The Clock Is Running On This False Prophecy

[Tacenda]

So you keep saying. But why exactly did you stay?

Did you stay to remain part of a covenant community of Saints?

Or to white-ant the Church, like Dehlin tried to do?

IOW, did you stay as a follower of Jesus Christ, or a follower of John Dehlin?

Because if the latter, then you need to think about Joshua 24:15.

When you told your bishop that you sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and the only person on earth with power to exercise all priesthood keys, did you genuinely mean that as a believing Latter-day Saint? Were you declaring your belief that President Monson is the Lord's chosen mouthpiece on the earth today?

Or did you quietly tell yourself that those terms are strictly organisational and institutional only, and merely represent an agreement that President Monson is the recognised president of the Church?

You don't need to answer those questions. They are thought questions, to be answered by yourself alone. I mention them because, as you know, Mister Dehlin taught his followers that the second approach is acceptable, when in fact it is hypocritical prevarication.

As for the rest: I'm not judging Mister Dehlin by one quote. I spotted him for a wolf in sheep's clothing long before I heard of that admission.

But let's be clear: if someone said a hundred nice things about his neighbour, and then only once confessed to murdering that neighbour -- and the confession was corroborated by additional facts -- then that "one quote" would be enough to convict him.

Mister Dehlin's "one quote" is in the nature of such a confession. Especially since it was a boast to a fellow enemy of the Church.

That's what Mister Dehlin has been for years now, and his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcast was his main vehicle for his emnity.

Any attempt to deny that would be, to coin a phrase, "factually incorrect."

Regards,

Pahoran

Given the criteria you lay out, there needs to be a few members kicked out. Your view is a far cry from a well known apostle!

[Pahoran]

If you want to ask me questions, you'll need to answer mine first.

What questions? You mean these?

Is it a sin to interview Grant Palmer? Is there something immoral about that?

No, it's not "a sin to interview Grant Palmer."

But, as you perfectly well know, Mister Dehlin went a long way beyond merely interviewing his fellow-apostate. He promoted his anti-Mormon screed. His interview was intended to market Palmer as an authority on Mormon history.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

My support is that I am not in apostasy nor am I "so deep in sin as to be utterly insensible to the promptings of the Holy Ghost".

In your opinion.

But if you really think "gay marriage... in the temple" would be a good or desirable thing, then you prove yourself utterly incapable of distinguishing holiness from filth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeanne]

Pahoran...I will admit that I am probably not being fair here...but from what I have read of your responses, your arrogance is astounding to me.

Of course this just my opinion,

[Jeanne]

Well we're all brothers and sisters aren't we?  And then there's the old question of who did Cain, Abel, and Seth marry?

 

Brigham was probably right...

Wow ...have I stumbled onto a different board?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran...I will admit that I am probably not being fair here...but from what I have read of your responses, your arrogance is astounding to me.

Of course this just my opinion,

I guess we all have our opinions.

To me, presuming to jettison revealed truth in favour of populist trend-following is the real arrogance.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

In your opinion.

But if you really think "gay marriage... in the temple" would be a good or desirable thing, then you prove yourself utterly incapable of distinguishing holiness from filth.

Regards,

Pahoran

In your opinion. This, like your previous post, wasn't fact, but opinion.

[rockpond]

What questions? You mean these?

No, it's not "a sin to interview Grant Palmer."

But, as you perfectly well know, Mister Dehlin went a long way beyond merely interviewing his fellow-apostate. He promoted his anti-Mormon screed. His interview was intended to market Palmer as an authority on Mormon history.

Regards,

Pahoran

I asked some other questions as well...

When have you interviewed LDS apologists and faithful Mormons to get their perspectives and then published those interviews out to an audience you built up (hundreds of thousands of downloads) over years of work? Where is your analysis of how much pro vs con minutes of podcasts he produced.

And if you are going to keep citing that palmer/bushman quote, I'd like a reference so that I can read it in context.

And the problem with these attacks on Dehlin is that they don't address the real issues. Dehlin didn't create the problems that he discussed in the podcasts. Dehlin didn't commission the authors or researchers. Dehlin didn't direct or correlate the narrative that got us to this point.

Dehlin has questions that he sought to answer. Then he saw problems that he sought to resolve. Unfortunately the answers and the resolutions took him to a place of less faith. But to ignore those valid questions and problems, and just "cry wolf" is counterproductive.

[JLHPROF]

Wow ...have I stumbled onto a different board?

 

No, just being honest about reality.

We are ALL spirit brothers and sisters.  When we die, everyone with an eternal marriage waiting for their resurrection will find themselves sitting up there in paradise with their spouse who happens to be their sibling...

 

And assuming you DON'T believe Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel/Seth were all symbolic myths and were the first and only family the question as to who Cain/Abel/Seth married is a legitimate one.

Edited February 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Pahoran]

In your opinion. This, like your previous post, wasn't fact, but opinion.

Doctrinally sound opinion.

That may not matter to you, but it does matter to believing Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I asked some other questions as well...

When have you interviewed LDS apologists and faithful Mormons to get their perspectives and then published those interviews out to an audience you built up (hundreds of thousands of downloads) over years of work? Where is your analysis of how much pro vs con minutes of podcasts he produced.

You're right. I haven't been building up a following for myself. I haven't made a career trying to white-ant the Church.

 

And if you are going to keep citing that palmer/bushman quote, I'd like a reference so that I can read it in context.

Certainly.

Interviewers: We [the Larsens] do tend to take a more negative position. . . . I don’t think people

confuse us with the regular church stuff, but your stuff—it’s a little bit more fuzzy; it might be

more confusing.

Dehlin: Yeah.

Interviewers: And that’s intentional, right?

Dehlin: I’m intentionally trying to be a safe place for people to initially learn the information and

feel comfortable going there. I’ve always been sensitive to wanting you guys to not feel like I’m

calling you negative or unsafe. But I want to build a bridge so that people can get all the facts, all

the information, and then make an informed decision.

And then:

Dehlin: For the people who want to learn, you want to feel as safe as possible. Now, I’m not

trying to fool them. My goal isn’t to try to get them to leave. My goal is for them to get all the

facts. So I don’t feel like I’m trying to deceive them, but I don’t want to have them turn me off

before they even listen. . . . I feel like I hit the tough issues. I just try to interview them in an

objective way, and try and have that balance, if I do [Grant] Palmer, I do [Richard] Bushman so

they’ll always get this sense that I’m trying to be fair and balanced.

Interviewer: Palmer is worth a Bushman.

Dehlin: [laughs]

Interviewer: Is that the exchange rate? Is that the trade?

Dehlin: Yeah, it’s kind of—yeah, that’s the exchange rate.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

The thing is, of course, that Mister Dehlin really doesn't want his listeners to get "all the facts," contrary to what he claims. He only wants them to get the facts he chooses to promote. He goes ballistic when anyone counters his view of things, and threw a major tantrum when Greg Smith wrote his review.

 

And anyone who reads it can see why.

 

And the problem with these attacks on Dehlin is that they don't address the real issues. Dehlin didn't create the problems that he discussed in the podcasts. Dehlin didn't commission the authors or researchers. Dehlin didn't direct or correlate the narrative that got us to this point.

 

But he picks and chooses the material he presents. He exploits the "problems" to create his own narrative.

And the so-called "attacks on Dehlin" are merely the full disclosure he demands from others but not from himself. They are just the facts.

Mister Dehlin has built a career out of propagating anti-Mormon propaganda and acting as an "exit counsellor" for the people he has caused to become disaffected from the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Dehlin has questions that he sought to answer. Then he saw problems that he sought to resolve. Unfortunately the answers and the resolutions took him to a place of less faith. But to ignore those valid questions and problems, and just "cry wolf" is counterproductive.

This is another old canard that needs to be put to bed.

Mister Dehlin has been an actively proselytizing apostate for years. He has never "flip-flopped," because his career has been his only religion; in the which, he has never wavered. His lurking around the Church has simply been part of his marketing strategy.  Wolves like to stay near the flock.

That is the simple, parsimonious explanation for everything he has said and done ever since he started up his mis-named "Mormon Stories" business.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

Doctrinally sound opinion.

That may not matter to you, but it does matter to believing Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

Your response seems to place me outside the circle of believing Latter-day Saints which would make it wholly incorrect.

[rockpond]

You're right. I haven't been building up a following for myself. I haven't made a career trying to white-ant the Church.

Certainly.

Interviewers: We [the Larsens] do tend to take a more negative position. . . . I don’t think people

confuse us with the regular church stuff, but your stuff—it’s a little bit more fuzzy; it might be

more confusing.

Dehlin: Yeah.

Interviewers: And that’s intentional, right?

Dehlin: I’m intentionally trying to be a safe place for people to initially learn the information and

feel comfortable going there. I’ve always been sensitive to wanting you guys to not feel like I’m

calling you negative or unsafe. But I want to build a bridge so that people can get all the facts, all

the information, and then make an informed decision.

And then:

Dehlin: For the people who want to learn, you want to feel as safe as possible. Now, I’m not

trying to fool them. My goal isn’t to try to get them to leave. My goal is for them to get all the

facts. So I don’t feel like I’m trying to deceive them, but I don’t want to have them turn me off

before they even listen. . . . I feel like I hit the tough issues. I just try to interview them in an

objective way, and try and have that balance, if I do [Grant] Palmer, I do [Richard] Bushman so

they’ll always get this sense that I’m trying to be fair and balanced.

Interviewer: Palmer is worth a Bushman.

Dehlin: [laughs]

Interviewer: Is that the exchange rate? Is that the trade?

Dehlin: Yeah, it’s kind of—yeah, that’s the exchange rate.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

The thing is, of course, that Mister Dehlin really doesn't want his listeners to get "all the facts," contrary to what he claims. He only wants them to get the facts he chooses to promote. He goes ballistic when anyone counters his view of things, and threw a major tantrum when Greg Smith wrote his review.

And anyone who reads it can see why.

But he picks and chooses the material he presents. He exploits the "problems" to create his own narrative.

And the so-called "attacks on Dehlin" are merely the full disclosure he demands from others but not from himself. They are just the facts.

Mister Dehlin has built a career out of propagating anti-Mormon propaganda and acting as an "exit counsellor" for the people he has caused to become disaffected from the Church of Jesus Christ.

This is another old canard that needs to be put to bed.

Mister Dehlin has been an actively proselytizing apostate for years. He has never "flip-flopped," because his career has been his only religion; in the which, he has never wavered. His lurking around the Church has simply been part of his marketing strategy. Wolves like to stay near the flock.

That is the simple, parsimonious explanation for everything he has said and done ever since he started up his mis-named "Mormon Stories" business.

Regards,

Pahoran

So it wasn't Dehlin who said the "palmer worth a bushman" line. It was Larsen. Got it.

Dehlin was trying to explain how he tries to be balanced.

And, yeah, I imagine a lot of us would go ballistic if someone wrote a 100-page attack piece on us.

And, actually, if you listen to Dehlin over the entirety of his years in podcasting you'll note that he did change over time ("flip flop" to use your term). And he didn't decide to be a counselor for people leaving the church until well into the process when he identified the need for such.

What's his "marketing strategy"? He doesn't advertise. The Facebook group is private. Someone has to seek out MS. People like me who innocently stumbled across the issues and needed a safe place to explore them.

[Pahoran]

Your response seems to place me outside the circle of believing Latter-day Saints which would make it wholly incorrect.

Rockpond,

All I know about you is what you disclose in this MB.

Which consists of (1) the things you intentionally disclose, and (2) the things you unintentionally disclose.

Based upon the second set of disclosures, I find it difficult to see you as a believing Latter-day Saint.

President Monson isn't merely the guy at the top of the Church organisation, which is something everyone, including a devout Catholic, an observant Jew, a card-carrying atheist and a Theravada Buddhist could all agree upon; he is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth, the prophet, seer and revelator, in a way that no-one else now living is.

So say we, the believing Latter-day Saints.

Unanimously.

Jesus Christ wasn't just a nice guy who told the rest of us to be nice too; he is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world, who sets the terms of the salvific covenant which he offers us; which terms are not negotiable by us.

So say we, the believing Latter-day Saints.

Unanimously.

And homosexual acts aren't just another way to "express love;" they are grossly sinful acts that are forbidden by the Lord's immutable commandments, and will never be accepted by Him.

So say we, the believing Latter-day Saints.

 

Unanimously.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

So it wasn't Dehlin who said the "palmer worth a bushman" line. It was Larsen. Got it.

And Dehlin agreed with it. Did you get that too?

 

Dehlin was trying to explain how he tries to be balanced.

That might of been what he was trying to do. What he succeeded in doing was to explain how he tries to present himself as "balanced."

How he uses the Bushman-type interviews as the sugar coating to get people to swallow the Palmer propaganda.

 

And, yeah, I imagine a lot of us would go ballistic if someone wrote a 100-page attack piece on us.

It's not an "attack piece." That's Dehlinite propaganda, and it is false.

 

And, actually, if you listen to Dehlin over the entirety of his years in podcasting you'll note that he did change over time ("flip flop" to use your term). And he didn't decide to be a counselor for people leaving the church until well into the process when he identified the need for such.

Like I said: I spotted him for what he is years ago.

And I've been proven right.

 

What's his "marketing strategy"? He doesn't advertise. The Facebook group is private. Someone has to seek out MS. People like me who innocently stumbled across the issues and needed a safe place to explore them.

Advertising is old hat. He relies upon word of mouth, as amplified by social media.

Which is why he resisted leaving the Church for so long, and tried to subvert the Priesthood disciplinary process right up to the last moment. "Affinity fraud" relies upon common affiliations.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 22, 2015 by Pahoran

[rockpond]

Rockpond,

All I know about you is what you disclose in this MB.

Which consists of (1) the things you intentionally disclose, and (2) the things you unintentionally disclose.

Based upon the second set of disclosures, I find it difficult to see you as a believing Latter-day Saint.

President Monson isn't merely the guy at the top of the Church organisation, which is something everyone, including a devout Catholic, an observant Jew, a card-carrying atheist and a Theravada Buddhist could all agree upon; he is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth, the prophet, seer and revelator, in a way that no-one else now living is.

So say we, the believing Latter-day Saints.

Unanimously.

Jesus Christ wasn't just a nice guy who told the rest of us to be nice too; he is the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world, who sets the terms of the salvific covenant which he offers us; which terms are not negotiable by us.

So say we, the believing Latter-day Saints.

Unanimously.

And homosexual acts aren't just another way to "express love;" they are grossly sinful acts that are forbidden by the Lord's immutable commandments, and will never be accepted by Him.

So say we, the believing Latter-day Saints.

Unanimously.

Regards,

Pahoran

I was with you up to your finally point. CFR that or retract it please.

I do believe that President Monson is the mouthpiece of the Lord as I also believe that Christ is the Son of God and the path to our salvation.

I'll further disclose that I am an active, temple recommend holding, high priest. I am currently serving as bishop's counselor.

The doctrine of Christ is what we all agree on (or should agree on in the church) the differences we all have in belief regarding the "appendages" add a richness to our faith and culture.

[rockpond]

And Dehlin agreed with it. Did you get that too?

That might of been what he was trying to do. What he succeeded in doing was to explain how he tries to present himself as "balanced."

How he uses the Bushman-type interviews as the sugar coating to get people to swallow the Palmer propaganda.

It's not an "attack piece." That's Dehlinite propaganda, and it is false.

Like I said: I spotted him for what he is years ago.

And I've been proven right.

Advertising is old hat. He relies upon word of mouth, as amplified by social media.

Which is why he resisted leaving the Church for so long, and tried to subvert the Priesthood disciplinary process right up to the last moment. "Affinity fraud" relies upon common affiliations.

Regards,

Pahoran

Dehlin jokingly agreed.

And you mistakenly put words in Dehlin's mouth. Something you've done a number of times now.

So we see your approach to "fair and balanced". Just as you erroneously claim what Latter-day Saints "unanimously" agree on.

You seem comfortable playing loose with the facts. I'm not impressed.

[Pahoran]

Dehlin jokingly agreed.

He may have chuckled, but he admitted that that was his agenda.

It was no joke.

And you mistakenly put words in Dehlin's mouth. Something you've done a number of times now.

He agreed with that statement.

So we see your approach to "fair and balanced". Just as you erroneously claim what Latter-day Saints "unanimously" agree on.

You seem comfortable playing loose with the facts. I'm not impressed.

What "facts" have I played "loose" with?

You seem comfortable playing pharisaical hair-splitting word games. I'm not impressed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I was with you up to your finally point. CFR that or retract it please.

It's completely non-controversial.

The sky is blue.

The grass is green.

And homosexual acts aren't just another way to "express love;" they are grossly sinful acts that are forbidden by the Lord's immutable commandments, and will never be accepted by Him.

But since you reject the plain statements of the Lord's prophets: 1 Corinthians 6:9.

 

I do believe that President Monson is the mouthpiece of the Lord as I also believe that Christ is the Son of God and the path to our salvation.

I'll further disclose that I am an active, temple recommend holding, high priest. I am currently serving as bishop's counselor.

The doctrine of Christ is what we all agree on (or should agree on in the church) the differences we all have in belief regarding the "appendages" add a richness to our faith and culture.

Joseph made so bold as to start 13 statements of belief with the word "We." If you reject something as unambiguously plain as the above, you are not part of that "We."

And if you really want The House of the Lord to be desecrated by welcoming vile and filthy relationships, then you've completely forgotten the difference between right and wrong.

Completely.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 22, 2015 by Pahoran

[pogi]

It's completely non-controversial.

The sky is blue.

 

It is?

Edited February 22, 2015 by pogi

[rockpond]

It's completely non-controversial.

The sky is blue.

The grass is green.

And homosexual acts aren't just another way to "express love;" they are grossly sinful acts that are forbidden by the Lord's immutable commandments, and will never be accepted by Him.

But since you reject the plain statements of the Lord's prophets: 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Joseph made so bold as to start 13 statements of belief with the word "We." If you reject something as unambiguously plain as the above, you are not part of that "We."

And if you really want The House of the Lord to be desecrated by welcoming vile and filthy relationships, then you've completely forgotten the difference between right and wrong.

Completely.

Regards,

Pahoran

You repeating your statement and claiming that it is non-controversial does not satisfy the CFR.

And, honestly, it's just laughable to return home from a home teaching appointment and find that you're writing posts about how I'm not part of the "we" of the church.

Edited February 23, 2015 by rockpond

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................................  

That's what Mister Dehlin has been for years now, and his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcast was his main vehicle for his emnity.

...............................................................................

So you are saying that John Dehlin was guilty of passive agression?

[Pahoran]

So you are saying that John Dehlin was guilty of passive agression?

Thanks for the chuckle!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You repeating your statement and claiming that it is non-controversial does not satisfy the CFR.

No, but 1 Corinthians 6:9 does.

Which was already in my post.

Perhaps you missed it.

And, honestly, it's just laughable to return home from a home teaching appointment and find that you're writing posts about how I'm not part of the "we" of the church.

I don't doubt that Mister Dehlin could have provided the same retort not so long ago, too.

I can see that we have reached an impasse.

I stand by my view, expressed above: not only does no informed Latter-day Saint expect "same sex temple marriage," no Latter-day Saint who knows the difference between right and wrong comes anywhere near wanting it; or regarding it as anything less than a repulsive, disgusting notion.

And you disagree.

So, since there's no point us losing our tempers over something that isn't going to happen, I suggest we agree not to discuss this matter any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................................

........................ He goes ballistic when anyone counters his view of things, and threw a major tantrum when Greg Smith wrote his review.

 

.....................................................................................................  

He didn't just go ballistic and throw a tantrum.  Dehlin actually managed to prevent publication.  He spread the false rumor that it was "hit  piece," which it clearly was not -- which we realized, once we finally got to read it.

 

Here is a guy who innocently asks why he is being persecuted, but (when he got the chance) was only too happy to censor or persecute someone else.

 

This tells us a great deal about his value system, in which a Grant Palmer is worth a Richard Bushman . . .

Edited February 23, 2015 by Robert F. Smith