of politics. My dad and one of my brothers are fairly conservative, my other brother is much more liberal. When political discussions go from discussion to heated debate I either leave the room or change the subject (often to varieties of cheese which is now a family joke). I disconnect when it becomes contentious instead of valuable dialogue. I do the same with religion (depending on who I'm speaking with). I really don't think it's a big deal to disconnect from it if it only causes contention.

[Abulafia]

18 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I find the above explanation to be a rather strained and convoluted attempt to rationalize away the plain meaning of scripture. I wonder if you're not aware of the fact that tha Bible contains many warnings that the saints are to stay away from "evangelizing" apostates in a way exactly similar to Elder Clayton's remarks. Here"s just one of them:

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16)

 

 

 

 

The big problem I have with you quoting Romans 16 here is that the early christian communities were full of division.  For Paul, I think the extent of the application of the Law to Gentiles was a hot button topic.  The Christian community in Rome was quite well established even if some of them had been thrown out along with mainstream Jews at some point.   This isn't a community that Paul established but probably included people he knew personally.

Look, Paul differs with James and Peter if you take Galatians as the source rather than the valuable but less reliable (on Paul) Acts.  You have the  circumcision group, the baptist group, the more liberal Jewish group (Peter), the low christology group, the high christology group.   It's like Mormonism after the death of Joseph Smith.  Everything is in a state of flux.   

So Paul's apostates are not necessarily James or Peter's apostates.  It's more complex imho.

[Abulafia]

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

Quote

Chapter 15:1  " We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves"

Quote

Chapter 14:1 " Welcome those who are weak in faith"
 

Quote

Chapter 14:10 "Why do you pass judgement on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God"