The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_charity]

Will was talking about those who are only ex-mo's in their hearts. On the outside, they are still active members. Attending Church , etc. That is the group I was referring to, of course. Don't be so paranoid.

There's no such animal. It's like being a little bit pregnant. People are either exmos, or they aren't. If they're still participating on some level, they're not exmos.

Just like people who haven't been baptized aren't really "Mormons," if they're just Mormons in their heart. They have to be baptized and on church rolls to actually be LDS.

The people Will is talking about are struggling members, which probably accounts for a greater percentage of the membership than you realize.

I do like to be precise. A person who has not been baptized is not LDS, but there is a term called "instant Mormon." Just add water. They have done everything but make the final committment. And conversely, thee are people who have left the Church, they no longer believe in the doctrine, they just haven't made the final committment to have their names removed.

I am sure there are people who are struggling with issues. But as long as they are struggling and are headed toward the direction of the Church and not away from it, I hope they stay with the Church. Anyone who is asking questions can still be helped to understand.

I can't speak for Will, but in my own opinion, the person who is no longer asking questions, but who thinks he/she knows it all and believes that all information points away from the Church has become an ex-mo in his/her heart. Then when they teach their "enlightenment" while still a member, they are sheep in wolves clothing and their status should be known. Not as members, but as apostates.

[_the road to hana]

Will was talking about those who are only ex-mo's in their hearts. On the outside, they are still active members. Attending Church , etc. That is the group I was referring to, of course. Don't be so paranoid.

There's no such animal. It's like being a little bit pregnant. People are either exmos, or they aren't. If they're still participating on some level, they're not exmos.

Just like people who haven't been baptized aren't really "Mormons," if they're just Mormons in their heart. They have to be baptized and on church rolls to actually be LDS.

The people Will is talking about are struggling members, which probably accounts for a greater percentage of the membership than you realize.

I do like to be precise. A person who has not been baptized is not LDS, but there is a term called "instant Mormon." Just add water. They have done everything but make the final committment. And conversely, thee are people who have left the Church, they no longer believe in the doctrine, they just haven't made the final committment to have their names removed.

That doesn't apply to harmony, obviously, so lumping her into that category is incorrect.

I am sure there are people who are struggling with issues. But as long as they are struggling and are headed toward the direction of the Church and not away from it, I hope they stay with the Church. Anyone who is asking questions can still be helped to understand.

So rather than trashing those people, why don't you see them as your brothers and sisters, and try to set a good example for them rather than alienating them? Because you see them automatically as the enemy, as a threat to all you believe and hold dear.

I can't speak for Will, but in my own opinion, the person who is no longer asking questions, but who thinks he/she knows it all and believes that all information points away from the Church has become an ex-mo in his/her heart. Then when they teach their "enlightenment" while still a member, they are sheep in wolves clothing and their status should be known. Not as members, but as apostates.

That's no more dangerous than the member who preaches false doctrine thinking they are likewise "enlightened."

A wolf in sheep's clothing would be someone pretending to be a member. harmony is very up front about her status. She doesn't pretend to be anything. She is a member. She has issues with some aspects of church history and teaching. If she were a wolf in sheep's clothing, she wouldn't still have a love for the church and a desire to stay in it. She wouldn't be publicly forthright about her status.

Your own approach seems to more closely mirror those whom Christ chose to criticize in the New Testament, who took up the letter, but not the spirit, of the law and seemed to make it their own business who did and did not adhere to those laws correctly.

[_Runtu]

I can't speak for Will, but in my own opinion, the person who is no longer asking questions, but who thinks he/she knows it all and believes that all information points away from the Church has become an ex-mo in his/her heart. Then when they teach their "enlightenment" while still a member, they are sheep in wolves clothing and their status should be known. Not as members, but as apostates.

Just out of curiosity, do you agree with Will's assessment of us former believers as being shallow, lacking in discernment, and motivated to disbelieve? He said we were just looking hard for an excuse to leave. Do you see us that way as well?

[_charity]

And I have posted my real name many times. Chris Smith mentioned just last night that I can't be called anonymous because everyone knows my name is John Williams. It's no secret, and you don't have to ask your friend.

Right, runtu. We are not anonymous. That was my point. So what we say can be attributed to us. And for good or ill, who we are gives weight to what we say.

Don't you think there are people who listen Simon Southerton as a former bishop and think he knows what he is talking about Book of Mormon DNA? That doesn't mean he is right. He has even said himself he is wrong, but that doesn't seem to dim his little bulb too much. "ooh, a former bishop!" and the unsophisticated are impressed.

That is why a person masquerading as still a believer is more dangerous than the open apostate. amd the open apostate claiming insider status more credible than the anti-Mormon who never was LDS.

[_silentkid]

This is the best paragraph from Will:

When and if I can identify them in my stake, I will work to expose, confront, and discredit them in every way possible. Some may feel that we should continue to embrace and attempt to fellowship everyone who desires to enter our chapels and classrooms. I generally agree with that approach, but I have come to recognize certain important exceptions to that general rule. They are a new player on the stage; a new threat to be recognized: The passive-aggressive apostate, epitomized by so many who post on this board and similar places in cyberspace, is an enemy to the Church that needs to be identified and combated with all of the resources we can bring to bear on the malignancy they constitute.

Apostates beware! Will is on the rampage!

Thanks for posting that, WK (and for the OP runtu). This is, by far, one of the funniest things I have read on this message board. Is he serious? Expose, confront, discredit, new threat, passive-aggressive apostate, enemy to the Church, combated, malignancy...this has to be parody. Pure comedy. Genius.

[_Who Knows]

Don't you think there are people who listen Simon Southerton as a former bishop and think he knows what he is talking about Book of Mormon DNA?

No, they think he knows what he's talking about because he's a molecular biologist.

That doesn't mean he is right. He has even said himself he is wrong...

What are you referring to here? Where has he said he is wrong, what was he referring to?

[_the road to hana]

This is the best paragraph from Will:

When and if I can identify them in my stake, I will work to expose, confront, and discredit them in every way possible. Some may feel that we should continue to embrace and attempt to fellowship everyone who desires to enter our chapels and classrooms. I generally agree with that approach, but I have come to recognize certain important exceptions to that general rule. They are a new player on the stage; a new threat to be recognized: The passive-aggressive apostate, epitomized by so many who post on this board and similar places in cyberspace, is an enemy to the Church that needs to be identified and combated with all of the resources we can bring to bear on the malignancy they constitute.

Apostates beware! Will is on the rampage!

Thanks for posting that, WK (and for the OP runtu). This is, by far, one of the funniest things I have read on this message board. Is he serious? Expose, confront, discredit, new threat, passive-aggressive apostate, enemy to the Church, combated, malignancy...this has to be parody. Pure comedy. Genius.

And how exactly does Will intend to identify those slackers? Are they sitting on the back row fiddling with their Blackberries while the Sacrament is being passed? Opening their eyes during prayers? Snickering at testimonies? Leaving graffiti on the chalkboards in Gospel Doctrine class?

Or is it just that they are wearing colored shirts instead of white ones?

[_charity]

I am sure there are people who are struggling with issues. But as long as they are struggling and are headed toward the direction of the Church and not away from it, I hope they stay with the Church. Anyone who is asking questions can still be helped to understand.

So rather than trashing those people, why don't you see them as your brothers and sisters, and try to set a good example for them rather than alienating them? Because you see them automatically as the enemy, as a threat to all you believe and hold dear.

The ones who are hiding their real attitudes, the ones who are pretending to be someting they aren't, don't threaten all I believe and hold dear. They can't threaten me. But they are attacking the Church and damaging others. They aren't my enemy. They are an enemy to God.

I can't speak for Will, but in my own opinion, the person who is no longer asking questions, but who thinks he/she knows it all and believes that all information points away from the Church has become an ex-mo in his/her heart. Then when they teach their "enlightenment" while still a member, they are sheep in wolves clothing and their status should be known. Not as members, but as apostates.

That's no more dangerous than the member who preaches false doctrine thinking they are likewise "enlightened."

Are you talking about Sister X who is giving a Relief Society lesson and says any woman who works outside the home is a sinner? (And who will immediately be set straight.) Or Brother High Council Speaker who says every word of the Bible is literally true? I don't see that as dangerous. Wrong. but not dangerous.

A wolf in sheep's clothing would be someone pretending to be a member. harmony is very up front about her status. She doesn't pretend to be anything. She is a member. She has issues with some aspects of church history and teaching. If she were a wolf in sheep's clothing, she wouldn't still have a love for the church and a desire to stay in it. She wouldn't be publicly forthright about her status.

Is she public abut her views in her ward? Or just here anonymously? And what would it mean in her ward if she publicly said that she believes Joseph was a fallen prophet? And that his revelation on plural marriage was hogwash. I think her bishop was council her to keep those opinions to herself. And then to sustain the leaders as she says she does, she would have to keep her mouth shut.

Your own approach seems to more closely mirror those whom Christ chose to criticize in the New Testament, who took up the letter, but not the spirit, of the law and seemed to make it their own business who did and did not adhere to those laws correctly.

Your opinion of me is wrong. I am not a judge in Israel. But I have no sympathy with apostates, either those who have formalized their state by resigning, or those who stay and try to pull down from the inside. Destroyers are destroyers. And I think they know who they are. God will judge.

[_Runtu]

Right, runtu. We are not anonymous. That was my point. So what we say can be attributed to us. And for good or ill, who we are gives weight to what we say.

And again, since when does sharing an opinion mean we are "teaching" others? Good heavens, haven't you ever been in Gospel Doctrine class? I've heard the most off-the-wall stuff in Sunday School from people in the class, but I distinguish between their opinions and the stuff that's being taught by the instructor. When a GD instructor spent 2 weeks on the Shroud of Turin, I spoke up. But when the nutjob lady said that if only we parents were less strict then our kids would end up as well-adjusted as her convicted felon pseudoterrorists sons, I just had an interior laugh.

Don't you think there are people who listen Simon Southerton as a former bishop and think he knows what he is talking about Book of Mormon DNA? That doesn't mean he is right. He has even said himself he is wrong, but that doesn't seem to dim his little bulb too much. "ooh, a former bishop!" and the unsophisticated are impressed.

I think people are more impressed by his credentials as a molecular biologist. Have you read his book? Can you share with us what is wrong with it and when he admitted to being wrong? Maybe you should start a thread about Simon's self-professed error. by the way, I know Simon, and he's a good man.

That is why a person masquerading as still a believer is more dangerous than the open apostate. amd the open apostate claiming insider status more credible than the anti-Mormon who never was LDS.

How do you find those masquerading as believers? The gift of discernment? My colleague prides herself on having two major spiritual gifts: discernment and prophecy. She has actually prophesied some things that have come true, oddly enough. But she tells me she can see into a person's soul, yet she hasn't figured out that I am not a believer anymore. I don't talk about church at work (she does, though). So I'm not sure Will's discernment will be of any more value than hers is.

[Guest]

I am not a judge in Israel. But I have no sympathy with apostates, either those who have formalized their state by resigning, or those who stay and try to pull down from the inside. Destroyers are destroyers. And I think they know who they are. God will judge.

You are a destroyer Charity. Do you think your presence here and on other boards is a help or a hindrance to those who question their faith? As I have told you before, you are purely telestial material until you repent. You can't repent until you leave behind your addiction to warring with the unbelievers in the most acrimonious ways.

Every word you write helps the undecideds to see the ridiculousness of the LDS position. You are therefore aiding in the destruction of testimonies. Enjoy your hobby.