The unbelieving Fifth Column

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo Tomasi comes to mind. He has said he is an active member.

True.

But he is as dangerous as they come with some of the things he has said he has done, and the attitudes he has.

How so?

[_Jason Bourne]

Will Schryver posted his rather passionate belief that those of us who don't believe in the church, but who attend for whatever reason, constitute a hidden enemy:

Indeed, I am convinced that many of them continue to lurk in the foyers of our chapels and on the back rows of Priesthood and Relief Society meetings with the express purpose of working from within to sow seeds of doubt; a fifth column dedicated to eroding faith and testimony in as subtle a fashion as possible.

I was going to respond, but alas, I'm out of posts for today over on the other board. But I'll share my response anyway, because I think it illustrates the much-more mundane reality of those of us trying to maintain our sanity within a Mormon construct:

OK, I confess. We meet every Thursday afternoon to plot how to destroy testimonies during this week's 3-hour block. Our meetings usually begin by summoning the evil one, and then we read this week's priesthood and Sunday School lessons to see where we can sow doubt. If one of us is assigned to give a talk, so much the better. Each week we choose a subliminal word to use that will eventually crack even the strongest of testimonies.

Our goal is to get one of us placed as a General Authority. Then we can really wreak some havoc.

So Schryner is a Unber Mormon, a Monolithic Mormon, like some who post here. They have no tolerance for anyone that is not exactly toeing the line like THEY think the line should be toed. They would boot all gays, even if the gay person is living the law of chastity. They would boot anyone who does not have the simplistic I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, Book of Mormon is True, the Church is True and Pres Monson is a living prophet. Anyone who is struggling or questioning or even had concluded that perhaps the Church is really not what they thought, but still desires to worship as a Latter-day Saint and participate should still get the boot. There are many like Will. They are afraid of anything that challenges their little precious world view. Fortunately they don't decide who stays or goes.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo has stated on another board that he would disobey God on any issue he disagrees with Him about, even if God were standing in front of him.

The context was whether I would harm someone (like a child) if commanded by God, and my answer is still "no."

Teaching disobedience to God is a "capital" offense.

It's called agency, darlin'. If recollection serves, God taught it himself in the pre-existence.

[_the road to hana]

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.

Unless and until God gives you personal responsibility to speak on his behalf, I'll take your speaking for him with a bucket of salt.

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.

Go back and read this paragraph again. You've answered your own question.

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.

Does he judge those who leave other religions to become Mormon, and consider them apostates? What about those who leave other religions and then preach the falsehood of those other religions after they become Mormon. Apostates? Or only apostates in the eyes of their former religion. Will they be judged for it?

What makes the difference?

If Joseph Smith left Protestantism and then mocked it in temple ritual, will he be judged for that? Or was that inspired discernment?

I think your notion of people "staying and trying to pull down from the inside" is, to use your recently favored word, paranoid. To do that, someone would effectively have to climb the ranks of leadership surreptitiously to the highest level and then do something completely unthinkable, like, say, give women the priesthood or change the temple ritual.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo has to stand accountable for whatever he says, anonymously or not. As do we all.

True enough.

[_Jason Bourne]

What does "5th Column" mean?

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!

One wonders who anointed this idiot the new Mormon gestapo. O

[_Who Knows]

Maybe he's just bucking for the open apostle slot.

[_charity]

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?

This is from the FAIR wiki article found at: http://en.fairmormon.org/Amerindians_as_Lamanites

"Simon Southerton writes of how some Mormons have argued that 'Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians]. This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.”

It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample. Southerton and his fellow critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red”!

Southerton then goes on to say:

I agree entirely. [!] In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later.![2] "

The source for this statement by Southerton is given thusly: 1 & 2. Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).

I don't know the author's name off hand but can get it for you if you don't believe that Southerton said what he said.

Southerton's only claim to any accuracy in his anti-Book of Mormon statements are that the Book of Mormon says the continent was empty, the only pre-Columbian population was Israelite in origins. I guess he spent too much time as bishop to study the Book of Mormon because it clearly makes no such claim. Either that, or he has to say that the Book of Mormon makes such a claim because otherwise his attack makes no sense.

And if you want to read the statements by a large number of leaders of the Church over a long period of time who said there were others here when Lehi arrived please go to this link. YOu may be stunned if you think there has been an official Church policy on the Lehites only theory. http://en.fairmormon.org/Amerindians_as_Lamanites

[Guest]

[delete]

Sorry, I didn't want this thread getting kicked down so I removed my inappropriate observation. :)

[_Jason Bourne]

For the record, most NOMs I know would just prefer to stay at home and watch football; they're usually too bored at church to work up the effort to destroy anyone's testimony.

"For the record . . . ." Interesting that you don't fit within that definition. You prefer to make anonymous public posts to destroy everybody's testimony. I don't understand why you waste your time; it would seem to me if I were in your position I'd do what you describe -- watch football. It is this rather incongruous position you're in which compels some folks to believe that there's this conspiracy to damage the church.

I see it like this. There's no real conspiracy.

There are certain unalteratable truisms. The principles of mathematics involve truisms. Another is duality (or, rather, polarity): push/shove; good/evil.

One truism of evil, at least when it comes to dissent from the Savior's atonement, is that evil is most effective when it comes from (or appears to come from - a slightly weaker manifestation of this evil) the inside of the kingdom. The once-true believer who now doubts and influences others to do the same. Cain and Judas were the prototypes of this truism of evil. After all, if one who conversed with God (Cain) or God's Son (Judas) rejected the manifestations of God, angels and the Spirit, then surely God has it wrong, or so the argument goes. Satan seeks his own permanent ascendancy; perhaps he thinks deep down inside he'll have it.

And so we see that truism of evil here. Although, here, much of it is what appears to be the case, rather than what is the case.

Runtu -- the former Church employee, with lots of inside knowledge of Church operations, now the subtle, not-too-confrontational doubter (and self-loather along the way, self-loathing because of the Church)

Harmony -- the temple recommend holder, active Saint, who publicly and anonymously challenges virtually everything the Kingdom represents except to the point of challenged Jesus Christ Himself

Who Knows, Mercury, Infymus -- less effective, but insiders nonetheless, who maintain social and spiritual connexion with the Kingdom

Beastie -- the returned missionary now turned into a raging, vulgar, fist-shaker against God himself

See my point. Monolithic Bob is here and agrees with Will. No surprise. One point though. The atonement does not necessarily= the Corporate Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. Thanks be to God that Jesus tent has a wide umbrella.