Thou Shalt Not Stream

[Philo Sofee]

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

Can I just give a little stream? Give O give, give O give.....

[I Have Questions]

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?

I think that’s a great question. If the full context were available, there’d be no need for the amateur hour apologetics of FAIR, for example. Let’s say we wanted to explore the full context of Brigham Young’s racist statements and opinions, where would we go to find the full context of that? (For example, The Journal Of Discourses has now been disavowed as an official Church source).

Grow in the Becoming Brigham effort to keep Redbrick Filmworks occupied, hints that such overtly unchristian behaviour is because Prophet’s are just men with opinions coloured by their upbringing and environment. With occasional statements that in hindsight might be deemed inspired. So where does that now leave Oaks? We have to see him as just a bloke who is mostly giving his own opinions and pretending that they are inspired by God.

[Gadianton]

think that’s a great question. If the full context were available, there’d be no need for the amateur hour apologetics of FAIR, for example. Let’s say we wanted to explore the full context of Brigham Young’s racist statements and opinions, where would we go to find the full context of that?

Right, my question is really an accusation against Oaks for lying. MG essentially admits Oaks is lying because MG pointed to FAIR, which Oaks could have done if he wanted to but he didn't. If he's competent, as MG insists, then this was a deliberate decision. I agree with MG on both counts, that Oaks deliberately withheld options like FAIR and Dan's movies and instead, pointed to vague options such as, discussing with well-informed peers. How would they have got well-informed? How do you start a conversation that involves revealing an information hazard? Oaks knows they aren't well-informed, what he means is they are "well-informed" in the sense that they have strong testimonies and together as a group, they will reinforce the information vacuum.

Let's look at MG's suggestion to look for answers on FAIR's website. How would a 20-year-old even know what FAIR is? Take my scenario: someone thrust a pamphlet talking about peepstones and glass-looking charges, you glanced long enough to gather what it was talking about before closing your eyes, and must either directly google an information hazard with no control over what will come up first, you have no idea what you will see before you get to the faithful source, or you must transmit the information hazard to other students at BYU to even have a chance at discussing it. Not going to happen, and that's what Oaks wants. No discussion.

Oaks' subtext is basically telling the students that once the full context is understood, as he himself understands it, then it will make total sense and the concern will go away. If I'm a student and I know that Oaks and an unidentified body of mature believers perfectly understand the full context and maintain belief, then why do I need to go there myself? As Tommy's father said (paraphrasing from the movie Tommy Boy), why shove your head up a bull's ass to get a look at a T-bone when you can take the butcher's word for it? The talk was a well-calculated strategy to perpetuate an information vacuum.

MG completely reinforced this: It would be trivial to point students and anyone else to FAIR directly, right there on the spot, if they really intended anyone to seek answers to their questions.

[I Have Questions]

think that’s a great question. If the full context were available, there’d be no need for the amateur hour apologetics of FAIR, for example. Let’s say we wanted to explore the full context of Brigham Young’s racist statements and opinions, where would we go to find the full context of that?

Right, my question is really an accusation against Oaks for lying. MG essentially admits Oaks is lying because MG pointed to FAIR, which Oaks could have done if he wanted to but he didn't. If he's competent, as MG insists, then this was a deliberate decision. I agree with MG on both counts, that Oaks deliberately withheld options like FAIR and Dan's movies and instead, pointed to vague options such as, discussing with well-informed peers. How would they have got well-informed? How do you start a conversation that involves revealing an information hazard? Oaks knows they aren't well-informed, what he means is they are "well-informed" in the sense that they have strong testimonies and together as a group, they will reinforce the information vacuum.

I agree. Oaks doesn’t want anybody asking anyone else anything. He’s wanting students to think that “others” have the answers to anything troubling that they might come across, and so as long as they isolate themselves within an incestuous group of believers, and not I’d with unbelievers or doubters, then all will be well.

I found it interesting that Oaks didn’t direct the troubled student to take their questions to their Bishop, or their Stake President. Nor did he suggest they browse the Church essays. He didn’t point in the direction of apologetics. He did not invite the students to contact the General Authorities with such matters. I think the potential sources that he chose not to mention, is actually more noteworthy than his weasly “seek out well informed peers” vacuous Trojan horse that was meant to be heard as STFU, stay in the boat, and don’t mix with anyone other than TBM friends.

With this and the appointment of The Enforcer as an Apostle, it looks a lot like Oaks is circling the wagons. Shrinking the tent, as it were.

[sock puppet]

And based on Oaks' prior talks, we know he thinks that the Pied Pipers should be followed, regardless. He had admonished members against speaking ill of the Lard's anointed even when the criticisim is correct.

[huckelberry]

Right, my question is really an accusation against Oaks for lying. MG essentially admits Oaks is lying because MG pointed to FAIR, which Oaks could have done if he wanted to but he didn't. If he's competent, as MG insists, then this was a deliberate decision. I agree with MG on both counts, that Oaks deliberately withheld options like FAIR and Dan's movies and instead, pointed to vague options such as, discussing with well-informed peers. How would they have got well-informed? How do you start a conversation that involves revealing an information hazard? Oaks knows they aren't well-informed, what he means is they are "well-informed" in the sense that they have strong testimonies and together as a group, they will reinforce the information vacuum.

I agree. Oaks doesn’t want anybody asking anyone else anything. He’s wanting students to think that “others” have the answers to anything troubling that they might come across, and so as long as they isolate themselves within an incestuous group of believers, and not I’d with unbelievers or doubters, then all will be well.

I found it interesting that Oaks didn’t direct the troubled student to take their questions to their Bishop, or their Stake President. Nor did he suggest they browse the Church essays. He didn’t point in the direction of apologetics. He did not invite the students to contact the General Authorities with such matters. I think the potential sources that he chose not to mention, is actually more noteworthy than his weasly “seek out well informed peers” vacuous Trojan horse that was meant to be heard as STFU, stay in the boat, and don’t mix with anyone other than TBM friends.

With this and the appointment of The Enforcer as an Apostle, it looks a lot like Oaks is circling the wagons. Shrinking the tent, as it were.

I suppose there are some people so locked into their Molley that they would hear Oaks comments as Gad and Questions are describing. Perhaps even not asking questions. I know my mind never worked that way and would find it impossible to hear Oaks comments that way. frankly I cannot think of any Mormons whose minds did. Perhaps the circle of Mormons I knew very well is rather small. I once drove by BYU but did not stop so do not know BYU student norms.

[I Have Questions]

I agree. Oaks doesn’t want anybody asking anyone else anything. He’s wanting students to think that “others” have the answers to anything troubling that they might come across, and so as long as they isolate themselves within an incestuous group of believers, and not I’d with unbelievers or doubters, then all will be well.

I found it interesting that Oaks didn’t direct the troubled student to take their questions to their Bishop, or their Stake President. Nor did he suggest they browse the Church essays. He didn’t point in the direction of apologetics. He did not invite the students to contact the General Authorities with such matters. I think the potential sources that he chose not to mention, is actually more noteworthy than his weasly “seek out well informed peers” vacuous Trojan horse that was meant to be heard as STFU, stay in the boat, and don’t mix with anyone other than TBM friends.

With this and the appointment of The Enforcer as an Apostle, it looks a lot like Oaks is circling the wagons. Shrinking the tent, as it were.

I suppose there are some people so locked into their Molley that they would hear Oaks comments as Gad and Questions are describing. Perhaps even not asking questions. I know my mind never worked that way and would find it impossible to hear Oaks comments that way. frankly I cannot think of any Mormons whose minds did. Perhaps the circle of Mormons I knew very well is rather small. I once drove by BYU but did not stop so do not know BYU student norms.

huckelberry, when you read the talk Oaks gave, what do you hear him saying?

[huckelberry]

I suppose there are some people so locked into their Molley that they would hear Oaks comments as Gad and Questions are describing. Perhaps even not asking questions. I know my mind never worked that way and would find it impossible to hear Oaks comments that way. frankly I cannot think of any Mormons whose minds did. Perhaps the circle of Mormons I knew very well is rather small. I once drove by BYU but did not stop so do not know BYU student norms.

huckelberry, when you read the talk Oaks gave, what do you hear him saying?

Perhaps I am overly dismissive of the fears people hear. I listened to the first part of the link with six commentators. I thought that Osks carefully maintained a vagueness. It is good to associate with believers, don't trust outside sources. I would have let that mean for me dig a little deeper. Six commentors illustrated that there could be different takes on the talks meaning. Some hear reject association with nonbelievers. Perhaps the fact I do not know anybody putting such a view in action inclines me to hear a softer version, don't leave association with believers, you need them.

In a legal sense I heard a carefully made argument in support of believers holding to a path of belief.

OK I listened to the whole linked discussion and wish I had not. It went way long and I found little interest for me in Oaks talk.

[huckelberry]

With a few hours to reflect on the talk. At the portions reviewed in the link I find a thought or two. I thought it was a well crafted, intelligent message for people with doubts who want to stay and believe. He proposed accepting that nobody knows all the doctrine and information. One accepts the limitation, associates with believers, prays, keeps active in church service.

That would be the way it is done.

[Gadianton]

With a few hours to reflect on the talk. At the portions reviewed in the link I find a thought or two. I thought it was a well crafted, intelligent message for people with doubts who want to stay and believe. He proposed accepting that nobody knows all the doctrine and information. One accepts the limitation, associates with believers, prays, keeps active in church service.

That would be the way it is done.

Thanks Huck. So you admit that he provided no direction whatsoever for actually addressing specific concerns, such as charges of glass looking?

You said you don't see where I'm coming from, but it sounds like you're saying the exact same thing as me except in a different manner. I agree it was "well crafted" "intelligent" and that instead of looking for answers, one should "associate with believers". This is just "glass half full" way of saying "stay in the information vacuum".