Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Interpreter Podcast: Dehlin is an "idiot" for leaking the 11/5 policy. Also, "we don't hide policies."

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

- People only got hurt because the policy was leaked.  If it hadn't gotten leaked, no one would have known about it and therefore they wouldn't have gotten hurt. Therefore it's Dehlin's fault people felt "hurt" or "betrayed."

I can kind of see that if they had plans to deal with training and PR explanation that they just hadn't gotten into place. Or even more discussion of the policy. That is if there was more planned and it was just a mistake to modify the document Bishops and SP access first. That is there's still a mistake but it's now an honest mistake. I don't know if that's the case of course and I'm not sure they do either. But I can see criticizing someone leaking something (in this case the person leaking to Dehlin).

That said, Dehlin doesn't believe and doesn't think LGBT policies are inspired. So it's hardly surprising he'd take the actions he did. In terms of his worldview he was doing the right thing. Those of us who were believers might vigorously disagree but that's not surprising.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, Cinepro. that was a very unfortunate apologetic effort.  They are terribly uninformed if they think the policy wouldn't have been known by the people who were affected by it if Dehlin hadn't leaked it.  It would have been found out at some point.  Perhaps not as soon as it was.  Perhaps the opposition wouldn't have responded as quickly.  But they on the verge of idiot themselves for not realizing such an obvious thing.  They are so foolish they did not realize Dehlin himself was told about the policy change by someone else in order to get it out there.  If not Dehlin, then perhaps someone else.  

I find it utterly adorable that they are trying to walk it back to the point of the policy from 2015 being but an iterative step down a path to learn the will of the lord.  Now when the whole of church policy is reversed on these questions it will always be the opposition from the Church was merely an iterative step for the leaders to learn that they shouldn't have been so opposed in the first place.  I will grant it is precisely the type of thinking that has justified many things in the Church, starting with polygamy and the priesthood ban.  

But in terms of apologetics, the type of thinking they articulate is an iterative step towards destroying apologetic efforts for the Church.  

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I can kind of see that if they had plans to deal with training and PR explanation that they just hadn't gotten into place. Or even more discussion of the policy. That is if there was more planned and it was just a mistake to modify the document Bishops and SP access first. That is there's still a mistake but it's now an honest mistake. I don't know if that's the case of course and I'm not sure they do either. But I can see criticizing someone leaking something (in this case the person leaking to Dehlin).

That said, Dehlin doesn't believe and doesn't think LGBT policies are inspired. So it's hardly surprising he'd take the actions he did. In terms of his worldview he was doing the right thing. Those of us who were believers might vigorously disagree but that's not surprising.

Greg Prince indicates that there was no plan to make any announcements. The backlash after the quiet insertion of the POX was apparently unexpected.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

How could Dehlin even have leaked the policy?  I don’t think he had access to the exclusive church handbook of instructions at the time.

Granted, he publicized it with his platform, but let’s not label him as the “deep throat” here.  Someone who had access to it likely informed Dehlin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

How could Dehlin even have leaked the policy?  I don’t think he had access to the exclusive church handbook of instructions at the time.

Granted, he publicized it with his platform, but let’s not label him as the “deep throat” here.  Someone who had access to it likely informed Dehlin.

I thought I just read on here that the leak came from what took place in Washington (or was it Oregon)?  

Now I'm confused (even for sure about the leak coming from there)....I'll try to look it up.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I thought I just read on here that the leak came from what took place in Washington (or was it Oregon)?  

Now I'm confused (even for sure about the leak coming from there)....I'll try to look it up.

Wherever it came from, Dehlin is a scapegoat as for some LDS, he is the boogeyman.

The leak could not have originated from him. Someone in a leadership role must have shared it with him or given him access.

Its like saying the Washington Post is a “leaker” of information.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is literally no way in today’s church that this policy would be kept under wraps.  The 2010 handbook was leaked from church headquarters almost immediately. If the church thought they could keep this quiet they are extremely naive. 

You yourself along with Juliann proudly leak unpublished information about first presidency approval of sealings of women to multiple men, no?

I too am surprised they didn't realize the who and when of the leak is immaterial, it would have gotten out there no matter what.  I saw the quote from Calm.  I"m surprised too that she is suggesting Dehlin caused unnecessary harm.  Of course it was the policy change that caused the harm.  I doubt most who were negatively effected by it knew Dehlin made it public.  They heard about it and it hurt them.  

25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Wherever it came from, Dehlin is a scapegoat as for some LDS, he is the boogeyman.

The leak could not have originated from him. Someone in a leadership role must have shared it with him or given him access.

Its like saying the Washington Post is a “leaker” of information.

precisely.  It's sad they are so foolish to say he was an idiot and he is to blame for the problems the policy caused.  I'm not sure I've heard a more idiotic line of reasoning to deflect blame from the actual cause of the problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is literally no way in today’s church that this policy would be kept under wraps.

I do believe it should be published.  They seem to have learned from that experience with the announcement this time before the Handbook is changed.

I was very disappointed in the Church's response back in 2015.  There was a lot of misunderstanding that could have been quickly cleared up, but took almost a week.  I think that is on the Church.  So some of the harm done is a result of a poor response time and method from the Church.

What is on Dehlin and others including media looking for an attention getting story imo was they played up the worse possible interpretation on the children's policy instead of pushing let's wait for clarification on how the Church intends to apply it and let's not get upset until we know what to get upset with.  

What is on the Church is they didn't respond immediately and took 6 days? Iirc to clarify.  Equal thumbs down from me all around.

If the podcast is as reported and cinepro is generally accurate so I am not doublechecking, it is a silly argument without much but emotional appeal, imo.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is on the Church is they didn't respond immediately and took 6 days? Iirc to clarify.  Equal thumbs down from me all around.

Six days to clarify after considering countless permutations of options and implications.

My testimony in the leadership ability and/or communicative clarity of these men is waning.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You yourself along with Juliann proudly leak unpublished information about first presidency approval of sealings of women to multiple men, no?

Those are anecdotes, not anything in writing, ;).  As far as I am aware, the FP hasn't asked the participants not to share their experiences.  I will try and remember to ask.

Otoh, they have asked us not to publish the handbook 1... but I think that is a standard they will need to set aside due to the current realities of information sharing because the only real justification is to not have members secondguessing choices of leaders by appealing to policy when the leader is inspired to do something different.  It is not as if the handbook is meant to be set aside to create sacred space as happens with temple rituals.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is on Dehlin and others including media looking for an attention getting story imo was they played up the worse possible interpretation on the children's policy instead of pushing let's wait for clarification on how the Church intends to apply it and let's not get upset until we know what to get upset with.  

what?  The policy was what it was.  No one, when they first heard of it, thought the church was going to respond with a clarification that was really a rewrite, did they?  Why can't people respond to what was published?  Seems silly to expect people who get upset by the policy to tell them not to be upset because the Church will likely offer a clarification that changes it.  Plus, let's face it the damage was done and the rewrite clarification was no helpful, so much so even the Church saw fit to drop it after she realized it was causing harm.  

What a mess.  But it is completely backwards to blame people for being upset by the policy and saying so.  That's just nonsense....sorry Calm, but it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Six days to clarify after considering countless permutations of options and implications.

My testimony in the leadership ability and/or communicative clarity of these men is waning.

Mine waned completely as this all unfolded 3.5 years ago.  It only got worse and worse as more and more came out about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Six days to clarify after considering countless permutations of options and implications.

My testimony in the leadership ability and/or communicative clarity of these men is waning.

In looking at the changes on lds.org over the years (I used to pay very close attention when it wasn't so massive and its search function was nicer, plus my nephew is in charge of it so I got some behind the scene info on how things were developing), I think there was a lot of communication changes that were ahead or right on time.

I think in some areas they learn quickly ( the second time OrdainWomen did their conference protest was practically perfect in response imo), others not so fast.  Something that I would expect in a group that has to take the needs of the world into account at times.  Stuff that only impacts local (by which I mean Mormon Corridor or the US) should definitely take less time.  

Add-on:  there have been some major screw ups, like the 2015 policy, imo, but I would expect some from time to time because I think God allows people to run the Church mostly on their own, just as he allows parents to figure things out by life experience.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Quote

No one, when they first heard of it, thought the church was going to respond with a clarification that was really a rewrite, did they?

I thought from the beginning it would be parallel to the polygamous family policy, which meant to me it was about living under the parent's roof.  The vast majority of people I talked to offline saw it that way as well. Speculation online included the policy would apply to any kids who had a gay parent, not just those living with gay parents.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is on Dehlin and others including media looking for an attention getting story imo was they played up the worse possible interpretation on the children's policy instead of pushing let's wait for clarification on how the Church intends to apply it and let's not get upset until we know what to get upset with.  

That is on the church too. The policy as written supports the media’s / Dehlin’s interpretation (one that as reported on this board many bishops took as well).  That the church apparently meant to write something else, is their own fault. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Dehlin was brilliant for his purposes imo to publicize it.  Wrong because it caused imo unnecessary harm through fearmongering, but it caused conflict between the Church and many of its members, raising or even opening them up to doubt...which works to drive up his market.

Yup. Cui bono.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Greg Prince indicates that there was no plan to make any announcements. The backlash after the quiet insertion of the POX was apparently unexpected.

I put no stock into anything Greg Prince says on this subject. Dehlin is an idiot for several reason, in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought from the beginning it would be parallel to the polygamous family policy, which meant to me it was about living under the parent's roof.  The vast majority of people I talked to offline saw it that way as well. Speculation online included the policy would apply to any kids who had a gay parent, not just those living with gay parents.

And what did the actual policy say? Did it mention custody or living arrangements? What is the most straightforward reading? I allow that the church didn’t intend it that way, but if that is the case, I hope whoever drafted the policy was severally reprimanded for writing it so poorly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Pres Nelson could literally come out and say that he’s been deceived into believing the church is true and step down as president and these types of apologists will find a way to spin that into a positive event that proves the church is true.

It’s pretty remarkable what they’re able to justify in their minds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, 10THAmendment said:

Pres Nelson could literally come out and say that he’s been deceived into believing the church is true and step down as president and these types of apologists will find a way to spin that into a positive event that proves the church is true.

It’s pretty remarkable what they’re able to justify in their minds. 

It’s all Dehlin’s fault! Also that guy who wrote the ces  letter. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

I thought from the beginning it would be parallel to the polygamous family policy, which meant to me it was about living under the parent's roof.  The vast majority of people I talked to offline saw it that way as well. Speculation online included the policy would apply to any kids who had a gay parent, not just those living with gay parents.

The hurt had nothing to do with that, of course.  If the original writing included the notion that the kids primary residence had to be with non gay parents, the negative effects would have still come. We know that because people remained hurt by it after the clarification.  And the whole other half of the policy remained—the labeling of apostates.   So I’m not sure what you think would have been alleviated if those who were upset by it from the start didn’t talk about it.  Amazing how misplaced the blame is

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what did the actual policy say? Did it mention custody or living arrangements? What is the most straightforward reading? I allow that the church didn’t intend it that way, but if that is the case, I hope whoever drafted the policy was severally reprimanded for writing it so poorly. 

I am guessing the problem was using the polygamous families as a template where divorce wasn't calculated into it, while it is a major part of most kids with gay parents in the Church.

I wonder if there are any polygamous parents that share custody with monogamous or unmarried parents.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...