DiscussMormonism.com

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.

Runtu wrote: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.

To be serious for a moment, I wonder if perhaps the harsh judgment and antagonistic manner of such thinking that Will Schryver displays is the true faith eroding element at work here.

Now for the merriment: Runtu, will your group be pushing for Mitt to now become the next Apostle?

moksha wrote:
To be serious for a moment, I wonder if perhaps the harsh judgment and antagonistic manner of such thinking that Will Schryver displays is the true faith eroding element at work here.

Maybe Will's approach is part of a conspiracy to actually offend people so that they leave, he and his ilk (I love that word) can point the finger of scorn and say, "Ah Ha! I knew it! You left because you were offended!

Now for the merriment: Runtu, will your group be pushing for Mitt to now become the next Apostle?

How did you know that Brother Romney was one of us? It was supposed to be a secret.

What does "5th Column" mean?

This is the best paragraph from Will:

Will at MAD wrote: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!

Who Knows wrote:What does "5th Column" mean?

Apostates beware! Will is on the rampage!

Perhaps he will offer himself as the inspector for doctrinal purity. Schryver de Torquemada.



Fifth Column? That is the to be continued part of the newspaper or else the side of the Wheaties box.

Fifth column (from Wikipedia):

A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation.

The term has its origins in the Spanish Civil War, when a Republican leader called on people in the cities to clandestinely work against the fascist regime. It was obviously ineffective.

Runtu wrote:Fifth column (from Wikipedia):

A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation.

The term has its origins in the Spanish Civil War, when a Republican leader called on people in the cities to clandestinely work against the fascist regime. It was obviously ineffective.

It sounds, however unintentionally, like fear-mongering to me. Unfortunately, Will's rhetoric--

When and if I can identify them in my stake, I will work to expose, confront, and discredit them in every way possible.

--sounds more like a call to arms against Scientology's SP's than a responsible way to interact with disaffected Mormons.

Moreover, his schema offers no distinction between his supposed fifth-columnites and folks who attend chapel services for much more practical and immediate interests (e.g., for one very pressing and immediate concern, the staving off of divorce by a TBM spouse).

CKS

cksalmon wrote:

Runtu wrote:Fifth column (from Wikipedia):

A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation.

The term has its origins in the Spanish Civil War, when a Republican leader called on people in the cities to clandestinely work against the fascist regime. It was obviously ineffective.

It sounds, however unintentionally, like fear-mongering to me. Unfortunately, Will's rhetoric--

When and if I can identify them in my stake, I will work to expose, confront, and discredit them in every way possible.

--sounds more like a call to arms against Scientology's SP's than a responsible way to interact with disaffected Mormons.

Moreover, his schema offers no distinction between his supposed fifth-columnites and folks who attend chapel services for much more practical and immediate interests (e.g., for one very pressing and immediate concern, the staving off of divorce by a TBM spouse).

CKS

You have to understand where Will's coming from. He believes that new order Mormons have already chosen sides and are thus not worth attempting to reclaim. If they cannot be reclaimed, they must be working against the church and would destroy it if they could. This of course is ridiculous, but it sounds like he really believes this stuff.

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.

Runtu wrote:
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

I have to admit I always take pleasure when the lie of the "big tent Mormonism" is exposed as a lie.