The Purge Continues With The Excommunication Of Adrian Larsen

[Pahoran]

I think that's an unfair and unwarranted conclusion. While it's possible that the accounts could differ, there is no reason to believe that Brother Larsen is being untruthful and "counting on" his stake president's silence.

I do. I've seen this sort of thing far too often to be taken in by yet another instance of it.

I find it amusing that you expect us to be charitable towards Mister Larsen so much that we are to join with him in passing unrighteous judgment upon his priesthood leaders without hearing their side of the story.

But on that we shall agree to disagree.

But tell me: what do you mean by, "The Purge Continues?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

While you may disagree with his conclusions, his blog content can certainly not be described as immature.

I disagree. He dresses it up but his objections to his excommunication are mostly hair-splitting distinctions and whining about how good he is. His objections are designed to appeal to the sympathies of a general audience, not an LDS one. He is not looking for openness. He is our to score points and hopes to shame the church into doing what he wants. He will fail as most eight year olds do when they argue along these lines. That he cloaks his whining in sophisticated language just means he has basic skills in rhetoric, not that he is mature.

[rockpond]

(This guy, of course, even did much more than that in encouraging people to leave the church and openly rebel - clearly fitting the description of an apostate.)

 

 

CFR that Larsen encouraged people to "leave the church and openly rebel".

[rockpond]

Plus, he took the excommunication public which usually shows the true intent of getting some needed publicity. I can see the martyr syndrome in his blog about it. He did wrong and just should accept the consequences. But because he took it public it is obvious that he did not have good intentions toward the lds church. He could have just reported his excommunication in a humble way, recognized his fault and continue.

 

I don't think he believes that he did wrong.

[rockpond]

Well, we have already established the fact that revelation received by the Bishop is a valid reason to impose the excommunication, or do you think the Bishop in this case did not receive correct  revelation on the matter? There were no doubt other facts in the case that were not revealed due to confidentiality or were simply not shared by the accused.

Also, I agree with what Why Me said.

 

First, it's a stake president, not a bishop, since he's a Melchizedek priesthood holder.  Second, I don't know if there was any revelation received on the matter.  We don't know if there were other material facts.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't think he believes that he did wrong.

Who do you really side with? Mr. Larsen in his belief that revelation has ceased with the prophets and thus we are in apostasy or-

the church in their stance to remove him from their list of faithful saints who rely on revelation and living prophets?

[rockpond]

The problem with his argument is that rebellion against the leaders God has chosen, IS rebellion against God.   Whether God agrees with their actions and decisions,  whether God inspired those actions and decisions, we will likely never know.   But if we believe that it is His church and He runs it, then we have to also believe that (a) this is what He thought was necessary for Bro. Larsen and/or His church, or He doesn't think it necessary or appropriate, but He didn't take action to stop it for reasons that He found compelling  (maybe so He had the evidence for justice against an abusive leader like Alma articulated the reason he couldn't invoke priesthood power to  stop the killing of innocents.)   If the latter, then Brother and Sister's appeal may result in correction, or somehow their faithful response will be okay.   (And maybe a test of their discipleship.)   Unfortunately writing what he did does not suggest a faithful response (though it is too early to assess that since when people write too soon, it is often not what they would write after they have worked through the pain.)

 

Larsen's response actually strikes me as very faithful... Not faithful to the disciplinary action based on the handbook but faithful to the Lord.  And God doesn't involve himself in every action the church takes... leaders have free agency just like the rest of us.

[rockpond]

I do. I've seen this sort of thing far too often to be taken in by yet another instance of it.

I find it amusing that you expect us to be charitable towards Mister Larsen so much that we are to join with him in passing unrighteous judgment upon his priesthood leaders without hearing their side of the story.

But on that we shall agree to disagree.

But tell me: what do you mean by, "The Purge Continues?"

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I think we can still call him Brother Larsen.  We have excommunicated members in my ward and we still call them Brother & Sister.

 

Where did Larsen pass unrighteous judgement on his priesthood leaders? 

 

I was referring to the recent excommunications of LDS bloggers and podcasters.

[rockpond]

I disagree. He dresses it up but his objections to his excommunication are mostly hair-splitting distinctions and whining about how good he is. His objections are designed to appeal to the sympathies of a general audience, not an LDS one. He is not looking for openness. He is our to score points and hopes to shame the church into doing what he wants. He will fail as most eight year olds do when they argue along these lines. That he cloaks his whining in sophisticated language just means he has basic skills in rhetoric, not that he is mature.

 

I have no idea how you get that from what he has written.

[The Nehor]

I have no idea how you get that from what he has written.

By reading it mostly.

[rockpond]

Who do you really side with? Mr. Larsen in his belief that revelation has ceased with the prophets and thus we are in apostasy or-

the church in their stance to remove him from their list of faithful saints who rely on revelation and living prophets?

 

I'd ask that you please respond to my CFR of your last comments (here) before I answer your questions.  If you aren't willing to back up your statements, then I don't really have a desire to dialogue with you.  Sorry.

[The Nehor]

I don't think he believes that he did wrong.

Most people don't. How is that relevant? Of course he casts himself as a victimized hero. I am sure Satan did the same thing.

[rockpond]

Most people don't. How is that relevant? Of course he casts himself as a victimized hero. I am sure Satan did the same thing.

 

Only relevant in trying to understand someone's true intentions (part of what Why Me's post was about).

[The Nehor]

Only relevant in trying to understand someone's true intentions (part of what Why Me's post was about).

Humans are masters of self-deception. Being able to convince yourself that you are on the side of the Angels is laughably easy. His intentions are to discredit the Kingdom of God. I don't particularly care if he has convinced himself his motives are pure and he sleeps easily at night. I doubt it though. We are good at self-deception but self-deceivers find that their deception rots them from the inside.

[rockpond]

Humans are masters of self-deception. Being able to convince yourself that you are on the side of the Angels is laughably easy. His intentions are to discredit the Kingdom of God. I don't particularly care if he has convinced himself his motives are pure and he sleeps easily at night. I doubt it though. We are good at self-deception but self-deceivers find that their deception rots them from the inside.

 

CFR that his intentions are to discredit the Kingdom of God.  He's laid out his beliefs in a blog and is quite supportive of the Kingdom.

[The Nehor]

CFR that his intentions are to discredit the Kingdom of God.  He's laid out his beliefs in a blog and is quite supportive of the Kingdom.

You already supplied the CFR. It is in the first post of the thread. Read the blog entry. He is in favor of the Kingdom of God IF it agrees with him. It doesn't so he whines.

[rockpond]

You already supplied the CFR. It is in the first post of the thread. Read the blog entry. He is in favor of the Kingdom of God IF it agrees with him. It doesn't so he whines.

 

He is in favor of the Kingdom of God.  Period.  Full Stop.  That you disagree with him does not mean that his intentions are to discredit the Kingdom.

[Mystery Meat]

He is in favor of the Kingdom of God.  Period.  Full Stop.  That you disagree with him does not mean that his intentions are to discredit the Kingdom.

 

The Kingdom of God = the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[JAHS]

First, it's a stake president, not a bishop, since he's a Melchizedek priesthood holder.  Second, I don't know if there was any revelation received on the matter.  We don't know if there were other material facts.

Correct so why are we all even having this conversation?

[rockpond]

Correct so why are we all even having this conversation?

 

I'm just frantically trying to keep up with the questions being asked of me.  

[rockpond]

The Kingdom of God = the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

So where did he try to discredit the Church?

[The Nehor]

He is in favor of the Kingdom of God.  Period.  Full Stop.  That you disagree with him does not mean that his intentions are to discredit the Kingdom.

I disrespectfully disagree.

And you are wrong.

[rockpond]

I disrespectfully disagree.

And you are wrong.

 

It's impressive that you don't know the man but can still speak to his intentions without even providing quotes to backup your conclusions.

[Calm]

 In that, Brother Larsen talks about the definition of apostasy -- scriptural vs handbook.

I believe in continuing revelation.

[Calm]

I know that sounds circular but that's what we have; like it or leave it. 

I would alter that to "like it or study it and and ponder it in hopes of receiving direction from the Lord about it bringing peace to your heart and mind and soul".