Thou Shalt Not Stream

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Dallas Oaks’ first official speech as Prophet took place at a recent BYU devotional. And, you would think his first talk would be about the importance of serving the poor, love or forgiveness. Instead, the Prophet warned us about our Spotify podcast subscriptions. Apparently, the greatest threat to the Saints in 2026 isn't a lack of charity, but your streaming subscriptions. If God is really this worried about podcasts, the state of the Church must be even more fragile than we imagined.

Click the link below and listen to a quick four-summary of President Oaks’ new anti-podcast mandate, and for John Dehlin’s breakdown of why the Prophet is suddenly picking a fight with your Spotify. Dehlin also pulls back the curtain on why the term Mormon became a forbidden word and victory for Satan. It turns out, it wasn't a divine revelation so much as an SEO tactical retreat by the Church. When the search results for Mormon started favoring critics over the Church, the easiest fix was to simply change the brand:

https://youtu.be/WNFXAbb_FTw?t=3494

[I Have Questions]

The team behind the new Interpreter podcast might be a tad disappointed…

Also, you can listen to Dallin H Oaks on his official podcast channel on Spotify Here

[Gadianton]

He says to have discussions with faithful, well informed friends. He's not being honest. At best he means to have discussions with faithful friends stuck in the same information vacuum. But I doubt he even means that. He really means, "shame on you for doubting. Stay quiet, ignorant, and move along."
He mentions the full context of the situation won't be present in podcasts (by John). Now, just where would that full context be available? How would your friends at BYU have the full context in order to discuss?

Here's a hypothetical situation. You're at BYU. A mission and a full seminary education is behind you and you literally know nothing about the Church, Mormon history, theology, or anything. You're exactly where you need to be. You're in proximity of temple square after doing a session, somebody calls to you and asks you to look at something quickly, they seem to need help, and they show you a pamphlet that mentions Joseph Smith glass-looking charge right there on the front. You try to unsee it, but you can't erase it from your memory. What do you do?

None of the approved sources have any information about it. You've heard the Oak barrel's talk, and you don't want to sin further by getting the wrong source material. But you can't take the cart before the horse. You can't research to find the right material without risking finding the wrong material. How can you possibly be sure the first book you purchase on any subject, let alone this one, gives the "full context" of anything? Okay, so you don't know where to begin, you consider asking your roommates. But how would they know? How would others just like you in the same information vacuum know the first thing about such a strange scenario that you'd never even heard a wisp of? Here's the thing: the thing that you heard is an information hazard. Just bringing it up could get you punched in the face or yelled at, or freak someone out, and even if you go to someone you really, really trust, what if another roommate overhears? You could get reported to the honor code office.

He's lying through his teeth because there is no scenario that you can construct to actualize his advice. This is one of those things you hear, and what you're probably meant to take from it is that somewhere in the world, the full context exists, through means unspecified, there are those such as Oaks who know the full context. Since they aren't bothered by it, there is no point pursuing it further. You can deduce that there is a satisfying answer, somebody else knows it, you don't need to know it, so move along.

[Rivendale]

The scare tactics to avoid media works very well. Almost everyone that left the church and was interviewed by Dehlin on Mormon stories knew next to nothing about modern or historical issues with the church. There is also a tendency for members to not accept any responsibility for cultural influence on people who end up doing horrible things. A recent podcast on Mormonland regarding Jodi Hildebrandt and Ruby Frank is a perfect example of this. The host of this episode (Not Peggy Stack) specifically said she did not look into the details of their arrest because she did not want to learn information that would incriminate any church teachings that inspired their crimes.

https://youtu.be/yNxd7fTkIk8?si=ksYv_B1tXIS80Mw8

[huckelberry]

Listening to the clip in the link I did not hear any instruction to avoid streaming, online information or even to avoid speaking to non believers. I heard rather ho hum comments saying it's good to converse with believers and seek church instruction.

Perhaps prior instruction in church inclines people to hear the more extreme injunctions as implied if unstated.

[I Have Questions]

Here is a quote from, and a link to, the transcript of Oaks talk

Remember, “to survive spiritually,” you will need the “constant influence of the Holy Ghost.” An abundance of speculation and false information in podcasts and on social media surrounds us. Some may protest or question the truth of Church doctrine without knowing or even understanding the fulness of that doctrine.

Don’t be persuaded by false or inaccurate information. Discuss your concerns with faithful, well-informed friends and always take those concerns to the Lord.

Fortunately the SEC wasn't persuaded by the Church supplying them with false and inaccurate financial information. A deliberate scheme of falsifying records that Oaks himself signed off on. Oaks is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

And

Surround yourself with people who believe.

Oaks is telling believers to shun non believers. To isolate themselves.

[MG 2.0]

He says to have discussions with faithful, well informed friends. He's not being honest. At best he means to have discussions with faithful friends stuck in the same information vacuum. But I doubt he even means that. He really means, "shame on you for doubting. Stay quiet, ignorant, and move along."
He mentions the full context of the situation won't be present in podcasts (by John). Now, just where would that full context be available? How would your friends at BYU have the full context in order to discuss?

Here's a hypothetical situation. You're at BYU. A mission and a full seminary education is behind you and you literally know nothing about the Church, Mormon history, theology, or anything. You're exactly where you need to be. You're in proximity of temple square after doing a session, somebody calls to you and asks you to look at something quickly, they seem to need help, and they show you a pamphlet that mentions Joseph Smith glass-looking charge right there on the front. You try to unsee it, but you can't erase it from your memory. What do you do?

None of the approved sources have any information about it. You've heard the Oak barrel's talk, and you don't want to sin further by getting the wrong source material. But you can't take the cart before the horse. You can't research to find the right material without risking finding the wrong material. How can you possibly be sure the first book you purchase on any subject, let alone this one, gives the "full context" of anything? Okay, so you don't know where to begin, you consider asking your roommates. But how would they know? How would others just like you in the same information vacuum know the first thing about such a strange scenario that you'd never even heard a wisp of? Here's the thing: the thing that you heard is an information hazard. Just bringing it up could get you punched in the face or yelled at, or freak someone out, and even if you go to someone you really, really trust, what if another roommate overhears? You could get reported to the honor code office.

He's lying through his teeth because there is no scenario that you can construct to actualize his advice. This is one of those things you hear, and what you're probably meant to take from it is that somewhere in the world, the full context exists, through means unspecified, there are those such as Oaks who know the full context. Since they aren't bothered by it, there is no point pursuing it further. You can deduce that there is a satisfying answer, somebody else knows it, you don't need to know it, so move along.

The road to answers isn't all that far away. Nearest computer, phone, or laptop.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/

There is a search function. Type in "glass looking" The world of answers at your fingertips. Of course, the critics by consensus, would steer away the poor innocent 'investigator' away from that easily accessible source.

I do agree with you that generally speaking 'good source material' is going to be church approved literature and sources. But FAIR and other apologetic sources are there for back up if someone...an investigator or other person with questions...has concerns. I would say that FAIR and other apologetic sources are more 'under the radar', but they are there, and I would guess they don't sit there unused.

By the way, President Oaks wasn't born yesterday (duh!), he was one of the original contributors to Dialogue-Journal of Mormon Thought. He's been down some of the same roads that Dehlin and others have been down. At least that would be my guess.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Listening to the clip in the link I did not hear any instruction to avoid streaming, online information or even to avoid speaking to non believers. I heard rather ho hum comments saying it's good to converse with believers and seek church instruction.

Perhaps prior instruction in church inclines people to hear the more extreme injunctions as implied if unstated.

As I said, he isn't a novice at all with this 'internet stuff'. He knows that there are sources of various caliber and thoroughgoingness in discussion Mormonism. I think he is basically saying, "Be careful, be thorough, and be honest."

And stay balanced. How can that not be good advice?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

There is a search function. Type in "glass looking" The world of answers at your fingertips. Of course, the critics by consensus, would steer away the poor innocent 'investigator' away from that easily accessible source.

Oaks didn't say to look up fairlds. He said to speak with well informed peers. Oaks wasn't born yesterday, you're right, he's not stupid enough to think FAIR has answers that will help anyone, and so he used rhetoric to throw the questioner off guard, rather than actually provide a meaningful way to get answers.

[msnobody]

We know what happens when you read the wet paint sign.