East to settle. Droopy's proof should be in here somewhere:

Oh, but I do, Kishkumen. I do. And if I dood it, I get a whippin'...




I am not doing anything for the Church in any official apostolic or otherwise General Authority capacity. And I do not have any authority to restrict, disfellowship, excommunicate, or otherwise pass ultimate judgement on Dehlin, not have I claimed such. The oath and covenant of the priesthood places a requirement and a mandate upon me, however, to "preach, teach, expound, exhort, and warn," to stand as a witness for Christ and his gospel (and church) at all times and in all places. There is no restriction upon this. John Dehlin is a member of a ward somewhere. He is as liable to be warned, upbraided, challenged, and confronted in his apostasy and project to assist and encourage others to leave the church by anyone in his own ward and stake as by me. Further, as Mr. Dehlin as taken his role as Shepherd of the doubting and dissident into the public sphere, he is therefore liable to criticism and challenge in the public sphere.



No. I have received a calling and covenant to defend the gospel, preach it, teach it, expound it, and "warn my neighbor" at all times and in all places.

Well, enough of this blah, blah, blah. Its a nice try at some very clever, if not to sophisticated sophistry, Kish, but you simply don't understand priesthood government nor the gospel of Jesus Christ as a system. Its very decentralized. So long as I accuse Dehlin correctly, and with the proper motives, I am called to do so.

So long as I interpret scripture correctly, and in harmony with the Spirit and with settled Church teaching, I am called to do so. That is not limited to my ward. It is not limited to my stake. It is not limited in geography or venue. What is limited is my authority to make any determinations regarding anyone's standing in the church as a member, to teach or claim that others must adhere to doctrines that have not been revealed or taught, and to administer in any official capacity to which I have not been called by priesthood authority.

There is no limit upon confronting false doctrine, apostasy, and "grievous wolves," and challenging their claims on an individual basis, whether in private or public.

But then, what do you know about it...

Your mandate to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and warn does not include talking about John Dehlin or other members of the Church behind their backs or in the general public square as their accuser. It is a vile and pernicious argument to claim that you have any such mandate to do so. If everyone in the Church took it upon themselves to do as you do with every species of sin, then there would be general chaos. You are selectively interpreting the scriptures to cover your own wrongdoing. Do you go around accusing your fellow members of watching rated R movies?

If you were to see your bishop go into a rated R movie, would you go online to decry his actions? What if every member of the Church were to follow your example in treating John Dehlin this way, and accuse their fellow members, as individuals, of sin out in the public square?

The results would be chaos. And yet, you are creating chaos and ill feelings even in doing what you are doing. You are contributing to a climate of fear in Mormonism, in which people are made to feel like there are rogue elements with uncertain authority that can attack whomever they disagree with at will, without any consequences. It was high time that the Church take away the patina of authority from the Review in its slams on fellow members of the LDS Church by removing Daniel Peterson as editor. If he could not be persuaded to desist from such deleterious activities, I am glad someone else forced him to stop.

The only comfort I take in all of this, Droopy, is that you are no one of consequence, simply out there speaking your opinion, and without any authority over John Dehlin. I believe your actions are wrong. And, I would advise you to stop, but my real concern was that this kind of witch hunt was being conducted from BYU campus. And it has stopped. So, that's good enough for me. May it never return. Good riddance.

The church is decentralized? News to me. Correlation? Line of authority? Keys vs. authority?

Droopy is doing what he does best: talking out of his rear end and saying whatever comes to "mind."

I'll just state for the record that if the man Jesus was anything like Droopy, I'm damn glad they crucified his ass and sent him packing.

I thought this time Droopy was gone for good but he always comes back. Not even Jesus can pull that trick. Still waiting on Jesus to return and it's been 2000 years!

And, Facsimile No. 3 Explanations are pure church garbage.

Paul O

No, its the truth of the matter that comes from looking at Dehlin's carefully and subtly worded explanations of this motives and mission, the site's political and social positions and preoccupations, and from a look at the testimonials at this website. The clever rhetorical and psychological ploy Dehlin uses to mask his rather obvious core focus, is to claim that he is not advocating that people stay in the Church or come out of it. He want's to have a place where people can feel comfortable with any decision they make - a thoroughly relativistic womb in which any decision, whether to leave the church or stay in as a cultural, but not converted Mormon, is OK. Its like a grand Rogerian Client Centered therapy workshop. Stay or leave, its OK. No challenge, just warm, fuzzy acceptance and affirmation.

Nice, wonderful, New Ageish stuff, until one realizes (and one might not realize this unless one is a "TBM" Mormon), that it is the Bishop's, Stake Presidents, and other members of a person's ward or stake who should really be the one's turned to during a crisis of faith, and especially those local ecclesiastical authorities who have the role and responsibility to help members through these kind of transitions. This, however, is not what most of these folks want to deal with, because this might mean that one's desire to rebel against various standards of the Church, to reject core doctrines, to throw oneself fully into political or social movements inconsistent with Church teachings, to openly accept a homosexual orientation (the obsession at Mormon Stories, as with Religion Dispatches, with homosexuality and homosexual marriage is at saturation levels), rejection of the mantel and authority of Joseph Smith or the modern Brethren etc., will, while not necessarily opposed by Dehlin, also not be challenged or questioned.

Beneath all of this, just beneath the surface, lies the real motive, which is to encourage any number of alternatives to church membership while leaving staying in the church a theoretical option.

This is, effectively, to encourage and shepherd others, not necessarily into but through the process of apostasy, while affirming and supporting that decision, and that is just as evil, just as wicked, and just as much the encouraging of the diminution and possibly destruction of the soul as is any other form of relativistic sophistry that claims to be caring and loving, but is hiding a needle underneath all that cotton.



Exactly. He is a facilitator of apostasy. Wolves facilitate the killing and eating of tasty little lambs that have wandered from the fold, do they not? They just take advantage of the opportunities presented, no?



People like Kevin Graham were probably as they were long before they left. Indeed, it is highly likely that those personological attributes were key in the apostasy itself. There are plenty of people who fall away from the church who do not, and never will, behave as does the classic public anti-Mormon.



We do.

We also have your number.

Educate yourself on the doctrines and government of the Church, or please don't bother.

Its really a bit of a bore.

I have yet to hear the SP or Bishop, in their official capacity, speak the truth about the ban on blacks and the priesthood. I have heard the official Church line of 'we don't know why'. But, not once have I heard them admit it was an evil, man-made doctrine having nothing to do with the gospel. So, if someone is having a crisis of faith, is it really appropriate for them to ask questions of their leaders when those leaders don't know the answers themselves?

That's the second one today.

So, Droopy, what you are telling me is that you take it upon yourself to "reinterpret" (i.e., twist) John's words to make it seem like he is saying and doing things he is not saying and doing. In other words, you are willfully lying about John Dehlin on the internet to attack him because you don't like him and what he does. When he explicitly says that he is not trying to convince people to leave the Church, you just say, "no you are," and then you go around the internet telling people what an apostate and deceiver John is.

That's a dangerous thing to do, Droopy. How might others construe any of your various behaviors? I mean, so what if you say that you love God, love His Church, etc. Maybe the fact that you go around accusing members of the Church of being apostates and deceivers, where stake presidents, bishops, and even General Authorities have not done so, can be construed as you believing you stand above the rest of the Church and its authorities as a man with a special mission and calling to "steady the ark."

Shall people start an online effort to call Droopy out as an "ark steadier"?

I just don't know where this kind of thing ends, Droopy. It is completely absurd. You have taken it upon yourself to steady the ark by attacking a person whose activities are known to his stake president, his bishop, and even General Authorities of the LDS Church. Yet you apparently feel like you are better placed in the hierarchy of the Lord's Church to address this issue, doctrine and priesthood order be damned.

It is simply stunning.

Is that something else that popped out of your rear end, Droopy?

Rama



Lama



Ding



And dong.

I am meeting John Dehlin in the public arena of ideas, where he has chosen to present his criticisms of the Church as well as his amateur group therapy project for those who have "lost their faith," as is my right both as a Latter day Saint and as an American under the first amendment (also a divinely inspired idea).



I grow weary now of your let's pretend moral outrage, as well as your (here comes an ad hominnem attack worth of FARMS) rather doltish sophistries in an attempt to get me to doubt something I know, as a life long member, perfectly well to be the case. I am challenging, confronting, and rebutting Dehlin's entire project. That is my right as an American, and a sacred responsibilty under the oath and covenant of the priesthood. I have no power over him. I am arguing with, disputing, and interrogating his philosophy from a Church, gospel, and faithful LDS perspective.

And that is all I'm doing.

If Dehlin was in my living room, it would happen there. Dehlin is in the public square. Therefore, it is going to happen there. Nothing in the teachings of the Church - nothing - requires us to wait for the Brethren to do our jobs for us in this regard. Indeed, they have better things to do than publicly answer each and every dissident Mormon and his particular litany of grievances or criticisms. There are millions of other faithful members about to do that.



If you want to be intellectually serious here, please, don't let me hinder you.



If someone in my branch told me they had seen Eyes Wide Shut, I would, in all probability, drop a wry and subtle comment regarding its propriety, just as if someone admitted to having smoked marijuana, or viewed pornography, I would, depending on venue and their attitude, engage them and entourage them to scrutinize that behavior and consider moving in another direction.



If my Bishop went online, attacked, criticized, and questioned the Church's counsel and doctrine on this issue, and I were to see it, I would challenge it, yes, in the proper spirit and with the properly chosen words. If I saw my Bishop encouraging doubting members who desired, or thought they desired to leave the Church to do so, I would go to my Stake President with my concerns, including the website where the claims were to be found.



John Dehlin has come into the public square as a dissident, apostate Mormon who encourages others, if they are leaning in that direction, to leave the Church. Any challenge and rebuttal then, to John Dehlin, is legitimately a public one.

If Dehlin wilts under this kind of heat, he's in the wrong business - especially in the public square.

So, what are your ideas, Droopy? I see accusations. I don't see many "ideas."

Like many people, including you, John sees that there are many issues that trouble members. These get an airing on his programs. Does acknowledgment and discussion of such issues constitute criticism of the Church? That is a point of debate. I imagine that if the General Authorities who know about it have a problem with it, they can by all means tell him to stop or discipline him. They hardly need you to run around calling him out.

I am not trampling on your First Amendment rights. Whether you have a duty as an LDS member to accuse people of apostasy in public is the very point we are debating. It is not simply something that is true based on your assertion.



No, you are accusing him of apostasy and of leading people out of the Church. You are not "arguing with, disputing, and interrogating his philosophy." You have come down with a judgment, and you usurp authority to accuse him in public, contrary to the order of the priesthood and the procedures of priesthood government. Hey, you can do that as an American, and John can do what he does as an American. I have no idea why you think "being an American" is a pertinent point to raise here. I am sure that a Sonia Johnson had a First Amendment right to tell people to pray to Mother in Heaven, but it didn't save her from Church discipline. Someday it might not save you.



Nothing authorizes you to do the job of John's stake president, bishop, or the Brethren in this regard. You do not speak for the Church in the public square in calling out people for apostasy or any form of sin. You have all of this exactly backwards, and if everyone followed your stupidity, there would be chaos.



I hope that white flag isn't chafing your sphincter, Droopy. Everyone knows that "intellectually serious" is Droopy's tell for "I know I don't have an argument, so I will accuse the other guy of not being 'intellectually serious'."



And you would do that in front of the whole ward, right? You would say, "Hey, Brother Jim told me that he saw Nicole Kidman's breast in a movie, and I am here to call him out as a sinner." Or maybe you would go to his Facebook page, to let everyone know by posting the information on his wall.



You finally got something right here, Droopy. You would go to the authorities whose stewardship includes your bishop. That is the right thing to do. What you are doing, on the other hand, is wrong.

So, which of the FARMS articles does Droopy regard as "cutting edge research"? Does it outclass the stuff he reads on his right-wing blogs?

So, Droopy, if John Dehlin is such an obvious danger to right-thinking Mormons everywhere, why aren't you calling for his Stake President and Bishop to be removed and replaced? If what you're saying is true, they obviously lack the power of discernment and are unfit to continue in their callings. So when are we going to hear you calling them out, or the General Authority that helped him to get the hit piece on Mormon Stories pulled? Why aren't you crowing about their apostasy, too?

Why aren't the prophets calling out this "wolf in sheep's clothing?" Are your prophets blind Droopy? Have you managed to see something that they haven't? Has their 'spirit of discernment' failed them again?