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.
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).
It is a vile and pernicious argument to claim that you have any such mandate to do so.
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 everyone in the Church took it upon themselves to do as you do with every species of sin, then there would be general chaos.
If you want to be intellectually serious here, please, don't let me hinder you.
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 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 you were to see your bishop go into a rated R movie, would you go online to decry his actions?
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.
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?
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.