The Purge Continues With The Excommunication Of Adrian Larsen

[rockpond]

I am making observations, not accusations. I am doing it by reading the text you provided. I make my living writing. I know a little about it. He thinks he is doing the right thing. He is not. He posted it publicly to humiliate and shame the Church. We're not talking about some nuance buried in one paragraph. It is his central theme. He comes at it from the angle of "helping" but everyone does that as a matter of course. It is how you write this kind of a piece. It is a critique and he knows the Church is not going to listen to his babbling (or he might have sent it privately) so he did it publicly to drum up public support.

 

This is Reading Comprehension 101 here. I learned this stuff in Middle School. Why was the piece written? What was the intended audience? What changes are likely to result from the piece being sent? What conclusions are the reader meant to draw?

 

If you don't think the intended result is to convince people that the Church was wrong and that it was intended to air this as publicly as possible I do not know what to think. You might think the result is a good thing. You would be wrong.

 

 

Nehor has a very good and balanced point of view here...he had other avenues that he could have taken and chose not to...and there were consequences.

 

And I agree with his point about discernment and bias...  Don't just read the one link that the OP offered..go to his blog site and read what he wrote over the last 6 months and then make your own real and reasonable determination as to why the church acted, what were the rules and precedents and doctrine, and what was the real issue of the church with what he wrote.

 

Don't take Nehor's op or my op or the op of this thread...read and investigate and weigh in your own mind what all the options and opinions and consequences could/should and did occur.

 

wb

 

I guess for me, the relevant question is:  did he write anything that was blatantly and intentionally false.  And if he wrote truth than we ought to similarly be considering the motivations and intentions of those who excommunicated him as well.

[The Nehor]

I guess for me, the relevant question is:  did he write anything that was blatantly and intentionally false.  And if he wrote truth than we ought to similarly be considering the motivations and intentions of those who excommunicated him as well.

 

I have no idea whether anything he said was blatantly and intentionally false. I am guessing it was more subtly false. Of course he can lie as blatantly as he wants unless his Stake President is a sinner willing to disclose all and refute the charges against him. I doubt the Stake President will.

 

If the Stake President wrote a transparently opportunistic piece about why he excommunicated the man to win public accolades and humiliate the man I would do just that. Since the Stake President is taking confidentiality seriously I have no reason to doubt his intentions so.......going to go with the information I have.

[Danzo]

I guess for me, the relevant question is:  did he write anything that was blatantly and intentionally false.  And if he wrote truth than we ought to similarly be considering the motivations and intentions of those who excommunicated him as well.

 

You keep saying that word.  He was disciplined for rebellion, not bearing false witness. Why are you looking for false statements?

[EllenMaksoud]

But accurate

I still don't understand this. I didn't understand his blog. I never  heard of either of them. Is this important?

[Calm]

Have I given the impression that I "flatly judged it as wrong"?  Because I haven't.  I don't know all the facts.

More or less given this and your post #35 iirc:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64407-the-purge-continues-with-the-excommunication-of-adrian-larsen/?p=1209430749

[rockpond]

I have no idea whether anything he said was blatantly and intentionally false. I am guessing it was more subtly false. Of course he can lie as blatantly as he wants unless his Stake President is a sinner willing to disclose all and refute the charges against him. I doubt the Stake President will.

If the Stake President wrote a transparently opportunistic piece about why he excommunicated the man to win public accolades and humiliate the man I would do just that. Since the Stake President is taking confidentiality seriously I have no reason to doubt his intentions so.......going to go with the information I have.

I was referring to his published writings (on his blog) not to what he may or may not have said in his DC.

[rockpond]

More or less given this and your post #35 iirc:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64407-the-purge-continues-with-the-excommunication-of-adrian-larsen/?p=1209430749

Good point. Allow me to clarify... I disagree with the outcome because I disagree with current church policy on excommunication. But what the SP did seems to be completely in line with church policy per handbook 1.

[Danzo]

Good point. Allow me to clarify... I disagree with the outcome because I disagree with current church policy on excommunication. But what the SP did seems to be completely in line with church policy per handbook 1.

 

So You think any member should be able advocate open rebellion against the church and its leaders and remain a member in good standing?

[rockpond]

You keep saying that word. He was disciplined for rebellion, not bearing false witness. Why are you looking for false statements?

If he was excommunicated on the grounds of what he wrote on his blog. And if what he wrote on his blog was true. Than who is rebelling against what?

Does truth not play a role in the disciplinary action at all? Only authority? Because to me that would seem like unrighteousness dominion.

[Danzo]

If he was excommunicated on the grounds of what he wrote on his blog. And if what he wrote on his blog was true. Than who is rebelling against what?

Does truth not play a role in the disciplinary action at all? Only authority? Because to me that would seem like unrighteousness dominion.

 

You don't have to tell a lie to advocate rebellion.

 

If I were to  advocate the removal  of the prophet and his replacement by me using scripture (I probably could If I got creative enough), you don't have to prove an element of deceit to prove that I am in rebellion (or apostasy). 

Edited October 21, 2014 by Danzo

[rockpond]

So You think any member should be able advocate open rebellion against the church and its leaders and remain a member in good standing?

No.

[rockpond]

You don't have to tell a lie to advocate rebellion.

If I were to advocate the removal of the prophet and his replacement by me using scripture (I probably could If I got creative enough), you don't have to prove an element of deceit to prove that I am in rebellion (or apostasy).

Agreed. Has Larsen done that?

[The Nehor]

I was referring to his published writings (on his blog) not to what he may or may not have said in his DC.

 

Then I can say that I would bet a substantial amount of money on his blog including deceptions in it. Sadly gambling is a sin and a petty one at that. If I am going to sin I want to go for one of the big ones.

[rockpond]

Then I can say that I would bet a substantial amount of money on his blog including deceptions in it. Sadly gambling is a sin and a petty one at that. If I am going to sin I want to go for one of the big ones.

 

So nobody here is identifying any actual falsehoods that he has published, just speculating.

Edited October 21, 2014 by rockpond

[The Nehor]

So nobody here is identifying any actual falsehoods that he has published, just speculating.

No, concluding from the things he said. Could Imhaul him into court for libel? No, the standard is higher there. Can I conclude with near certainty that he is being deceptive? Absolutely. No one writes like that without an intent to deceive and twist the facts.

[rockpond]

No, concluding from the things he said. Could Imhaul him into court for libel? No, the standard is higher there. Can I conclude with near certainty that he is being deceptive? Absolutely. No one writes like that without an intent to deceive and twist the facts.

 

"Near certainty" (which I question) is still speculation.

[The Nehor]

"Near certainty" (which I question) is still speculation.

In the same sense that I speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have no positive evidence it will but I am pretty certain.

[rockpond]

In the same sense that I speculate that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have no positive evidence it will but I am pretty certain.

 

Well, I won't condemn the man on that basis.

 

If the SP shares your attitude, than I would tend to believe what Larsen says that nobody could identify anything incorrect in his blog.  They just asked him to remove it and excommunicated him because he wouldn't submit.

[The Nehor]

Well, I won't condemn the man on that basis.

If the SP shares your attitude, than I would tend to believe what Larsen says that nobody could identify anything incorrect in his blog. They just asked him to remove it and excommunicated him because he wouldn't submit.

Well, there is the whole pervasive preaching against the Church thing throughout his blog. Let's see. He tries to rebut General Conference talks, he accuses the Church of hiding the light of revelation Joseph Smith had, and claims that not seeing Angels is evidence of a general apostasy. Oh, and suggests that LDS believe that church membership alone will save them. Fortunately he is more enlightened then us and will teach us the true gnosis necessary for salvation.

That is only a 5 minute glance through a few of his blog entries. If I read them all I could probably get a blackout on my "stereotypical 'I am the light of the world' apostate" bingo card. I have run into a few. They are so tediously monotonous.

Edited October 21, 2014 by The Nehor

[strappinglad]

Brother Larsen got to decide which was more important to him, his blog or his membership. His decision, in contrast to Bro. Woolley , who, according to Nibley's account in ' Approaching Zion' ,got to choose between his dance hall and his membership, was to choose his blog.

At times we forget or down play the fact that the God of the Old Testament had a favorite meme, ie. obedience. Christ also seemed in favor of obedience as a way to show the love of God. The more sophisticated of us now have nuanced that meme considerably.

Edited October 21, 2014 by strappinglad

[readstoomuch]

I did read some of the blogs and liked some of the scriptures and analogies and then others irritated me. There seemed to be the feeling that the core of truth is or was in the gospel and with some of his thinking it may be able to be righted. It is quite tedious to read and it finally isn't worth the time and the take away for me is that despite his desire to help save the church, he is sewing seeds of dissension. Certainly he is now on the apostate circuit and soon he will have a Mormon Stories podcast,the equivalent of getting your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone for Rock Stars.

[KevinG]

GOSPEL TEACHING

 

Dalin H. Oaks, October 1999

 

"As I have visited in quorums and Relief Societies, I have generally been pleased and impressed at how these Teachings of Presidents of the Church are being presented and received. However, I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher’s choice. That is not acceptable. A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects."

 

In a church that is full of converts, and people new to the basics of the Gospel.  As well as those old members who can use a refresher about the basics; this counsel is sound.  Read the whole talk- it sheds a great deal of light on why and how the Lord guides our teaching and priesthood.

[rockpond]

Well, there is the whole pervasive preaching against the Church thing throughout his blog. Let's see. He tries to rebut General Conference talks, he accuses the Church of hiding the light of revelation Joseph Smith had, and claims that not seeing Angels is evidence of a general apostasy. Oh, and suggests that LDS believe that church membership alone will save them. Fortunately he is more enlightened then us and will teach us the true gnosis necessary for salvation.

That is only a 5 minute glance through a few of his blog entries. If I read them all I could probably get a blackout on my "stereotypical 'I am the light of the world' apostate" bingo card. I have run into a few. They are so tediously monotonous.

 

I respect your interpretations of his writings but I don't think you've shown that he is being deceptive.  Just as your interpretations are yours, his interpretations are his.  The two of you obviously disagree -- is that grounds for excommunication?  Is that what we want in the church?  Should those who express dissenting views on these threads also face disciplinary action?

[rockpond]

GOSPEL TEACHING

 

Dalin H. Oaks, October 1999

 

"As I have visited in quorums and Relief Societies, I have generally been pleased and impressed at how these Teachings of Presidents of the Church are being presented and received. However, I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher’s choice. That is not acceptable. A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects."

 

In a church that is full of converts, and people new to the basics of the Gospel.  As well as those old members who can use a refresher about the basics; this counsel is sound.  Read the whole talk- it sheds a great deal of light on why and how the Lord guides our teaching and priesthood.

 

I completely agree.  Can we also agree that there is a difference between teaching a sunday school class and writing on one's personal blog?

[ksfisher]

I completely agree.  Can we also agree that there is a difference between teaching a sunday school class and writing on one's personal blog?

 

Yes, there is a difference.  More people read a blog than pay attention in class.