Rosalynde Welch takes on Mormon Stories

[_Droopy]

40 years plus, Droopy. Every single one of them as an active temple recommend holding multiple calling fulfilling full tithe paying member. Can you say the same? I'll be in the temple before you are, I suspect.

53 years, and, unlike you, I accept the gospel and try to live its principles. You are, according to many years of anonymous posting history on the Internet, utterly apostate from the gospel and the Church, and your Temple recommend is a cacophonous lie, as is your sanctimonious, feigned righteousness.

One day, Harmony, it will all be exposed, either in this life or the next. God will not be mocked.

Actually, I am asked to speak often, and when bearing my testimony, witness many who feel the spirit of my words.

Yes, I'm sure...

Don't go where you know nothing, Droopy. I'm fully active and have been for 40 years. And when I am not there, they feel my absence. They mourn for the pain I live with, and wish I was able to participate more fully.

Tell them what your really think, what you really feel, and what your really believe about the doctrines, teachings, and other elements of the Church they hold to be sacred. Tell them, Harmony. Don't tell me any stories about your righteousness and holiness, I don't do that here and never have. Tell them - fully disclose who and what you really are. Then come back and report the effects of that honest disclosure.

All members of my ward know me, Droopy. All of them, from my bishop to my home teachers (one of whom is my bishop's 15 year old son.). They know my feelings, my heart, the incredible strength of my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Could you show me then, or provide some links to the specific posts you showed them that you have made here and in other forums (such as ZLMB) over the years, or what you have disclosed to them that would be equivalent, that would give them a substantial working knowledge of your views on the following:

1. The historicity of the Book of Mormon.

2. The ancient provenance and divinity of the Book of Abraham

3. Joseph Smith's morality and integrity throughout his ministry.

4. Eternal marriage

5. The authenticity and legitimacy of the callings and mantel of the FP and the Twelve.

6. The historicity of the First Vision, the angel, Moroni, the gold plates, the appearance of Peter, James, and John to restore the priesthood, and other events claimed to be empirical, historical phenomena surrounding the origins of the Church.

7. The serious and debasing sin of homosexual behavior and the abomination of homosexuality as a culture and manner of life

8. The divinely inspired teachings of the Church regarding gender roles and the inherent mortal emphasis or de-emphasis in mortality relative to family, child rearing, and the optimum division of responsibility and concentration between husbands and wives.

9. The Church's teachings on dress, modesty, and personal adornment (self culture).

10. Your views on the doctrines of second and third wave feminism.

This is just a short list, you can fill in any lacuna yourself.

Let me know what the general responses are.

Of course they'd let me finish. They know what sincere love for them looks like; they know what wisdom looks like. They know I'm the one they call on when they have a problem with a wayward teenager, when they are heartbroken over a husband who has fallen off the wagon, when they need an ear for joy or grief. That is the role I fill in my ward, Droopy. Deal with it. Just because my testimony is a bit unconventional doesn't mean I am not of use and help to my ward family.

Well, Harmony is a fount of righteousness, a pillar of virtue, a paragon of truth, a sage, a vessel of purity, and the staff of life. A whirlwind goes behind her, and a pillar of fire before. I can't imaging anyone I know in the apologetic community going on like this for even one syllable, as the impression it gives is, in point of fact, of one protesting far, far to much.

I was invited to be part of Dehlin's podcast once. I declined due to not wanting to let the Droopy's of world know who and where I am. Dan? He knows both, as do several others here. He respects my wishes and remains silent.

Yes, because you don't want your friends, fellow ward members, your Bishop, or SP to find out what you really are and what you really think of the Church, the gospel, and of their priesthood authority. You've told me and others, many times, what you think of that. No, you wouldn't want that to waft across the rooftops.

I've been an active member for far longer than the Droopy's of the world, and totally uninterrupted. Now try to stay on topic (hint: harmony is not the topic of this thread.)

I've got at least 13 years on you, and even though I haven't, due to several major personal challenges through life, always been active during that time (as if outward activity is, in and of itself, a measure of one's true internal state of being), I've always been fully and utterly converted and accepting of the truths of the gospel - all of them, as they have come from the mouths and pens of the Lord's servants, the prophets.

You, indeed, may have a few years of activity over me, but I have the gospel, and in that sense we are as far apart as the bottom of the ocean is from the surface of Mars.

[_harmony]

40 years plus, Droopy. Every single one of them as an active temple recommend holding multiple calling fulfilling full tithe paying member. Can you say the same? I'll be in the temple before you are, I suspect.

53 years, and, unlike you, I accept the gospel and try to live its principles. snip.

40+ years, uninterrupted, Droopy. That's the important part you missed. But then, you miss the point virtually always. I'm not going to bring up issues from your past, but please don't try to use the virtuous "try to live it's principles" crap on me; we both know differently.

One day, Harmony, it will all be exposed, either in this life or the next. God will not be mocked.

Exactly. We talk daily. I am not required to worship prophets, Droopy. Try to figure out the difference.

Don't go where you know nothing, Droopy. I'm fully active and have been for 40 years. And when I am not there, they feel my absence. They mourn for the pain I live with, and wish I was able to participate more fully.

Tell them what your really think, what you really feel, and what your really believe about the doctrines, teachings, and other elements of the Church they hold to be sacred. Tell them, Harmony. Don't tell me any stories about your righteousness and holiness, I don't do that here and never have. Tell them - fully disclose who and what you really are. Then come back and report the effects of that honest disclosure.

They are the recipients of my full disclosure, my great love for the church, my concern for my ward family, my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not required to ignore the behavior of men, Droopy, even though you try so very hard to make up rules as you go along. I know the rules well, and know exactly what I believe, and why. You, on the other hand, only know what YOU believe. The difference is oceans apart.

Could you show me then, or provide some links to the specific posts you have made here and in other forums (such as ZLMB) over the years, that would give them a substantial working knowledge of your views on the following:

1. The historicity of the Book of Mormon.

2. The ancient province and divinity of the Book of Abraham

3. Joseph Smith's morality and integrity throughout his ministry.

4. Eternal marriage

5. The authenticity and legitimacy of the callings and mantel of the FP and the Twelve.

6. The historicity of the First Vision, the angel, Moroni, the gold plates, the appearance of Peter, James, and John to restore the priesthood, and other events claimed to by historic surrounding the origins of the Church.

7. The serious and debasing sin of homosexual behavior and the abomination of homosexuality as a culture and manner of life

8. The divinely inspired teachings of the Church regarding gender roles and the inherent mortal emphasis or de-emphasis in mortality relative to family, child rearing, and the optimum division of responsibility and concentration between husbands and wives.

9. The Church's teachings on dress, modesty, and personal adornment (self culture).

10. Your views on the doctrines of second and third wave feminism.

I have no need to prove anything to you, Droopy. No need at all, and so won't be making any effort there anytime soon.

Of course they'd let me finish. They know what sincere love for them looks like; they know what wisdom looks like. They know I'm the one they call on when they have a problem with a wayward teenager, when they are heartbroken over a husband who has fallen off the wagon, when they need an ear for joy or grief. That is the role I fill in my ward, Droopy. Deal with it. Just because my testimony is a bit unconventional doesn't mean I am not of use and help to my ward family.

Well, Harmony is a fount of righteousness, a pillar of virtue, a paragon of truth, a sage, a vessel of purity, and the staff of life. A whirlwind goes behind her, and a pillar of fire before. I can't imaging anyone I know in the apologetic community going on like this for even one syllable, as the impression it gives is, in point of fact, of one protesting far, far to much.

Of course you can't. It's not my fault you suffer from intentional blindness, but there it is... showing itself again.

I was invited to be part of Dehlin's podcast once. I declined due to not wanting to let the Droopy's of world know who and where I am. Dan? He knows both, as do several others here. He respects my wishes and remains silent.

Yes, because you don't want your friends, fellow ward members, your Bishop, or SP to find out what you really are and what you really think of the Church, the gospel, and of their priesthood authority. You've told me and others, many times, what you think of that. No, you wouldn't want that to waft across the rooftops.

Oh! You've found the lost revelation! Show us, please!

Oh... nevermind. Good grief, Droopy. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about authority; it's about love. One day, I hope you believe that too.

I've been an active member for far longer than the Droopy's of the world, and totally uninterrupted. Now try to stay on topic (hint: harmony is not the topic of this thread.)

I've got at least 13 years on you, and even though I haven't, due to several major personal challenges through life, always been active during that time (as if outward activity is itself a measure of anything inwardly real), I've always been fully and utterly converted and accepting of the truths of the gospel - all of them, as they have come from the mouths and pens of the Lord's servants, the prophets.

Ah, but Droopy... 100% of my 40+ years in the church, I HAVE BEEN ACTIVE, paid my tithes and offerings, fulfilled my callings, borne my testimony, raised my family in the gospel and in the church, sent and monetarily supported my sons on missions, attended the temple regularly, witnessed my children taking out their endowments, their marriages, their sealings... do I need to go on? I have invested my LIFE into the church, Droopy, without ever taking even ONE DAY OFF. It appears you cannot equal my devotion.

As for prophets? Men, every one. Why do you not trust God himself? Perhaps he has never manifested himself to you, for some odd reason or another.

You, indeed, may have a few years of activity over me, but I have the gospel, and in that sense we are as far apart as the bottom of the ocean is from the surface of Mars.

I am not at all interested in your beliefs, Droopy. I have my own.

[_Droopy]

For once, Kishkumen, you may actually have stumbled upon a nut. This actually smacks of postmodernism to me, or perhaps one of its antecedents (The non-existence of an authentic subject, a core self, would fit well with Satre or Nietzsche). I'd have to hear Welch flesh that out a bit more, however, before coming to any clear conclusions about it.

I am inclined to think so too, but then I have long known about the use of postmodernism in the service of apologetics. I am pleased to see you concede the possibility that this is actually the case.

I'm not conceding the possibility of using post-modernism within apologetics. That cannot be done logically or conceptually as postmodernism cannot be used as a model to describe the gospel, either as to its origin or value as a body of truth claims without destroying the apologetic project entirely. Postmodernism can absorb the gospel, in mutant form, but the church cannot absorb postmodernism unless it were to abandon much of its core truth claims. People like Juliann Reynolds who have allowed themselves to become enamored of certain generational intellectual fads would like to do so, but the gospel, as taught, simply won't allow it (unless it ceases be understood as divinely revealed religion)

Whatever the merits of Welch's arguments here (and I'm not exactly sure what she's trying to say), Dehlin has created a kind of community outreach or group therapeutic community to mediate and cushion exit from the Church.

Or to help them remain members, as the case may be and sometimes is.

Dehlin only wants them to remain members so long as they remain as "cultural" Mormons without deep connection or acceptance of the core metaphysical truth claims of the Church, as well as the authority of the General Authorities to counsel and reveal the word of the Lord on social, cultural, or politically relevant matters.

Sure, Droopy. Anyone is free to say whatever they want, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.

Yes. In a Church setting, you will probably be challenged, questioned, and asked to support and defend your criticisms of the Church, unlike Dehlin, who wishes to place a marshmallow under you when you kick your own stool from under yourself.

Not a lot of doubting LDS people feel comfortable facing the consequences in their ward. Not many LDS apologists are comfortable facing the consequences here. You are a special breed. Please take that as a compliment.

Me and bc are about all that's left (save for whyme), but the others aren't afraid of anyone here, they just long ago got sick of the personal, vitriolic, toxic, and frankly, on occasion, creepy atmosphere here.

Just as I have.

Why? None was intimated nor promised in my post. What are you proving by demanding that I produce one?

That's just the problem. No one's ever produced one, just as no one has yet read the Satanic Verses of Greg Smith.

As surprising as this may sound, I don't altogether disagree with you, Droopy. But here's the rub: that is for his bishop to handle.

True. But no one is muscleing in on his Bishop's authority. Dehlin has charged out into the arena of ideas with his own. Faithful LDS are fully within their rights, both as Saints, under priesthood law, and as Americans, under the divinely inspireed first amendment, to respond to his criticisms, and challenges his assertions, areguments, and claims in that same public arena. That has always been the case, the Church has never prohibited it (or they would have shut Nibley down by the end of the seventies), and both Neal A. Maxwell and Pres. Hinckley openly endorsed the very idea of FARMS at its inception.

All I'm doing is criticizing and critiquing his arguments and behavior. I have no interest in "handling" him as far as his status as a member goes.

As I understand it, he is. What I am defending is the one resource on Mormonism that was as open to an appearance of Daniel Peterson as it was to one by Mr. Born Again Mormon. If it were up to your apologist friends, no doubt such a place would not exist. That is because at heart they are far less tolerant of free speech than the people they are attacking. You know that is true. You ought to admit it. After all, they have sent you packing more than once.

No, its a lie, but not one that apostates from the Church are easily led to accept as such. Its a very comforting, self serving rationalization that hides the true nature of apostasy - a gigantic lie to oneself.

[Guest]

40+ years, uninterrupted, Droopy.

Cue Handel's Messiah...

That's the important part you missed. But then, you miss the point virtually always. I'm not going to bring up issues from your past, but please don't try to use the virtuous "try to live it's principles" crap on me; we both know differently.

That's because you don't know anything about my issues than the bare peek at them I've (unfortunately) revealed here.

Exactly. We talk daily. I am not required to worship prophets, Droopy. Try to figure out the difference.

Well, worshiping prophets is hardly Church doctrine. This kind of statement is, again, why you have always appeared to me to be a phony Mormon critic who wants others to believe she has inside knowledge of LDS culture. This has long been a standard technique among EV critics in the traditional counter-cult, so its not without precedent. You either have virtually no clear understanding of even rudimentary Church doctrine, or you do understand it but simply don't accept any of it, and have imposed your own interpretations onto much of the actual teaching. Expecting other knowledgeable members to buy into it, however, is another thing entirely.

They are the recipients of my full disclosure, my great love for the church, my concern for my ward family, my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not required to ignore the behavior of men, Droopy, even though you try so very hard to make up rules as you go along. I know the rules well, and know exactly what I believe, and why. You, on the other hand, only know what YOU believe. The difference is oceans apart.

This was one of the most transparent and brazen dodges I've ever run across. Good show.

Could you show me then, or provide some links to the specific posts you have made here and in other forums (such as ZLMB) over the years, that would give them a substantial working knowledge of your views on the following:

1. The historicity of the Book of Mormon.

2. The ancient province and divinity of the Book of Abraham

3. Joseph Smith's morality and integrity throughout his ministry.

4. Eternal marriage

5. The authenticity and legitimacy of the callings and mantel of the FP and the Twelve.

6. The historicity of the First Vision, the angel, Moroni, the gold plates, the appearance of Peter, James, and John to restore the priesthood, and other events claimed to by historic surrounding the origins of the Church.

7. The serious and debasing sin of homosexual behavior and the abomination of homosexuality as a culture and manner of life

8. The divinely inspired teachings of the Church regarding gender roles and the inherent mortal emphasis or de-emphasis in mortality relative to family, child rearing, and the optimum division of responsibility and concentration between husbands and wives.

9. The Church's teachings on dress, modesty, and personal adornment (self culture).

10. Your views on the doctrines of second and third wave feminism.

I have no need to prove anything to you, Droopy. No need at all, and so won't be making any effort there anytime soon.

This is always the end of the discussion with you, just as with my traditional approach of asking you to answer the TR recommend questions. Any Mormon - any child in the Church properly taught - could and would answer those questions. They are simple, straightforward questions regarding basic doctrine. That you won't answer them, using a fatuous psychological ploy as a diversion, is telling.

Oh... nevermind. Good grief, Droopy. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about authority; it's about love. One day, I hope you believe that too.

1. Yes, in most assuredly is. That's core, fundamental doctrine, which, as usual, you must have missed sometime between healing the sick and saving the whales.

2. Love and authority are in no why dichotomous

Ah, but Droopy... 100% of my 40+ years in the church, I HAVE BEEN ACTIVE, paid my tithes and offerings, fulfilled my callings, borne my testimony, raised my family in the gospel and in the church, sent and monetarily supported my sons on missions, attended the temple regularly, witnessed my children taking out their endowments, their marriages, their sealings... do I need to go on? I have invested my LIFE into the church, Droopy, without ever taking even ONE DAY OFF. It appears you cannot equal my devotion.

So, after nearly a decade of seeing you excoriate, denounce, and defy virtually each and every salient and distinctive doctrine, teaching, and counsel of the Church as bunk, and some as nothing less than evil, we now find out that you are a model LDS woman who no doubt can barely keep her halo under control.

Who woulda thunk it?

As for prophets? Men, every one. Why do you not trust God himself? Perhaps he has never manifested himself to you, for some odd reason or another.

Move along...

I am not at all interested in your beliefs, Droopy. I have my own.

Nothing to see here.

[Guest]

I'm not conceding the possibility of using post-modernism within apologetics.

I never expected you to see it as a good thing, only to acknowledge that it has been done.

Dehlin only wants them to remain members so long as they remain as "cultural" Mormons without deep connection or acceptance of the core metaphysical truth claims of the Church, as well as the authority of the General Authorities to counsel and reveal the word of the Lord on social, cultural, or politically relevant matters.

Give up mind reading. You suck at it.

True. But no one is muscleing in on his Bishop's authority. Dehlin has charged out into the arena of ideas with his own. Faithful LDS are fully within their rights, both as Saints, under priesthood law, and as Americans, under the divinely inspireed first amendment, to respond to his criticisms, and challenges his assertions, areguments, and claims in that same public arena. That has always been the case, the Church has never prohibited it (or they would have shut Nibley down by the end of the seventies), and both Neal A. Maxwell and Pres. Hinckley openly endorsed the very idea of FARMS at its inception.

All I'm doing is criticizing and critiquing his arguments and behavior. I have no interest in "handling" him as far as his status as a member goes.

Taking on the role of public accuser is a usurpation of authority. I know it is threatening to you to have John Dehlin invite apologists and anti-Mormons on the same podcast. I get that.

No, its a lie, but not one that apostates from the Church are easily led to accept as such. Its a very comforting, self serving rationalization that hides the true nature of apostasy - a gigantic lie to oneself.

Where's the lie, Droopy? Your assumed right to accuse others in public? Yeah, that's a lie.

[_beastie]

Does Droopy have multiple personality syndrome? One personality slams the door in our face and swears to stay away, and the other personality calmly resumes posting within hours.

[_MCB]

Does Droopy have multiple personality syndrome? One personality slams the door in our face and swears to stay away, and the other personality calmly resumes posting within hours.

Maybe it has something to do with blood alcohol content.

[_Droopy]

Does Droopy have multiple personality syndrome? One personality slams the door in our face and swears to stay away, and the other personality calmly resumes posting within hours.

Oh no, I was away for a little over a month, and only came back to engage the Dehlin/NMI issue, but, as usual, got sucked into the maelstrom.

The repentance process is underway, yet again...

[Guest]

Taking on the role of public accuser is a usurpation of authority. I know it is threatening to you to have John Dehlin invite apologists and anti-Mormons on the same podcast. I get that.

And this is where any intellectual credibility you may have ever had on this issue jumps the rails. Neither in accusing him of anything (being essentially an apostate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints), or criticizing his arguments and claims in support of what he's doing, or in challenging his motives and intentions, am I usurping any authority. Indeed, I don't need one speck of priesthood authority, as a Latter day Saint, to criticize his public claims in the public sphere, or to intellectually challenge him in that same public sphere to account for himself, his beliefs, and his aims and goals.

I do, through the oath and covenant of the priesthood, have a responsibility to warn, preach, teach, expound and exhort John Dehlin to cease his project of leading others out of the Church, and supporting cultural Mormonism within it, regardless of whether I'm his immediate priesthood leader or not. If he was sitting in my living room, I would do the same thing, and I wouldn't call up his Bishop or SP to ask permission to disagree with him or call him to repentance as a worthy priesthood holder. That is my right and authority "at all times and in all things, and in all places."

Dehlin's status as a member, any church discipline he may or may not undergo, and his official relationship to the Church are none of my business, and I have never attempted to make them so.

Learn the actual doctrine on this, Kish, and stop the silly sophistry.

Its clever, but unfortunately, bosh.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Let's talk about your job history, Droopy--your history of paying taxes and/or your history of paying tithing.