Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Town Hall on LDS Church Policy Change

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

That's refreshing to hear.

It's also a little jarring, considering some of the other things you've posted about it.

How do you account for that, given that his isn't an instance of that "nuance" you don't want to condescend to explain?

I don't need to account for it.  Nothing that I've said needs to be jarring -- it's just that you try to force it into your POV and it doesn't fit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't need to account for it.  Nothing that I've said needs to be jarring -- it's just that you try to force it into your POV and it doesn't fit. 

 

I have difficulty working out how you can plausibly claim to have a good-faith belief in the truth of what you assert.

On the one hand you say that the policy is wrong and the November 13 letter shows the brethren frantically back-pedalling. On the other, you claim that the policy makes sense and you accept the explanation the brethren have given for it.

But any disconnect between these two (apparently simultaneously held) views is entirely a matter of me "forcing" something?

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I have difficulty working out how you can plausibly claim to have a good-faith belief in the truth of what you assert.

On the one hand you say that the policy is wrong and the November 13 letter shows the brethren frantically back-pedalling. On the other, you claim that the policy makes sense and you accept the explanation the brethren have given for it.

But any disconnect between these two (apparently simultaneously held) views is entirely a matter of me "forcing" something?

Really?

If you really want to understand, here goes... I'll try to respond to each point you made above.

1.  Do I believe the policy is "wrong"?  I'm not sure how to apply the word wrong to this policy.  I don't believe I have used that word.  I do, however, believe that the policy is inconsistent with the gospel.  The best summary of why I feel that way was actually provided by Bill Reel.  You can read it here.

2.  Do I think that the Nov 13 letter was a revision of the policy, as opposed to a clarification?  Yes.  The language of the policy is clear.  The language of the Nov 13 letter is also clear.  But the Nov 13 letter changes what the policy dictated.

3.  Does the policy make sense?  I think it makes sense under the conclusion that the Brethren are trying to protect the Church from alienation tort.  Everything I've read, studied, and listened to points me in that direction.  Otherwise it doesn't make sense to me to say a child living with gay parents shouldn't be baptized (because it would be confusing) but they are welcome to come to church (where they'll receive the confusing messages).

4.  I accept that the Brethren are acting out of compassion for children (not wanting to alienate them from their parents or cause problems at home).  That's been the reason given, has it not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2015 at 3:58 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

But that's not what people are supposed to be baptised for, and I'm sorry to say that someone neglected to teach you properly. Baptism is not just an everyone-else-is-doing-it social occasion; it is about the covenant, whatever your eight-year-old self thought.

 

I know that now..and I was taught properly.  I was a kid! I knew I was making a covenant but that wasn't as important as knowing I was going to do this with friends.  Later on, of course I knew what baptism was really all about.  It is a social occasion..there was dinner..cake and everything after we were baptized..and to an eight year old, it was a special party!

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I know that now..and I was taught properly.  I was a kid! I knew I was making a covenant but that wasn't as important as knowing I was going to do this with friends.  Later on, of course I knew what baptism was really all about.  It is a social occasion..there was dinner..cake and everything after we were baptized..and to an eight year old, it was a special party!

The policy seems to have engendered a sudden concern among members that children understand the gravity of the covenant they are making.  And yet, prior to November 5th, I never really heard much mention about the fact that most kids we baptized still believed in Santa Claus.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, rockpond said:

If you really want to understand, here goes... I'll try to respond to each point you made above.

1.  Do I believe the policy is "wrong"?  I'm not sure how to apply the word wrong to this policy.  I don't believe I have used that word.  I do, however, believe that the policy is inconsistent with the gospel.  The best summary of why I feel that way was actually provided by Bill Reel.  You can read it here.

2.  Do I think that the Nov 13 letter was a revision of the policy, as opposed to a clarification?  Yes.  The language of the policy is clear.  The language of the Nov 13 letter is also clear.  But the Nov 13 letter changes what the policy dictated.

3.  Does the policy make sense?  I think it makes sense under the conclusion that the Brethren are trying to protect the Church from alienation tort.  Everything I've read, studied, and listened to points me in that direction.  Otherwise it doesn't make sense to me to say a child living with gay parents shouldn't be baptized (because it would be confusing) but they are welcome to come to church (where they'll receive the confusing messages).

4.  I accept that the Brethren are acting out of compassion for children (not wanting to alienate them from their parents or cause problems at home).  That's been the reason given, has it not?

 

  1. So you think that the policy is "inconsistent with the gospel" to such an extent that you are "duty bound to reject it," but it's "spinning" or "forcing" or otherwise misrepresenting you to conclude that you think it is "wrong." How, exactly, could it be more wrong, from an LDS standpoint? You say that you don't know how that word even applies to the policy. Do you have a problem with straight talk?
  2. The November 13 letter is consistent with the November 6 commentary on the policy, which shows, to exactly 100% of those who aren't looking for a pretext to accuse the brethren of something, that the November 13 letter is faithful to the original intent of the policy.
  3. The policy makes sense based upon the explanation offered by Elder Christofferson, to everyone who does not approach his words with a hermeneutic of suspicion. Ockham's Razor is double-edged: it cuts both ways, and in this case there is no need to introduce any unattested law firm into the equation to explain what is there.
  4. Thank you.

Now: do you, at long last, see why I frequently find your positions opaque? There is no incentive whatsoever for me to "force" or "spin" or do anything else to the things you write in order to reach the conclusions I do. All I have to do is read that at 8:39 you say something like "They called it a clarification but it's obviously a revision," and then at 8:42 you say something like "It's a bad policy that harms children and punishes them for being in the wrong kind of family," and then at 8:50 you say something like "It's completely dishonest for anyone to say that I'm disagreeing with the brethren!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:
  1. So you think that the policy is "inconsistent with the gospel" to such an extent that you are "duty bound to reject it," but it's "spinning" or "forcing" or otherwise misrepresenting you to conclude that you think it is "wrong." How, exactly, could it be more wrong, from an LDS standpoint? You say that you don't know how that word even applies to the policy. Do you have a problem with straight talk?
  2. The November 13 letter is consistent with the November 6 commentary on the policy, which shows, to exactly 100% of those who aren't looking for a pretext to accuse the brethren of something, that the November 13 letter is faithful to the original intent of the policy.
  3. The policy makes sense based upon the explanation offered by Elder Christofferson, to everyone who does not approach his words with a hermeneutic of suspicion. Ockham's Razor is double-edged: it cuts both ways, and in this case there is no need to introduce any unattested law firm into the equation to explain what is there.
  4. Thank you.

Now: do you, at long last, see why I frequently find your positions opaque? There is no incentive whatsoever for me to "force" or "spin" or do anything else to the things you write in order to reach the conclusions I do. All I have to do is read that at 8:39 you say something like "They called it a clarification but it's obviously a revision," and then at 8:42 you say something like "It's a bad policy that harms children and punishes them for being in the wrong kind of family," and then at 8:50 you say something like "It's completely dishonest for anyone to say that I'm disagreeing with the brethren!"

 

1.  There are various definitions of wrong making it a difficult word for me to accurately apply to this situation.  I tried to clarify by saying exactly how I felt it was wrong.  If you'd like to pick one definition of wrong and ask me if it applies to my thoughts about the policy, I'll answer.

2.  The Nov 13 letter changes the meaning of the policy.  We don't have any insight into the original intent.  All we have is responses to the media firestorm that came about after it was published.

3.  Ockham's Razor would tell us to look at what the text of the policy actually says which is different than what the Nov 13 letter says.

4.  You're welcome.

5.  No, I'm not being opaque.  I've actually been quite open with you.  Your disagreement with me does not mean that I am being opaque.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I know that now..and I was taught properly.  I was a kid! I knew I was making a covenant but that wasn't as important as knowing I was going to do this with friends.  Later on, of course I knew what baptism was really all about.  It is a social occasion..there was dinner..cake and everything after we were baptized..and to an eight year old, it was a special party!

Funny, but I don't remember a cake or a party even.  Just being herded with other children into the baptismal font.  I'm hoping I have a poor memory and that my family did have something afterwards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Funny, but I don't remember a cake or a party even.  Just being herded with other children into the baptismal font.  I'm hoping I have a poor memory and that my family did have something afterwards.

 

Being baptized with a group of kids is nota given either.  A lot of stakes do that but a lot of stakes don't as well. I lived in two different stakes growing up and everyone had their own baptism day. 

I remember hearing about group baptism days when I was younger and feeling sorry for the kids. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Funny, but I don't remember a cake or a party even.  Just being herded with other children into the baptismal font.  I'm hoping I have a poor memory and that my family did have something afterwards.

 

Very small ward,.and a big deal.  My kid's bishop took them all out for ice cream.  We did the baptisms with lots of kids in the stake..but I was lucky to have Denise...born 3 days ahead of me and we got to do this together...my family took me out for dinner as going to town was a 20 minute trip anyway..it was fun.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 5:55 AM, busybee said:

Your coffee is getting cold.... but dream on :rolleyes:

Yes--exactly!

Some may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

Until most Christian churches (including the LDS one) catch up, l will--like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--continue to dream and work toward a more just future, where gays and lesbians are judged by the content and character of our relationships, instead of the configuration of our genitals.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2015 at 6:51 PM, rockpond said:

I doubt most members are fully aware of handbook policies regarding polygamy.  For example, I doubt most realize that the policy is different in counties where polygamy is legal. [sic] ...

 

There are counties where polygamy is legal? :huh:  In the U.S.? :blink::shok: Well, I'm sure it won't take the Supreme Court long to weigh in on that situation ...

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There are counties where polygamy is legal? :huh:  In the U.S.? :blink::shok: Well, I'm sure it won't take the Supreme Court long to weigh in on that situation ...

Uh.... no, Ken. 

Rockpond was referring to countries where polygamy is legal (i.e. those in Africa and Asia)--but the U.S. clearly isn't one of them (yet). 

Share this post


Link to post

He wrote "counties" though.  A bit different in scope.  Ken was doing a little teasing as Ken often does with typos, in case it wasn't clear.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...