No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[mfbukowski]

You're right.  I guess I could say more precisely... the vast majority in the church can look at current Mormon doctrines and policies and would label those actions with their definition of "profane."  

 

Whether that is useful is another question.

Well yes, I agree. I wasn't criticizing your phrasing really so much as the whole purpose of the discussion and what it was supposed to accomplish.

THAT is what I am having problems with!

[Teancum]

You've spent your entire adult life as a faithful member of the church - and now you're an apostate? Is being an apostate what comes after adulthood?

No it is called maturing and realizing that what you once thought was truth likely is not.

By the way the apostate comment is tongue firmly in cheek. I know that I am viewed as such by some here even though I still participate as an LDS member and keep my mouth shut at church.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Teancum

[Brian 2.0]

Well yes, I agree. I wasn't criticizing your phrasing really so much as the whole purpose of the discussion and what it was supposed to accomplish.

THAT is what I am having problems with!

 

It's all a bunch of silliness, really.  The fact that it has gone on 13 pages is pretty astonishing.  The merry-go-round of this thread has gone round and round a number of times already.

[Russell C McGregor]

The brethren have laid out standards for faithfulness in the temple recommend questions.

Yes, and a certain high-profile PUPA developed and published a set of instructions for how to get a Temple Recommend without really qualifying for it.

Words, you see, have meanings; and their meanings depend upon their context.

Take the first TR question: "Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?"

Now, given the context of that question -- an almost verbatim quote of the first Article of Faith -- it's pretty clear what is being asked: Do you believe that God, the supreme being and creator of all things, lives and is a personal, immortal, immensely powerful and actual being? And do you believe that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, in the meridian of time, who then atoned for our sins, was crucified, rose from the dead, being the first to be actually and bodily resurrected? And do you believe that there is a spirit being who testifies of the Father and the Son, namely the Holy Ghost?

So if someone listens to the question and says to himself, "I suppose there might be some power behind the universe somewhere, so I guess I can call that 'God;' and I suppose that someone named Jesus might have lived once, and told people to be nice to each other; and I guess that there's a kind of shared impulse to do good things, so I suppose I could call that the 'Holy Ghost'," and then says aloud "Yes," has that person honestly answered the question he knows the bishop is really asking?

Of course he hasn't.

 

So what does his Temple Recommend really mean?

 

The brethren have laid out standards for faithfulness in the temple recommend questions. Laying additional qualifications beyond that is very anti-Mormon in my opinion.

Is it as anti-Mormon as rationalising those qualifications into meaninglessness?

[rockpond]

Virtually everything you ask has been covered and answered in this thread. I'll try my best to consolidate at least my thoughts into one post, and then I'm probably going to be done.

Members of the church are, despite outsider's impressions, a rather diverse and opinionated group. They hold opinions and views about things that conflict with other members' views. Often, those conflicts are over things that in reality aren't that important. It doesn't affect anyone's salvation if those opinions differ. Things like evolution, a literal flood, the age of the earth, the real nature of the Adam and Eve story (aside from the actual fall), where the Ten Tribes are, etc., etc. are hotly debated at times, but if one side of any of these became official church doctrine, it wouldn't rock the foundations of faith for most people. We just don't know enough about them, and what we do know is mostly speculative.

I don't worry about differing opinions on those things. They really don't matter that much right now in the bigger scheme of me working out my salvation. They can be interesting to discuss, but that's it.

On the other hand, there are other opinions on change that, if they occurred, would rock the very foundations of the church. The core truth claims of the church would be called into question because those changes would eliminate or severely change foundational doctrines that have been the bedrock of the church. These would include things like the church saying that the Book of Mormon is not really based on an authentic ancient record from gold plates, that Joseph was not really a prophet called of God (but rather just a well meaning individual), that polygamy was not a revelation, but an aberration, that the temples are now open to anyone without a recommend (non-members included), that the ordinances are optional, that marriage is now optional and people can live together if they want to. Any of those things happening would have an incredible domino effect that would be devastating to the church and most of its members.

The church accepting SSM and SS sealings in the temple is also one of those things.

Accepting SS sealings would call into question some very basic tenets of the church. Faithful members of the church would have, in effect, the rug pulled out from under them. The credibility of the leaders of the church would be significantly damaged. The very definition of what sin is would be called into question.

Whenever I hear of members of the church espousing such radical changes in the church, it's no longer a matter of just having conflicting opinions. It's wanting something that attacks the very foundations of the church.

Perhaps some members who support SS sealings haven't really thought through the impact of what that change would entail, or what would be called into question about the church. I see the same thing happening with those who want women to have the priesthood, though that is a far more nuanced issue in many ways. SSM is rather black and white in comparison.

I get really troubled when attempts are made to compare SSM to the priesthood change that occurred in 1978. There was a great deal of opinion about blacks in the priesthood, and much of it reflected the cultural influences of the time. However, there was also always the understanding that it would someday change. We didn't know when or how, but we knew it would change. And when that change happened in 1978 there was an incredible outpouring of joy from the great majority of members of the church, and most people started the process of adjusting to that unexpected and wonderful change rather quickly. President Kimball termed it the long awaited day, and it was that indeed.

In comparison, there has never been any promise of SSM being accepted by the church, nor of SS sealings being done in the temple. There is no expectation of that by most members of the church, since it is well understood that homosexual behavior has been defined by the Lord and His prophets consistently as a sin. If that were to change, the reaction would be very, very different than it was in 1978. The great majority of members of the church would be confused and frustrated. The leaders of the church and the basic tenets of the church would be called into question by a very large number of members of the church. It would not be a day of joy, but a day of upheaval.

There are certain things in the church that will not and cannot change because of the foundational impact they would have.

I'm not sure how well that is understood by some people who want such changes in the church. To many of us, those types of changes are unthinkable. They are part of our basic testimonies of the restored gospel. Evolution, the flood, or whatever isn't part of my basic testimony. The nature of sin and of the atonement and eternal families and prophetic guidance are part of my testimony.

So the main question is this: if a member wants foundational changes in church doctrines or practices that the Lord and His prophets have been very consistent and clear about, what is that member really telling us? There are plenty of people outside the church that would love to see those same foundational changes occur, because they know precisely what the effect would be on the church. Why would a faithful member of the church even want to go there?

Finally, to address directly the temple recommend process, it really mostly entails some self-introspection on the part of the individual being interviewed. The questions don't ask about specific beliefs or opinions; they ask whether you sustain the First Presidency and the Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. They ask whether you affiliate with groups or individuals whose agendas oppose the church. It's up to each individual to determine whether he or she is being honest in answering those questions. The church itself doesn't vouch for the faithfulness of a member in giving them a recommend. They assume you're answering honestly unless proven otherwise, but it is not an endorsement of the church about what kind of a person you actually are.

There is an inherent conflict between a member of the church claiming that God has told them through the Spirit that SS sealings should be done in the temple and are right, and prophetic leaders of the church telling us that it isn't right. If I get an impression that is in conflict with the clear revealed will of the Lord, then I need to go back and figure out what's going on. That's what being faithful is all about. It's the process of submitting to the Lord step by step and that includes giving due consideration to what our prophets are unitedly telling us on these matters. It involves me taking my own opinions and evaluating them in the light of what God is tell me, what the scriptures say, what the prophets are saying, and what the world is doing (I'll tend to go in the opposite direction, there).

Anyway, that's it. I don't have to judge other people's membership in the church (which is good), but I can make judgments on things that are fundamentally inconsistent with what the church stands for, such as SSM and SS sealings.

That's one way to compare the priesthood and temple ban to SSM.

Here's another: Past prophets and apostles erred in what they taught about race and the justification for the ban. We corrected and the Church survived. We received further light and knowledge and are the better for it.

Some of us believe that there may yet be further light and knowledge we've yet to received regarding God's homosexual children.

The change you describe would be difficult today... Church membership does not seem ready for it (as you noted) just as their was a time in our history when church membership apparently wasn't ready for the race-based ban to be lifted.

But if revelation is one day received that changes current teachings, I'm confident that the Lord's timing will be right. And, the church will be stronger for it.

[rockpond]

Yes, and a certain high-profile PUPA developed and published a set of instructions for how to get a Temple Recommend without really qualifying for it.

Words, you see, have meanings; and their meanings depend upon their context.

Take the first TR question: "Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?"

Now, given the context of that question -- an almost verbatim quote of the first Article of Faith -- it's pretty clear what is being asked: Do you believe that God, the supreme being and creator of all things, lives and is a personal, immortal, immensely powerful and actual being? And do you believe that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, in the meridian of time, who then atoned for our sins, was crucified, rose from the dead, being the first to be actually and bodily resurrected? And do you believe that there is a spirit being who testifies of the Father and the Son, namely the Holy Ghost?

So if someone listens to the question and says to himself, "I suppose there might be some power behind the universe somewhere, so I guess I can call that 'God;' and I suppose that someone named Jesus might have lived once, and told people to be nice to each other; and I guess that there's a kind of shared impulse to do good things, so I suppose I could call that the 'Holy Ghost'," and then says aloud "Yes," has that person honestly answered the question he knows the bishop is really asking?

Of course he hasn't.

So what does his Temple Recommend really mean?

Is it as anti-Mormon as rationalising those qualifications into meaninglessness?

Per the handbook instructions, when we perform a TR interview, we're to read the questions as they are written.

I think it is as wrong for you to add requirements as it is for anyone else to remove requirements.

[Russell C McGregor]

Per the handbook instructions, when we perform a TR interview, we're to read the questions as they are written.

And Mister Dehlin and his boosters exploit that to the hilt.

The Temple Recommend interview is ultimately based upon trust. Affinity fraudsters thrive on taking advantage of trust.

I think it is as wrong for you to add requirements as it is for anyone else to remove requirements.

Where have I added requirements?

[Russell C McGregor]

That's one way to compare the priesthood and temple ban to SSM.

Here's another: Past prophets and apostles erred in what they taught about race and the justification for the ban. We corrected and the Church survived. We received further light and knowledge and are the better for it.

Some of us believe that there may yet be further light and knowledge we've yet to received regarding God's homosexual children.

When I see that sort of nonsense, I see apostate propaganda cunningly packaged in Mormon terminology.

The "further light and knowledge" is already here, and it is this:

Those agitating for the Church to accept wickedness need to repent.

 

The change you describe would be difficult today... Church membership does not seem ready for it (as you noted) just as their was a time in our history when church membership apparently wasn't ready for the race-based ban to be lifted.

But if revelation is one day received that changes current teachings, I'm confident that the Lord's timing will be right. And, the church will be stronger for it.

A consistently invalid comparison.

But one you are unlikely to abandon as long as you find it serviceable.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[canard78]

Yes, and a certain high-profile PUPA developed and published a set of instructions for how to get a Temple Recommend without really qualifying for it.

Words, you see, have meanings; and their meanings depend upon their context.

Take the first TR question: "Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?"

Now, given the context of that question -- an almost verbatim quote of the first Article of Faith -- it's pretty clear what is being asked: Do you believe that God, the supreme being and creator of all things, lives and is a personal, immortal, immensely powerful and actual being? And do you believe that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, in the meridian of time, who then atoned for our sins, was crucified, rose from the dead, being the first to be actually and bodily resurrected? And do you believe that there is a spirit being who testifies of the Father and the Son, namely the Holy Ghost?

So if someone listens to the question and says to himself, "I suppose there might be some power behind the universe somewhere, so I guess I can call that 'God;' and I suppose that someone named Jesus might have lived once, and told people to be nice to each other; and I guess that there's a kind of shared impulse to do good things, so I suppose I could call that the 'Holy Ghost'," and then says aloud "Yes," has that person honestly answered the question he knows the bishop is really asking?

Of course he hasn't.

So what does his Temple Recommend really mean?

Is it as anti-Mormon as rationalising those qualifications into meaninglessness?

So let's entertain the idea, for a moment, that Russell C McGregor gets to make the authoritative statement on what each question really means. Which of the questions support your OP? Which of the questions is imbued with the underlying principle that no LDS prophet could ever receive a revelation sanctioning gay temple marriage? Or to be more specific, which TR question suggests that even the belief that such a revelation could happen disqualifies the person from holding said recommend.

[rockpond]

When I see that sort of nonsense, I see apostate propaganda cunningly packaged in Mormon terminology.

The "further light and knowledge" is already here, and it is this:

Those agitating for the Church to accept wickedness need to repent.

A consistently invalid comparison.

But one you are unlikely to abandon as long as you find it serviceable.

And once again... I'm not agitating for the church to accept wickedness. But I also have no hope of you making any real effort to understand me.

[rockpond]

Where have I added requirements?

You did with your expansion of the questions in the post I quoted. You've also set yourself up as the arbiter of who is a faithful Latter-day Saint.

You are guilty of the same thing you accuse Dehlin of doing -- you're just at the opposite end of the spectrum. That may make you feel like you are just being extra righteous but it still puts you out of sync with the Brethren (what you accuse me of being). So maybe we're all not that different.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Virtually everything you ask has been covered and answered in this thread. I'll try my best to consolidate at least my thoughts into one post, and then I'm probably going to be done.

Members of the church are, despite outsider's impressions, a rather diverse and opinionated group. They hold opinions and views about things that conflict with other members' views. Often, those conflicts are over things that in reality aren't that important. It doesn't affect anyone's salvation if those opinions differ. Things like evolution, a literal flood, the age of the earth, the real nature of the Adam and Eve story (aside from the actual fall), where the Ten Tribes are, etc., etc. are hotly debated at times, but if one side of any of these became official church doctrine, it wouldn't rock the foundations of faith for most people. We just don't know enough about them, and what we do know is mostly speculative.

 

I don't worry about differing opinions on those things. They really don't matter that much right now in the bigger scheme of me working out my salvation. They can be interesting to discuss, but that's it.

 

On the other hand, there are other opinions on change that, if they occurred, would rock the very foundations of the church. The core truth claims of the church would be called into question because those changes would eliminate or severely change foundational doctrines that have been the bedrock of the church. These would include things like the church saying that the Book of Mormon is not really based on an authentic ancient record from gold plates, that Joseph was not really a prophet called of God (but rather just a well meaning individual), that polygamy was not a revelation, but an aberration, that the temples are now open to anyone without a recommend (non-members included), that the ordinances are optional, that marriage is now optional and people can live together if they want to. Any of those things happening would have an incredible domino effect that would be devastating to the church and most of its members.

 

The church accepting SSM and SS sealings in the temple is also one of those things.

 

Accepting SS sealings would call into question some very basic tenets of the church. Faithful members of the church would have, in effect, the rug pulled out from under them. The credibility of the leaders of the church would be significantly damaged. The very definition of what sin is would be called into question.

 

Whenever I hear of members of the church espousing such radical changes in the church, it's no longer a matter of just having conflicting opinions. It's wanting something that attacks the very foundations of the church.

First I understand that you don't intend to respond, so let me say up front thank you for your post. I think it is well worded and overall I agree with most of what you say here. As a self proclaimed Mormon Heretic who would welcome Same Sex Marriage, I have no idea how that idea could be meshed with Mormon theology either. It is why I don't see the church ever changing on this matter. That said, my imagination is small, so I have faith that if it is God's will it would all work out in the end and it would all make sense.

I will make the distinction that one can want same sex sealings and not be attacking the very foundation of the church. I suspect that aside from a random internet post or two, most saints who have this desire do not go around loudly proclaiming their belief to those around them. I would further propose that since they are looking to God for the change, they trust that God could make the change in a way that would not attack the church even if they don't see how.

 

Perhaps some members who support SS sealings haven't really thought through the impact of what that change would entail, or what would be called into question about the church. I see the same thing happening with those who want women to have the priesthood, though that is a far more nuanced issue in many ways. SSM is rather black and white in comparison.

I appreciate your charitable description here. 

 

I get really troubled when attempts are made to compare SSM to the priesthood change that occurred in 1978. There was a great deal of opinion about blacks in the priesthood, and much of it reflected the cultural influences of the time. However, there was also always the understanding that it would someday change. We didn't know when or how, but we knew it would change. And when that change happened in 1978 there was an incredible outpouring of joy from the great majority of members of the church, and most people started the process of adjusting to that unexpected and wonderful change rather quickly. President Kimball termed it the long awaited day, and it was that indeed.

No metaphor is perfect, and I agree that a change to accept SSM would be orders of magnitude greater. That said, your narrative is a modern reconstruction. The ban and the doctrine behind has scriptural and prophetic backing. And we did know when the ban was to be listed. Per the prophets it was to happen at the end of the millenium after all the other sons of Adam had a chance to get the priesthood.

 

In comparison, there has never been any promise of SSM being accepted by the church, nor of SS sealings being done in the temple. There is no expectation of that by most members of the church, since it is well understood that homosexual behavior has been defined by the Lord and His prophets consistently as a sin. If that were to change, the reaction would be very, very different than it was in 1978. The great majority of members of the church would be confused and frustrated. The leaders of the church and the basic tenets of the church would be called into question by a very large number of members of the church. It would not be a day of joy, but a day of upheaval.

I actually agree with you here. There are some analogs between the two, but there are at least as many differences. 

 

I'm not sure how well that is understood by some people who want such changes in the church. To many of us, those types of changes are unthinkable. They are part of our basic testimonies of the restored gospel. Evolution, the flood, or whatever isn't part of my basic testimony. The nature of sin and of the atonement and eternal families and prophetic guidance are part of my testimony.

 

So the main question is this: if a member wants foundational changes in church doctrines or practices that the Lord and His prophets have been very consistent and clear about, what is that member really telling us? There are plenty of people outside the church that would love to see those same foundational changes occur, because they know precisely what the effect would be on the church. Why would a faithful member of the church even want to go there?

I will just further emphasize that wanting foundational change and wanting same sex marriage are not the same thing. People are full of contradictions. I do not want foundational change. I would welcome same-sex sealings. I have no idea how that would happen, so I do not see it happening. I hold out a sliver of hope that God could in his infinite wisdom make it work.

 

Finally, to address directly the temple recommend process, it really mostly entails some self-introspection on the part of the individual being interviewed. The questions don't ask about specific beliefs or opinions; they ask whether you sustain the First Presidency and the Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. They ask whether you affiliate with groups or individuals whose agendas oppose the church. It's up to each individual to determine whether he or she is being honest in answering those questions. The church itself doesn't vouch for the faithfulness of a member in giving them a recommend. They assume you're answering honestly unless proven otherwise, but it is not an endorsement of the church about what kind of a person you actually are.

 

There is an inherent conflict between a member of the church claiming that God has told them through the Spirit that SS sealings should be done in the temple and are right, and prophetic leaders of the church telling us that it isn't right. If I get an impression that is in conflict with the clear revealed will of the Lord, then I need to go back and figure out what's going on. That's what being faithful is all about. It's the process of submitting to the Lord step by step and that includes giving due consideration to what our prophets are unitedly telling us on these matters. It involves me taking my own opinions and evaluating them in the light of what God is tell me, what the scriptures say, what the prophets are saying, and what the world is doing (I'll tend to go in the opposite direction, there).

 

Anyway, that's it. I don't have to judge other people's membership in the church (which is good), but I can make judgments on things that are fundamentally inconsistent with what the church stands for, such as SSM and SS sealings.

Like I said, I really liked your post. May I just suggest that you have the wrong thread. This is not the thread that is discussing the internal inconsistencies of people who hope for same sex sealings (we all have internal inconsistencies). This is not the thread trying to persuade faithful saints to abandon their heretical views. This is the thread that has as its premise that if you wish for SS marriages, you cannot by definition be faithful. The OP doesn't say such individuals are misguided (as you charitably suggest), it says they are in full apostasy.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And Mister Dehlin and his boosters exploit that to the hilt.

The Temple Recommend interview is ultimately based upon trust. Affinity fraudsters thrive on taking advantage of trust.

Where have I added requirements?

I'm sorry, why are we even talking about John Dehlin and his "boosters." Are you suggesting that every single person in the church who wishes for same sex sealings (I assume you are defending your OP statement that "no faithful Latter-day Saint...") supports John Dehlin and is essentially lying to get a temple recommend?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes, and a certain high-profile PUPA developed and published a set of instructions for how to get a Temple Recommend without really qualifying for it.

Words, you see, have meanings; and their meanings depend upon their context.

Take the first TR question: "Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?"

Now, given the context of that question -- an almost verbatim quote of the first Article of Faith -- it's pretty clear what is being asked: Do you believe that God, the supreme being and creator of all things, lives and is a personal, immortal, immensely powerful and actual being? And do you believe that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, in the meridian of time, who then atoned for our sins, was crucified, rose from the dead, being the first to be actually and bodily resurrected? And do you believe that there is a spirit being who testifies of the Father and the Son, namely the Holy Ghost?

So if someone listens to the question and says to himself, "I suppose there might be some power behind the universe somewhere, so I guess I can call that 'God;' and I suppose that someone named Jesus might have lived once, and told people to be nice to each other; and I guess that there's a kind of shared impulse to do good things, so I suppose I could call that the 'Holy Ghost'," and then says aloud "Yes," has that person honestly answered the question he knows the bishop is really asking?

Of course he hasn't.

 

So what does his Temple Recommend really mean?

Question for you: It seems that you are proposing that all "faithful"/temple recommend holding saints who support same sex sealings are using this method to obtain a temple recommend. Is this what you are proposing? If yes, then CFR. If no, then lets exclude those saints for the moment and let's just focus on those saints that obtain their recommend being open and completely honest with their bishop.

Is it as anti-Mormon as rationalising those qualifications into meaninglessness?

This is a good question. I don't support the method of rationalizing that John Dehlin does. That said, I trust that the Brethren (those called to lead the church) are in tune with what is going on. If they haven't seen fit to add further restrictions, or perhaps see those restrictions as more damaging than helpful, I will trust their judgement. I would posit that their judgement should be defined as pro-Mormon not anti-Mormon.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Those agitating for the Church to accept wickedness need to repent.

Is wishing for something and agitating for it equivalent in your mind? What about stating out loud that you wish for it. Does that raise to the point of agitation for you? I would kindly suggest that the answer to these two questions is no. I would further suggest that your opening post's claim "no faithful latter-day saint..." did not mention anything about agitation. Yet you continue to argue as if it did.

It seems like what you meant to say in the opening post was something like: No one that fits my strawman* view of those that wish for same sex sealings can be faithful.

*Based on your posts your strawman Saint that wishes for same sex sealings has the following characteristics:

"arrogantly condescending to wait for the brethren to reach her level of "enlightenment"

are "Affinity fraudsters" who as John Dehlin boosters use fraud to obtain Temple Recommends 

Agitate for the church to accept wickedness (see quoted post)

 

I agree with you that such individuals are not faithful. 

[ttribe]

And Mister Dehlin and his boosters exploit that to the hilt.The Temple Recommend interview is ultimately based upon trust. Affinity fraudsters thrive on taking advantage of trust.Where have I added requirements?

This is a pretty gross revision of what the term "Affinity Fraudster" means.

BTW, I am a Certified Fraud Examiner and have written an article on Affinity Fraud.

[tonie]

Take the first TR question: "Do you believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?"

...

 

has that person honestly answered the question he knows the bishop is really asking?

 

 

All Faithful Saints know what the question means...is that a collarly to "No faithful Saint".

 

Considering that the Tempel Recommend interview is between the individual, the interviewer, and God....then what you think the question means ONLY APPLIES TO YOU.

 

You forcing your personal beliefs as the standard for what the Church teaches, or what some aspect of the Gospel means.

 

You have no right, and more importantly you have zero authority, to define for those not under your stewardship, to define what the Gospel means

 

 

So much for line-upon-line.

Edited May 5, 2015 by tonie

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is a pretty gross revision of what the term "Affinity Fraudster" means.

BTW, I am a Certified Fraud Examiner and have written an article on Affinity Fraud.

Pretty gross? Seriously He got most of it right.

 

The fraudsters who promote affinity scams frequently are – or pretend to be – members of the group. They often enlist respected community or religious leaders from within the group to spread the word about the scheme

 

That is exactly what Mr. Dehlin did and tries to do.The only aspect is that not inline is that it was not an investment scheme of money. And instead of leaders he went to every day ordinary members.

 

You people try really hard to not see the point.

[ttribe]

Pretty gross? Seriously He got most of it right.

 

 

That is exactly what Mr. Dehlin did and tries to do.The only aspect is that not inline is that it was not an investment scheme of money. And instead of leaders he went to every day ordinary members.

 

You people try really hard to not see the point.

Are you really going to argue with me about a topic upon which I am paid to provide expert testimony in a court of law?

[jwhitlock]

This is a pretty gross revision of what the term "Affinity Fraudster" means.

BTW, I am a Certified Fraud Examiner and have written an article on Affinity Fraud.

 

To quote: "Affinity fraudsters thrive on taking advantage of trust."

 

How is that a gross revision of Affinity Fraud?

 

It's a pretty standard definition of what AF involves.  Perhaps you may disagree with its application to Dehlin, but as an expert are you telling us the definition is wrong?

[ttribe]

To quote: "Affinity fraudsters thrive on taking advantage of trust."

 

How is that a gross revision of Affinity Fraud?

 

It's a pretty standard definition of what AF involves.  Perhaps you may disagree with its application to Dehlin, but as an expert are you telling us the definition is wrong?

All fraud takes advantage of trust; but not all violations of trust are fraud. Nevertheless, that's the root of the term "confidence man." That's not the issue, though. One - fraud requires intent to deceive. Dehlin clearly harbors heretical beliefs, but genuine disagreements over matters of theology do not rise to an intent to deceive for personal gain. Two - equating that difference of theological perspective to a term of art that specifically refers to a criminal act goes beyond normal hyperbole into outright misrepresentation.

[jwhitlock]

All fraud takes advantage of trust; but not all violations of trust are fraud. Nevertheless, that's the root of the term "confidence man." That's not the issue, though. One - fraud requires intent to deceive. Dehlin clearly harbors heretical beliefs, but genuine disagreements over matters of theology do not rise to an intent to deceive for personal gain. Two - equating that difference of theological perspective to a term of art that specifically refers to a criminal act goes beyond normal hyperbole into outright misrepresentation.

 

On number One, there are differing points of view on whether Dehlin's disagreements are genuine, or whether he has primarily a financial interest in continuing his attacks on the church, which would include intent to deceive in order to get people to donate to him. He does seem to fit the definition of Priestcraft in the Book of Mormon, which involves personal gain.  If that's really the case with Dehlin, then it would appear that Two is moot.

[ttribe]

On number One, there are differing points of view on whether Dehlin's disagreements are genuine, or whether he has primarily a financial interest in continuing his attacks on the church, which would include intent to deceive in order to get people to donate to him. He does seem to fit the definition of Priestcraft in the Book of Mormon, which involves personal gain.  If that's really the case with Dehlin, then it would appear that Two is moot.

First, for the record, I'm no fan of Dehlin. But, his heretical beliefs are no secret. He makes no apparent effort to conceal beliefs that are contrary to the Church. An affinity fraudster, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to hide his or her lies from the target community. It's just a very different dynamic.

[jwhitlock]

First, for the record, I'm no fan of Dehlin. But, his heretical beliefs are no secret. He makes no apparent effort to conceal beliefs that are contrary to the Church. An affinity fraudster, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to hide his or her lies from the target community. It's just a very different dynamic.

 

You're correct that he is very open about his opposition to the church. The question becomes whether he is being intentionally deceitful in at least some of the things he portrays about the church in order to boost his personal revenue from sympathizers. I realize that in his case there wouldn't necessarily be anything that could be prosecuted.

 

It may be more akin to someone who sets up a 900 number claiming to appeal to a certain demographic (we have secret writings of Joseph Smith!) that just strings callers along for 15 minutes and then doesn't give them anything. Can that be prosecuted? Probably not. Is it fraudulent? Definitely.

 

Does all AF, by definition, need to be legally prosecutable criminal activity?

[ttribe]

You're correct that he is very open about his opposition to the church. The question becomes whether he is being intentionally deceitful in at least some of the things he portrays about the church in order to boost his personal revenue from sympathizers. I realize that in his case there wouldn't necessarily be anything that could be prosecuted.

 

It may be more akin to someone who sets up a 900 number claiming to appeal to a certain demographic (we have secret writings of Joseph Smith!) that just strings callers along for 15 minutes and then doesn't give them anything. Can that be prosecuted? Probably not. Is it fraudulent? Definitely.

 

Does all AF, by definition, need to be legally prosecutable criminal activity?

Yes, all AF hinges upon the presence of actual fraud; hence my reference to a term of art. That being said, I have personally viewed Dehlin as opportunistic at best, but I see no evidence of outright fraud.