L. Whitney Clayton Warns BYU grads to Disconnect from proselyting efforts of those who have lost their faith.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I think this advice is applicable here in this thread:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5225922-155/kirby-dont-let-your-mormon-children

"The solution is not to keep our kids in but rather to get out more often ourselves. If you are hiding your children behind the skirts of your religion, chances are that you're missing its point....

"As stupid as this sounds, there is a smidgen of logic to it. Hey, if you allow your children to play only with the children of those who profess the same ideals you have, chances of their encountering negative influences is reduced, right?

"Well, no, not really. Today I sit next to business editor Mike Gorrell at The Salt Lake Tribune. Judging from the pictures on our desks, Mike's kids are almost as cute as my grandkids."

Ehhh. Just so much feel-good simplistic progressive blather. Chances are better that this is a load of horse puckey.

We wish that we had hidden two sons behind the skirts of our religion a little better. We blithely trusted that the families of some of their non-LDS friends were just good folks who weren't Mormons. At least on the surface, they were. They introduced one of them to the wonders of pornography, alcohol, marijuana, and a wide variety of mind-opening drugs. He shared these marvels and a big dose of internet anti-Mormon literature with his brother. By the time we figured out what was going on it was too late.

Now over 20 [EDIT.... 10 years...it just seems like 20] years later and a lot of grief and money, he wanders all over North America on freight trains, bums food at Walmart entrances or dives in restaurant dumpsters, has been in multiple emergency rooms on the brink of death with MERSA, and has a rather permanent relationship with vodka. The other sits in a haze of marijuana smoke and beer and hasn't a clue what to do with his life. Both have withdrawn their Church membership and blame it for all their problems.

 It's not been fun or easy. In fact sometimes it's been terrifying, but we still hope and pray that some day someone will come into their lives who can help them. In the mean time, it's hard not to think about the awful things that could happen. In fact, just a few seconds of thinking about this can put one in a very dark place. I once asked an LDS friend with a sadly similar story who lost two sons to heroin overdoses if it were better now that they were gone to the other side. I'll let you guess what her answer was. Do she and we wish we could have hidden them behind our skirts? You decide.

Yeah, chances are really good that article is a load of horse puckey.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I am unfamiliar with anyone who has done this...plus surely the church truth claims can withstand this kind of examination right?

Interesting. I meet in a fairly large support group of faithful Mormons who are subjected to this by loved ones who are in addiction and/or have left the Church, and are creating havoc in their families. There are probably groups like this in your area. Most people are reluctant to let this be known even to family members. I lost that fear years ago. It has nothing to do with examining the truth of the Church. I wish it were that easy.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

And the smug, sly demon whispered in Jesus' ear, "surely your God will save you, jump off the cliff".  Then the demon whispered cunningly, "You are the Son of God, angels will come to your aid, surely you are strong enough?"

Then God's son looked upon the Adversary and said, "You and your whisperings and evil temptations and smug preenings; you are evil".  In response, the Devil stamped his foot, tore his clothes, and screamed to the heavens, "He called me a name and hurt my feelings!  Surely God you will stop this harsh attack on my sincere, loving approach to your son?!?"  

I sat back and laughed and saw how simple the workings of the Evil one and those influenced by his works.  How long does one have to listen before they are overcome and ensnared by the same devices?  How long does evil feign innocence before it is no longer necessary and their black evilness is admitted?  Whatever the answer it is evident that the Devil ensnares many.  

What is the answer?  Pray, read your scriptures, and for what it is worth, stop listening and entertaining the evil whisperings we see and hear all the time.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

And the smug, sly demon whispered in Jesus' ear, "surely your God will save you, jump off the cliff".  Then the demon whispered cunningly, "You are the Son of God, angels will come to your aid, surely you are strong enough?"

Then God's son looked upon the Adversary and said, "You and your whisperings and evil temptations and smug preenings; you are evil".  In response, the Devil stamped his foot, tore his clothes, and screamed to the heavens, "He called me a name and hurt my feelings!  Surely God you will stop this harsh attack on my sincere, loving approach to your son?!?"  

I sat back and laughed and saw how simple the workings of the Evil one and those influenced by his works.  How long does one have to listen before they are overcome and ensnared by the same devices?  How long does evil feign innocence before it is no longer necessary and their black evilness is admitted?  Whatever the answer it is evident that the Devil ensnares many.  

What is the answer?  Pray, read your scriptures, and for what it is worth, stop listening and entertaining the evil whisperings we see and hear all the time.  

Excellent sentiments. It's not a game. It's life and death. The pioneers wisely circled the wagons when physical threats appeared. When we try to circle our wagons against modern threats we get mocked and ridiculed. "I'm no devil. There is no devil," just closed-minded religious crazies who invented him to control their children.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I am unfamiliar with anyone who has done this...plus surely the church truth claims can withstand this kind of examination right?

My conviction that the earth is (roughly) a sphere can withstand examination but it is a waste of time and patience to allow every flat-earther to examine the evidence through interviews with me, spend time listening to their drivel, etc. If a flat-earther sought aggressively to challenge me as many anti-mormons I have known do I would give them the same treatment. I would avoid interaction. It is not a question of the strength of my convictions. I just want to retain my sanity by avoiding their continuing inane harangues.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Context being important, I am again quoting the section dealing with 'those who are lost' (I and others have done partial quotes, iirc at least Tacenda has done a full quote of this section of his talk and I am using her link above, this is not an official transcript so it may not be accurate, I probably should check it...add-on:  I would debate some punctuation choices, spelling of names is wrong, but the text is accurate from what I heard; the time was 2 1/2 minutes out of a 20 minute talk):

He has plenty of identifying description in this section so we don't have to guess who he means when he says "assertive apostates".

He first starts out identifying a group of individuals that we may have connections to as:

"some who cease to hold fast to the iron rod wandered off the straight and narrow path, and have become lost"

He then explains how they may have become that way with

1) "started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless",

2) "failing to earnestly study" BoM, 

3) "lax in keeping other commandments",

4) "listening and then harkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history".

These are not automatically the "faithless" in my view, but are those who have taken tours into the "territory of the faithless" and lost their way, which may or may not mean they have lost all their faith and thus are faithless.  It is possible that he sees this group as including those who are experiencing significant doubt, who have given into temptation, but are still searching to get back on the path because they have some faith remaining.  It is also possible that he sees them as the "faithless", disbelievers that have set their foot on another path and are no longer wandering directionless, I can see that interpretation as a valid possibility, but I do not believe he includes all of the above lost due to letting go of the iron rod in the behavior of the group he now moves on to talk about.

He focuses next on the subset group of "faithless" who now:

1) "[O]ften promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naivety", 

2) Are "assertive apostates" who parallel "the Corihors [sic] and Nehors and Sharoms [sic] of The Book of Mormon" (this isn't just about confidence, Korihor, Nehor, and Sherem were much more than just confident exbelievers),

3) Are engaged in "proselytizing efforts".  This is the defining characteristic shared by Korihor, Nehor, and Sherem, they were missionaries for their own causes.  They placed themselves as teachers and leaders.

And then he states what we should do:

"We should disconnect immediately and completely from listening to the proselytizing efforts"

And "voluntarily chose to bind ourselves instead to God"

Then he sums up the result as "our choosing to bind or connect with Heaven frees and empowers us to become all that we possibly can in this life and the next through the atonement of Jesus Christ."

Nothing in the above (the only section in the talk that deals with this issue) suggests we should disconnect in every which way with assertive apostates who proselytize their disbelief, only that we should avoid listening to proselytizing of false beliefs.

To ignore his precise descriptions and claim he is talking about any confident exbeliever is a misrepresentation of his words.

For those who view his words as too negative an impression to leave, he goes on for the next several minutes to discuss positive connections.  The final paragraph summarizes the purpose of the talk and the overall emphasis on loving God and loving one's neighbour:

 

Do you think questioners on this site constitute Elder Clayton's "assertive apostates?"

[Okrahomer]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. I meet in a fairly large support group of faithful Mormons who are subjected to this by loved ones who are in additiction and/or have left the Church,  and are creating havoc in their families. There are probably groups like this in your area. Most people are reluctant to let this be known even to family members. I lost that fear years  ago. It has nothing to do with examining the Church. I wish it were that easy.

If folks are dealing with anything like this, it's no wonder they would need support.  I wonder how many alcoholics these people have created with their "Liquor 101" classes?

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think questioners on this site constitute Elder Clayton's "assertive apostates?"

What does that have to do with understanding Elder Clayton's comments?

Would you explain what you are trying to achieve by asking this question, please.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

What does that have to do with understanding Elder Clayton's comments?

Would you explain what you are trying to achieve by asking this question, please.

What's a real world example of the kind of assertive apostate Elder Clayton speaks about in your opinion? Is it someone who questions the church on a site like this? Is it something more? Less? Elder Clayton didn't give any real world examples thereby leaving it up to the reader to interpret "assertive apostate" for themselves. I just wanted to know your opinion since you took so much time in explaning the talk. I thought you had an idea of a real world example and maybe could share?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/29/2017 at 11:40 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a senior president of the LDS Church's Quorums of the Seventy, was the school's featured commencement speaker. 

In his commencement address he offered the following council 

"The faithless often promote themselves as the wise, who can rescue the rest of us from our naivete," Clayton said. "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."

All I can say is Wow...unbelievable...I am so disappointed in his message...was he who President Uchtdorf had in mind when he counciled members of the church to avoid messages of fear in the last GC?

The poster Freedom challenged me to find messages of fear.  Despite having been given at BYU graduation 2016, it is a message of fear of "others" and a lack of confidence in the strength of the LDS message to prevail in the market place of ideas.

There is no doubt that the LDS message can hold its own in the free marketplace of ideas, but it is doubtful that any and every BYU student or grad is actually capable of carrying on a debate with any apostate.  This is not so much a message of fear as it is good counsel to avoid the flimflam man.  A known liar may portray himself as simply being such a nice, honest guy who wants to help, all the while inveigling himself into our trust, baiting the hook and then delivering the coup de grâce.

council is a group (noun)

counsel is an action (verb)

Edited May 1, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

PA, I think the accurate phrasing of who he was talking about is "assertive apostate who proselytes".

This site invites people to discuss, so while I think on occasion we get proselyters of all stripes, I don't assume the pushing of their theories and beliefs automatically occurs in other types of relationships.  So I don't generally make such judgments based solely on behaviour here.  

I think Elder Clayton was quite precise, as demonstrated by my analysis.

As to a real world example, I have seen a father who not only browbeated his wife by his own description into reading anti material in an effort to convince her that he was right in believing the Church was a fraud, but when he had custody of his children would encourage them to experiment outside of the standards of the Church in terms of the WoW and chastity, contrary to his wife's wishes and possibly contrary to his children's.

Another real world example I have heard reported is a believing wife who required her husband to act as a believer, paying tithing, going to church, saying family prayers, going to the temple etc. with the threat of divorce if he acted on his own beliefs in his personal life.

I have seen a husband tell his wife she was stupid to believe and call her a bigot and racist based solely on her faith in the Church, trying to shame her into accepting her faith was wrong and going to functions where she was uncomfortable because of drunkenness.

I have read on exmormon sites requests on how to manipulate family situations into confrontations while appearing to be the victim as well as attempting to force family members to cut off contact with the Church.  

I have heard of grandparents taking grandkids to church and even having grandkids baptized without permission of parents (the latter in the past, I hope the procedures prevent this now).

I find all such approaches highly problematic.  However, extreme examples are easier to judge.  I would have to be in most other situations to see how much pressure is bought to bear or how much insistence there is on bringing up issues before drawing a conclusion there.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

PA, I think the accurate phrasing of who he was talking about is "assertive apostate who proselytes".

This site invites people to discuss, so while I think on occasion we get proselyters of all stripes, I don't assume the pushing of their theories and beliefs automatically occurs in other types of relationships.  So I don't generally make such judgments based solely on behaviour here.  

I think Elder Clayton was quite precise, as demonstrated by my analysis.

As to a real world example, I have seen a father who not only browbeated his wife by his own description into reading anti material in an effort to convince her that he was right in believing the Church was a fraud, but when he had custody of his children would encourage them to experiment outside of the standards of the Church in terms of the WoW and chastity, contrary to his wife's wishes and possibly contrary to his children's.

Another real world example I have heard reported is a believing wife who required her husband to act as a believer, paying tithing, going to church, saying family prayers, going to the temple etc. with the threat of divorce if he acted on his own beliefs in his personal life.

I have seen a husband tell his wife she was stupid to believe and call her a bigot and racist based solely on her faith in the Church, trying to shame her into accepting her faith was wrong.

I have read on exmormon sites requests on how to manipulate family situations into confrontations Hale appearing to be the victim as well as attempting to force family members to cut off contact with the Church.  

I have heard of grandparents taking grandkids to church and even having grandkids baptized without permission of parents ((thein the past, I hope the procedures prevent this now).

I find all such approaches highly problematic.  However, extreme examples are easier to judge.  I would have to be in most other situations to see how much pressure is bought to bear or how much insistence there is on bringing up issues before drawing a conclusion there.

I agree that it's hard to apply the advice in the close case as the line is pretty grey. I don't want to push people away who question, that I care about, but they have to respect beliefs as well.  As for the extreme cases you cite, do you think it is caused by a misapplication of priorities of church over family?

[Calm]

No, I think in every case I have seen close enough it is screwed up personal or family dynamics that would find something else to fixate on if Church differences weren't handy.

Even the grandparents...it is a control issue, imo.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Context being important, I am again quoting the section dealing with 'those who are lost' (I and others have done partial quotes, iirc at least Tacenda has done a full quote of this section of his talk and I am using her link above, this is not an official transcript so it may not be accurate, I probably should check it...add-on:  I would debate some punctuation choices, spelling of names is wrong, but the text is accurate from what I heard; the time was 2 1/2 minutes out of a 20 minute talk):

He has plenty of identifying description in this section so we don't have to guess who he means when he says "assertive apostates".

He first starts out identifying a group of individuals that we may have connections to as:

"some who cease to hold fast to the iron rod wandered off the straight and narrow path, and have become lost"

He then explains how they may have become that way with

1) "started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless",

2) "failing to earnestly study" BoM, 

3) "lax in keeping other commandments",

4) "listening and then harkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history".

These are not automatically the "faithless" in my view, but are those who have taken tours into the "territory of the faithless" and lost their way, which may or may not mean they have lost all their faith and thus are faithless.  It is possible that he sees this group as including those who are experiencing significant doubt, who have given into temptation, but are still searching to get back on the path because they have some faith remaining.  It is also possible that he sees them as the "faithless", disbelievers that have set their foot on another path and are no longer wandering directionless, I can see that interpretation as a valid possibility, but I do not believe he includes all of the above lost due to letting go of the iron rod in the behavior of the group he now moves on to talk about.

He focuses next on the subset group of "faithless" who now:

1) "[O]ften promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naivety", 

2) Are "assertive apostates" who parallel "the Corihors [sic] and Nehors and Sharoms [sic] of The Book of Mormon" (this isn't just about confidence, Korihor, Nehor, and Sherem were much more than just confident exbelievers),

3) Are engaged in "proselytizing efforts".  This is the defining characteristic shared by Korihor, Nehor, and Sherem, they were missionaries for their own causes.  They placed themselves as teachers and leaders.

And then he states what we should do:

"We should disconnect immediately and completely from listening to the proselytizing efforts"

And "voluntarily chose to bind ourselves instead to God"

Then he sums up the result as "our choosing to bind or connect with Heaven frees and empowers us to become all that we possibly can in this life and the next through the atonement of Jesus Christ."

Nothing in the above (the only section in the talk that deals with this issue) suggests we should disconnect in every which way with assertive apostates who proselytize their disbelief, only that we should avoid listening to proselytizing of false beliefs.

To ignore his precise descriptions and claim he is talking about any confident exbeliever is a misrepresentation of his words.

For those who view his words as too negative an impression to leave, he goes on for the next several minutes to discuss positive connections.  The final paragraph summarizes the purpose of the talk and the overall emphasis on loving God and loving one's neighbour:

 

I think it is important to take a step back and ask yourself why he even gave this talk.  In my opinion, this is a talk designed to stop the "faith crisis" bleeding.  It seems everyone knows someone who has left the church because of a lack of trust in what the church has told them in the past.  I think few would argue with that.  He is addressing to BYU graduates what he thinks will stop any of them from leaving.  Just look at what steps he outlines as you quoted.

He then explains how they may have become that way with

1) "started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless",

He is saying what causes the problem is by trying to find out if what members are hearing is true and discovering that what the church has been using as the narrative for decades is not really what happened.  This is a big problem for many people within the church.  They trusted that what they were being told was true.  Sometimes it was not.  So for him, the advice is to never go online and see for yourself so that you can weigh the facts for yourself.

2) "failing to earnestly study" BoM, 

He is faulting those that have lost faith in what the leaders of the church have told them is because they didn't read enough of the BoM.  How does he know this?  He wants their faith crisis to be their fault and not the church's fault for not quite being forthright in accurately portraying it's history.

3) "lax in keeping other commandments",

Again he is painting those that have had a faith crisis as being at fault.  They must have sinned to come to their conclusions.  Again he wants their faith crisis to be their fault and not the church's.

4) "listening and then harkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history".

If they just hadn't listened to those outside the church and only listened to church leaders and the narrative that they have taught, then they wouldn't have left.  Of course for many the reason they left is because what church leaders were telling them was not really accurate.  Is it mocking the church, it's leaders or it's history to find out Joseph Smith was going around behind Emma's back marrying 14 year old girls by promising her family salvation?  Or all the other things that are causing people to have doubts?  

So his solution to keep people from leaving the church is to disengage with anyone who might change the narrative that the church is giving.  Just walk away from them if necessary.  

Clearly this faith crisis thing is a real problem for the church.  How else is the church suppose to stop loosing so many members? If you were a general authority, what would you suggest doing?  This talk is his best attempt.  

It is hard to justify shunning someone in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Anyone.   I agree you don't have to listen to what anyone says, including former members, if you don't want to.  But I think there should always be a hand of love and respect for everyone, even those that have left the church.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

If folks are dealing with anything like this, it's no wonder they would need support.  I wonder how many alcoholics these people have created with their "Liquor 101" classes?

It's interesting that drinking alcohol is one of the first things many of our group members' loved ones start doing. I believe it has two purposes...self-medication and sticking a thumb in the Church/family eye. They express pride in flaunting it, say how good it makes them feel, and in some cases challenge family members to join with them in having a drink just to see how it feels and to see for themselves it is harmless and how stupid the rules are. Many times marijuana is the point of departure, with the same excuses, pride, pleadings, and invitations. It's so sad.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What's a real world example of the kind of assertive apostate Elder Clayton speaks about in your opinion? Is it someone who questions the church on a site like this? Is it something more? Less? Elder Clayton didn't give any real world examples thereby leaving it up to the reader to interpret "assertive apostate" for themselves. I just wanted to know your opinion since you took so much time in explaning the talk. I thought you had an idea of a real world example and maybe could share?

 

See the link in Okrahomer's post two seps above yours. A couple of wacky exmos with ani-LDS pass along cards and Drinking 101 classes to help former Mormons learn how to hold their liquor. Anyone look like that here? Don't think so.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is hard to justify shunning someone in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Anyone.   I agree you don't have to listen to what anyone says, including former members, if you don't want to.  But I think there should always be a hand of love and respect for everyone, even those that have left the church.

And that is what most family members I know want. Both sides have to learn to set appropriate and enforceable boundaries. I have observed that it is most often the leaver that shuns the family unless they accede to his/her demands. Very seldom do they treat their loved ones with love or respect. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I agree that it's hard to apply the advice in the close case as the line is pretty grey. I don't want to push people away who question, that I care about, but they have to respect beliefs as well.  As for the extreme cases you cite, do you think it is caused by a misapplication of priorities of church over family?

I am less sure the line is that grey from the inside...it is the other you love and respect that should dictate when you are crossing their boundaries, not yourself... just as one can usually figure out pretty easily when someone is crossing boundaries for one from what I have see  and hopefully they will also show love and respect by backing up till at comfortable equilibrium relationships.

As an observer looking on, it can get difficult, especially if there are borderlines or sociopaths or narcissists or others who use manipulation well and who are good at convincing the other they are in the wrong byusing mind and guilt games on them while often appear to be clueless they are engaged in the very behaviour they are projecting on others.

I think things start to go wrong fast when you (speaking in general) assume you have the right to dictate to the other their comfort level because you think you know better what is good for them, that  they need to be pushed out of their comfort zones, etc....generally that is arrogance and delusion.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is important to take a step back and ask yourself why he even gave this talk.  In my opinion, this is a talk designed to stop the "faith crisis" bleeding.  It seems everyone knows someone who has left the church because of a lack of trust in what the church has told them in the past.  I think few would argue with that.  He is addressing to BYU graduates what he thinks will stop any of them from leaving.  Just look at what steps he outlines as you quoted.

He then explains how they may have become that way with

1) "started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless",

He is saying what causes the problem is by trying to find out if what members are hearing is true and discovering that what the church has been using as the narrative for decades is not really what happened.  This is a big problem for many people within the church.  They trusted that what they were being told was true.  Sometimes it was not.  So for him, the advice is to never go online and see for yourself so that you can weigh the facts for yourself.

2) "failing to earnestly study" BoM, 

He is faulting those that have lost faith in what the leaders of the church have told them is because they didn't read enough of the BoM.  How does he know this?  He wants their faith crisis to be their fault and not the church's fault for not quite being forthright in accurately portraying it's history.

3) "lax in keeping other commandments",

Again he is painting those that have had a faith crisis as being at fault.  They must have sinned to come to their conclusions.  Again he wants their faith crisis to be their fault and not the church's.

4) "listening and then harkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history".

If they just hadn't listened to those outside the church and only listened to church leaders and the narrative that they have taught, then they wouldn't have left.  Of course for many the reason they left is because what church leaders were telling them was not really accurate.  Is it mocking the church, it's leaders or it's history to find out Joseph Smith was going around behind Emma's back marrying 14 year old girls by promising her family salvation?  Or all the other things that are causing people to have doubts?  

So his solution to keep people from leaving the church is to disengage with anyone who might change the narrative that the church is giving.  Just walk away from them if necessary.  

Clearly this faith crisis thing is a real problem for the church.  How else is the church suppose to stop loosing so many members? If you were a general authority, what would you suggest doing?  This talk is his best attempt.  

It is hard to justify shunning someone in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Anyone.   I agree you don't have to listen to what anyone says, including former members, if you don't want to.  But I think there should always be a hand of love and respect for everyone, even those that have left the church.  

Agreed on what I bolded. I don't think they're is anyone here who will disagree.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Rain

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And that is what most family members I know want. Both sides have to learn to set appropriate and enforceable boundaries. I have observed that it is most often the leaver that shuns the family unless they accede to his/her demands. Very seldom do they treat their loved ones with love or respect. 

That is great.  It is all I would expect and I hope all members and those that have left would be ok with that.  Perhaps that was Elder Clayton's intent.  At least I choose to believe that was his intent.

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ehhh. Just so much feel-good simplistic progressive blather. Chances are better that this is a load of horse puckey.

We wish that we had hidden two sons behind the skirts of our religion a little better. We blithely trusted that the families of some of their non-LDS friends were just good folks who weren't Mormons. At least on the surface, they were. They introduced one of them to the wonders of pornography, alcohol, marijuana, and a wide variety of mind-opening drugs. He shared these marvels and a big dose of internet anti-Mormon literature with his brother. By the time we figured out what was going on it was too late.

Now over 20 [EDIT.... 10 years...it just seems like 20] years later and a lot of grief and money, he wanders all over North America on freight trains, bums food at Walmart entrances or dives in restaurant dumpsters, has been in multiple emergency rooms on the brink of death with MERSA, and has a rather permanent relationship with vodka. The other sits in a haze of marijuana smoke and beer and hasn't a clue what to do with his life. Both have withdrawn their Church membership and blame it for all their problems.

 It's not been fun or easy. In fact sometimes it's been terrifying, but we still hope and pray that some day someone will come into their lives who can help them. In the mean time, it's hard not to think about the awful things that could happen. In fact, just a few seconds of thinking about this can put one in a very dark place. I once asked an LDS friend with a sadly similar story who lost two sons to heroin overdoses if it were better now that they were gone to the other side. I'll let you guess what her answer was. Do she and we wish we could have hidden them behind our skirts? You decide.

Yeah, chances are really good that article is a load of horse puckey.

I'm so sorry this is happening to your family. I know what it's like to worry about your loved ones when they are addicted and homeless. 

 

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is important to take a step back and ask yourself why he even gave this talk.  In my opinion, this is a talk designed to stop the "faith crisis" bleeding.  It seems everyone knows someone who has left the church because of a lack of trust in what the church has told them in the past.  I think few would argue with that.  He is addressing to BYU graduates what he thinks will stop any of them from leaving.  Just look at what steps he outlines as you quoted.

He then explains how they may have become that way with

1) "started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless",

He is saying what causes the problem is by trying to find out if what members are hearing is true and discovering that what the church has been using as the narrative for decades is not really what happened.  This is a big problem for many people within the church.  They trusted that what they were being told was true.  Sometimes it was not.  So for him, the advice is to never go online and see for yourself so that you can weigh the facts for yourself.

2) "failing to earnestly study" BoM, 

He is faulting those that have lost faith in what the leaders of the church have told them is because they didn't read enough of the BoM.  How does he know this?  He wants their faith crisis to be their fault and not the church's fault for not quite being forthright in accurately portraying it's history.

3) "lax in keeping other commandments",

Again he is painting those that have had a faith crisis as being at fault.  They must have sinned to come to their conclusions.  Again he wants their faith crisis to be their fault and not the church's.

4) "listening and then harkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history".

If they just hadn't listened to those outside the church and only listened to church leaders and the narrative that they have taught, then they wouldn't have left.  Of course for many the reason they left is because what church leaders were telling them was not really accurate.  Is it mocking the church, it's leaders or it's history to find out Joseph Smith was going around behind Emma's back marrying 14 year old girls by promising her family salvation?  Or all the other things that are causing people to have doubts?  

So his solution to keep people from leaving the church is to disengage with anyone who might change the narrative that the church is giving.  Just walk away from them if necessary.  

Clearly this faith crisis thing is a real problem for the church.  How else is the church suppose to stop loosing so many members? If you were a general authority, what would you suggest doing?  This talk is his best attempt.  

It is hard to justify shunning someone in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Anyone.   I agree you don't have to listen to what anyone says, including former members, if you don't want to.  But I think there should always be a hand of love and respect for everyone, even those that have left the church.  

Cal, I think you know that your responses above are very much based on your personal perspective and other perspectives will easily lead to significantly different conclusions.  The point I am making is that you speak in near absolutes without any acknowledgment for contrary positions; certainly more positive ones.

For example, the counsel regarding reading the Book of Mormon.  When individuals, any individual whether they are LDS or not, consistently reads scripture, particularly the Book of Mormon, they open the doorway to their heart for the the guidance of the Spirit.  Failure to consistently read scripture creates the opposite, which he warns us about.  Is there fault to be laid at our own door as a result of our choices? Of course, we are responsible for our own choices and each choice we make has a corresponding consequence(s).  

I think you are trying too hard to push your agenda, unnecessarily so.  Individuals are responsible for their own choices.  The Church, as a stand-alone entity, is responsible for their choices also.  Our disagreement is in your wanting to exclude individuals from taking responsibility for their own choices.  Trying to make the Church wrong for their choices is not helpful.  Making the Church take responsibility for its past choices is a different, separate matter.

It is not listening that is the problem, but harkening to those who spitefully mock the Church.  I think all of us, including Church leaders, are against having closed minds, yet at the same time we all are aware that some individuals can understand things and some of us cannot - at the present time.  In the same manner we do not provide all information to a young child, a teenager, or an adult in response to every question asked all teachers provide learning in steps by building foundations and then adding more knowledge as the individual is prepared to absorb more complex teachings.  

I don't see why the same process is verboten when learning about God, the early Church, or the Restoration.  

Too often I see the counsel of "love", "respect" used as battering rams against everyone that disagrees with those who want to destroy teachings about God, Jesus Christ, the Body of Christ, or anything having to do with the Christianity or the Church of Jesus Christ.  When people too often use those words when discussing certain topics, a warning light beckons brightly that emotional manipulation is in process. 

To love others does not mean that we accept their sins in the same way that God's love for us does not indicate that he accepts our sin.  God loves, we should love, in spite of our own sins or anyone else's sins.  Respect is a mutual thing - if someone yammers on and on and on about how bad the Church is why should I respect or listen to them?  Why should any member of the Church?  Or any Christian listen to those who only mock Christ, beliefs, or faith?   

[stemelbow]

My view remains the same as the last time we talked about this:

Quote

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

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

and

Clayton says, "The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naiveté"

:

Quote

How disappointing it is that he does not realize the projecting.  Replace faithless, whatever that means, with faithful and it rings true, at least to me and probably to every person ever approached by a member of the Church in Church related discussion.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by stemelbow

[bsjkki]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

It is hard to justify shunning someone in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Anyone.   I agree you don't have to listen to what anyone says, including former members, if you don't want to.  But I think there should always be a hand of love and respect for everyone, even those that have left the church.  

You nailed it.

 

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

  7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And that is what most family members I know want. Both sides have to learn to set appropriate and enforceable boundaries. I have observed that it is most often the leaver that shuns the family unless they accede to his/her demands. Very seldom do they treat their loved ones with love or respect. 

When a child first leaves the church, this is where a lot of the struggle comes. It can take some time to work out these boundaries, especially when younger siblings are still at home. I have heard many times a child ask when their parents will accept them for who they are. Parents struggle with accepting but not embracing lifestyles they do not agree with.

I would appreciated it if the swearing could be held in check in my home around the younger sibling but this seems to be asking too much. 

Finding compromise is tricky. For college graduation my child insists on having beer on hand for friends at her party. We moved the party from my home to a park and I am still a little worried about these two worlds occupying the same picnic shelter. This is not easy.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So you disagree with him- so what??  I disagree with the Pope but I don't go on Catholic boards to rant about it.  Heck I disagree with this talk too, so what?  Water off a duck's back.  Such is life- surprise!  There's someone wrong on the internet!!

It's like road rage.  Get over it and move on- it's not healthy for you or anyone else.  The bottom line is no one here really cares- you have not converted anyone and essentially your hobby is putting out negative energy, and I see that as a waste.  Go find something positive to do with your life

- Your Therapist.

 

I would expect this kind of rhetorical reprove from others on the board but coming from you was surprising I must say... maybe I've overstayed my welcome