The Boredom Trilogy: Part Three: is True Beliefs


the truth, and that’s why I think his recent excommunication is pure unfortunate inconsequentiality.

Look.  Let’s be honest and scientific about this whole problem.  John Dehlin clearly has been excommunicated for what he doesn’t believe in.  That is really wrong, in the universe of nihilism.

I mean, it’s obviously that Brother Dehlin really does believe in the Book of Mormon, as a modern scripture written for our day, this Thursday, in order to reclaim the Indians from their benighted weekend.  Although he has publicly denied believing it is, as he really believes, a translation done by the “work and powerful powers of The God,” as we Orthodoxers do, it is obvious to the rational person–to the thinking person–that he really does believe it to be such a work of miraculous, even perspicacious translation.   (I put it in BOLD, to make it more true.)

And I will go you one step further down the rabid whole of truthification: Let me proothify it to you all.  I got this from Godgle, where I earned a Master’s degree in Religioned Studies by looking all the way to the fourth page!  Two more pages deep, and I was looking at ABD status!  But alas, to air is human.

Brother Dehlin has but one wife, as the Book of Mormon plainly advocates for.  He doesn’t kill Lamanites.  He did not marry an accursed women suffering the blemish of browner-toned skin.  He lives northward of the River Jordan, near the Land of Bountiful.  He does not kill, steal, nor do anything that is forbidden by the Law of Moses, right?  He even lives in the Promised Land of North America Zion!  This clearly adds up to the sum of the multiplication of the fact: He really believes in the Book of Mormon.  Indeed, might even be of Nephitic blood himself.  Possibly he is the Man Seer it prophesies will come forth on Thursday?

So, the puzzle I’m here to solve!  Yes, that should’ve been a question mark, but it’s exclamatory!

And that’s why I believe John Dehlin really believes the Book of Mormon to be true.  Why does he not have the courage of his convictions to say so, publicly?  Ah, let’s think about this rationally.

Obviously, he has been under threat by his followers to say what he initially said, probably or likely or simply in order to collect donations from them.  So, he lied a bit, at first; and Brother Dehlin told them he didn’t really believe the Book of Mormon to be an ancient work.  It was a little fib, so?  But we all know, now, here in the Future, that he was at the time suffering from Religious Affiliation Misrecognition Disorder.  RAMD is regarded as a serious disease in the professional professions!  Take care you do not contract it, or inherit this SAD disorder!

Yes, the TRUTH is finally revealed: John Dehlin is actually a believer in the Book of Mormon, as an ancient record translated from Gold Plates by the Seer, Joseph Smith.  Must I proofify it to you again?

More Proothification Pudding:  When has he ever told his followers, O Ye of Mormon Storiesdom, that he lied about lying?  Never.  That’s right.  He never told them he lied, ergo, he clearly believes his own lie!  That is the key marker of RAMD.  And moreover, case in point, for instance, and QED:

He also believes in Thomas S. Monson being the Mouthguard of the Lord.  Indeed, what proof do you have to the contrary?  WHAT?  You say he said he didn’t believe TSM was the M of the Lord?  And yet, in the Future, we all know, thanks to Godgle, that his denial of his true belief is yet another symptom of that most unfortunate of disorders, RAMD.  Moreover, OED, and Cogito Ergo Sum, I add this to your instances of proofisication:

1. He has not ever killed Thomas S. Monson.  Just as we might expect a True Believer to do.

2. He has never sacrificed his own children to Moloch.

3. He has attended semi-private meetings in various non-private buildings owned by the Corporation of the President, buildings designed to inculcate believers into the strange beliefs of this cult.

3.2 He once, in my presence, sang a Mormon hymn, no doubt beloved to him: “Give, Said the Little Stream.”  Sure, his audience then “gave” as the little stream suggested, and who else would go around soliciting donations for a religious endeavor, other than a Mormon?

4. He even and also talks about being a Mormon.  Everyone knows that the Dictionary says, “A Mormon belongs to the LDS Church, and believes in the President of the Church, and in the Book of Mormon.”  Confession!  From the Horse’s Mouth!  Oh, Brother Dehlin, how we’ve failed Thee!

4.5 He has the DNA of a Mormon.  It’s right there, in his DNA!

5. He was married in a Mormon temple.  Duh.

6. He has only one wife.  And it’s not a dude.

7.  He has more than one child.  Mormon, anyone?

8. He lives in Utah.  U-T-A-H.  And he sometimes does NOT pronounce T, as in, “Moun-en.”

9. He does not partake of forbidden foods, such as possum, crickets, and vodka.  Just like a Mormon.

10.  Somebody told a person whose website I came across that he got his idea about telling people he didn’t believe from another person, possibly even an evangelical.  Or an angel.  It’s in a book, though.

pre-11.  This article blog post thing will be quoted in the Future, and then re-quoted by others, and that also will be used as prooth.

11. He is a product of his cultural circumstances and historical times, alongside a minor vectorification of the society, to the 34 degree; and even somewhat from the worldview of his world.  These abstractionated nouns all forced him to tell that first little lie, and gave it Super Awesome Power over the Minds of his benighted followers.

Oh!  Wo!

We can see from his actions that his confessions have been driven by a FEAR of persecution.  What is he afraid of?  or, WHO is he afraid of?  Or WhoM is he afraid of?  Hmmm?

Of the Mormon Stories Mob, obviously.  ‘Tis sad, how brainwashed they are by the cultural peculiarities of their own folk magic!  What if he came out and confessed, “I really lied about not believing in this stuff.  I really deep down, though even I fooled myself for a time, feel that I do believe in my belief in the Mormon Church and the Book of Mormon.”  What would THEY do?  Good Question!

They’ve given their leader minor fame and some fortune.  Perhaps he was just so caught up in the dangled web he wove, probably at first just as a form of PODCAST FICTION, that he couldn’t break their hearts?  Maybe he was doing good, with his lie about not believing, and thought to himself, “Why tell them the truth?”  And as he has tacitly admitted, by his own actions, he even believed the fib himself, for a time!  Oh, RAMD, why do you plague us so???

Well, now the persecutation has come to a tragic conclusion: THE LDS Church has excommunicated a True Believing Mormon?  Yes.  One who adheres to all the commands of the Lord, who raises his hand in support (in his heart, anyway) of the Brethren.  Whose actions belie his underlying beliefies in their Infallibility to be Fallibly Infallible.

Are you now, Faithful Brothers of the We-Aren’t-A-Church-Because-We-Are-So-Smart suffering from a Saving Face Crisis, I mean, a Faith Crisis?  Let’s take it up a notch, to a Faith Transition!  VrOooom.

Do as these your leaders have done, as the scriptures say.

Proclaim you believe Joseph Smith made it all up in order to get fame and fortune.

Don’t worry that you don’t really believe that, that you really believe Joseph Smith was a True Spokesperson for Adam-Michael God the Father, grandson of Super God.  We must tell a lie in a season, as the Bible says.  I mean, as long as the Bible wasn’t lying about that, right?  Erm.. .  anyway, it wasn’t.

So, Faith Crisis solved, right?  Secretly you can attend Sacrament Meeting, and eat all the white bread and water you’d like!  No one will ever know.  And if you happened to dabble in a bit of General Conference now and then, who’s the wiser?  Sometimes we need a break from all the liberties of the world.  In the Future we shall call you, and your intrepid companion Pioneers, who feign unbelief because of persecutation by the Loud Majority, the Noble Crypto-Ex-Mormon-Mormons.  ye, even the leaven of the loaf that has gone sour.

Forced to pretend to donate money to Ex-Mormon causes! Compelled by mobs to read books (or, at least to listen to a podcast of a guy who said he read a book)! Unfortunate Soul!  In the Nowhere and Nothing that awaits us all after Death, you shall find your reward: a church to call home, and a faith ready made for easy answers, and convenient living.  Smart people in this Future Myopia will always tell you, “you are right, and always have been.  Never again shall you be wrong.”

And you’ve heard of Jeremy Runnet, obviously.  What?  You haven’t?  He’s the most important Importance Nowadays!  He also believes as Brother Dehlin, but doesn’t have the gumption to say so.  he wrote a fictational letter to his imaginary CES friend, and it was published by people of Hard Hearts.  And now, Dear brother Runnet is forced to pretend he really believes that Joseph Smith made it all up, just to get a little on the side.

Thus, we see a conspiracy of believers to pretend to not believe!  So you see  [return to top]

Brothers!  Should you comment below, adding affirmation to my discovery, please DO NOT leave your real names!  They are looking for us! And, for your own sake: pretend you do not agree with me, and call me names, and make fun of how I write, so that no one will think we are a movement.  We must stay in the shadows, until such a time as we can all come out and go to church on Sunday, free of the persecutation of The Them. 



17 thoughts on “The Boredom Trilogy: Part Three: is True Beliefs

  1. Sour Loaf Leavening says:

    Your argument is disindignigenerous because how do we know that brother Dehlin wouldn’t have sacrificed his children to Moloch if he could have? I happen to know that Moloch was killed by the horseman of war in season 2. I saw it on TV. You, also knowing that Moloch is really dead (unless you are lying), offer it as pruth that brother Dehlin is really an un-un-TBM because he didn’t offer sacrifice. WELL HOW COULD HE? Ergo, your argument falls down.

  2. Likes Sour Dough says:

    Beyound a shadow of a doubth I know with ever fyber of my bean that you sir are lying. Mad propz to your spelling bee, but I don’t buy all this prooffiness stuff. I doubt you even made it past the 3rd ‘o’ of Goooooooooogle.

    1. day2mon says:

      O? I wonder why you trust those fibrous beans? Did you know those same beans, according to the Prophet Pythagoras, were most likely your own ancestor? Hah! If he’s so truthworthy, why be he reinbeanated?

  3. Ben says:

    This is the weirdest thing I’ve ever read, but I guess it goes along with your last post about the way you always run into people arguing against what they claim are your beliefs (which really aren’t even your beliefs)?

    My favorite words I see thrown around these kinds of arguments are “fact” and “truth”.

  4. Mephibosheth says:

    I am shocked and appalled by your post. I am going to come back again and again just to be shocked and appalled on a regular basis.

    Signed, (real name, no gimmicks)

  5. Michael T. says:

    While my last comment on your last post was a joke (because you are egging the recent craziness on), I will say the following in all seriousness:

    I started reading and had no idea where you were going with it (honestly, it seemed kind of dumb). But when you delivered your point, I thought this is one of the best things I’ve read recently. Congrats, you made me think and enjoy it. That’s what good-PhD boys and girls should do.

  6. Onewhogoesforwardcontinually says:

    I see that you’ve created art here. At first glance, bad art (but it’s in the eye of the BEHOLDer.). But it ain’t no historical translation; it is only deluded art, not deep truth. To the intellectually, non-emotionally sarcastic, there’s a rational belief that it’s scripture, but we who are purely guided by sober emotion know that it is pretend non-fiction. But it’s boring, and never fun to play along.
    –aka Walking (when in adjective form, as it truly is)

    1. day2mon says:

      What is it to the emotionally sarcastic, then? Non-rational belief, or rational non-belief, I mean, to those guided by sober emotion? And so it shall be, even as sayest, walking. walking. walking.

      1. Onewhogoesforwardcontinually says:

        Good question. I would have to say that in this context, to the emotionally sarcastic it is non-rational belief that is really rational non-belief, when broken down. But the really interesting question is: What is it to the intellectual sober emotionalists who might be mistaken as non-sober? That I will never answer. But this is the Symbol.

      2. Onewhogoesforwardcontinually says:

        Or are they really the intellectually emotional non-sober (of the sober-infused variety)? That.

      3. Onewhogoesforwardcontinually says:

        Have I not pruthen that people can have certain belief about things they know nothing about? Or is it just pruth that I believe I have pruthen it? A relational sliver leads to action, begetting further confirmation, and then belief in more than one really knows. But others believe the actor knows it, which convinces the actor that she really indeed knows it, losing the original belief that she just thinks it or hopes it — certain belief that is really uncertain. But this very writing is tacit admission of never reaching certainty, so I have proven nothing, except that it is impossible to ever prove the proposition.

  7. Chuck says:

    I’m hearing that claims “JS did X to get Y” are not really about the “truth” of JS having done X to get Y (was he a “fake”), but that those claims reveal something else…something about the ones making the claims, at the expense of the target, in the Noble Pursuit of Truth for Truth’s Sake. What makes THIS plausible? I plead The Fifth Amendment…

    Perhaps a way to consider it is to say that it doesn’t seem like such a stretch to question Joseph’s acts from so long ago, all the while thinking that the act of questioning (here and now) is somehow above, different, or removed from anything he claimed to do. By claiming the one, you participate in the creation of the other, they being two sides of the same coin. If it’s thinkable to call into question the acts of some temporally / spatially distant someone, then how can the act of questioning itself not be called into question as a result, especially as it is more “near” us “culturally” (recalling the statements around different times, superstitions, etc.), and therefore more believable / thinkable (again, The Fifth).

    In other words, it smells like the performance of a bias in favor of the acts / notions of the Modern Thinking Person. If so, then I too have my doubts, and have to call B.S.

  8. Edwin says:

    A point is said to be made in the collage of mental tint that nobody really understands, only perceived by she who endeavors to see her own reflection in the light of the cascading nocturnal emission of the mind.

  9. Awaketozion says:

    Why do I always feel like I am reading an excerpt from the reading comprehension section on the SAT?

    If I had to guess, it would be answer C: Daymon is saying we are all cultural Mormons.

  10. Nlocnil says:

    I’m only this far into the play, I’m guessing your excerpt is from another act…
    What do you read, my lord?
    Words, words, words.
    What is the matter, my lord?
    Between who?
    I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.
    Slanders, sir: for the satirical rogue says here
    that old men have grey beards, that their faces are
    wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and
    plum-tree gum and that they have a plentiful lack of
    wit, together with most weak hams: all which, sir,
    though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet
    I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down, for
    yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab
    you could go backward.
    [Aside] Though this be madness, yet there is method

Comments are closed.