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

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Couples who are not legally married are not allowed to be baptized until they marry or move out. Would you say they are 'denied full fellowship'?  Only if you wanted to put a negative spin on it. Children of polygamous marriages are not baptized until they no longer live in the home.  Children who's parents won't give permission are not able to be baptized, until later--would you accuse  the church of not welcoming them in 'full fellowship'?

Yes, if you are not permitted to participate in the ordinances that apply to you, than you are not in full fellowship.  You are welcomed and loved in the church but you are not welcomed "in full fellowship" until that which is preventing you from full participation in the ordinances is resolved.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, alter idem said:

Well, I called that one.

I didn't write that to argue with you, I wrote it because you asked for an explanation and no one else was offering one. 

I wasn't arguing.  I was responding with my position.  When someone writes to me, I usually try to respond.  Should I not have done so?

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Well, since I was offended, I guess I'm petty.  He kept asking for an explanation and I gave it--even if it reflects on me poorly.

I explained that if you take 'you love' out of it, the statement was correct--and 'you love' was the offending problem which made it inaccurate, so I do not agree that his statement is still correct and I think I was pretty detailed in stating why. 

There was nothing in the policy that mentioned 'love'--IMO, he said it (likely subconsiously) to persuade readers to perceive leaders as against 'love', which is a popular attack against those who don't support Same sex marriage.

It's a reasonable assumption that people marry for love; but not relevant in this context.  It's inclusion was used to persuade readers to view the policy as negative and perceive the Prophet and Apostles as mean for condemning those who are guilty of 'love'.  Members who marry someone of their own sex are rejecting Church doctrine.

Unfortunately, some married couples do not stay in love, or marry for love, either, and we wouldn't want to leave them out. Policies typically remain neutral with regards to human emotions, and do not govern them.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If it is reasonable to assume that people marry for love than the insertion in my statement of a gay member marrying someone they love shouldn't be offensive not should it persuade people to see the policy one way or another because... as you said, it's a reasonable assumption.

Not offensive, just inaccurate in representing the policy. And not as much a reasonable assumption so much as one of all reasonable assumptions, or perhaps an assumption of the ideal.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We includes you.  Go for it.  But, you might first want to reference my reply (immediately above) to @alter idem.

It simply doesn't doesn't work without the semantic gymnastics; it doesn't fit, especially in terms of paraphrasing (your claim). "Let me paraphrase and then explain what I mean (not them) in several paragraphs -- for clarity -- *ahem* while I do it" LOL

[alter idem]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't arguing.  I was responding with my position.  When someone writes to me, I usually try to respond.  Should I not have done so?

No, that's fine, but I hesitated to even get involved because I'm not interested in being pulled in to have to defend my position, I only felt like I could offer my explanation for what you were asking.  I'm absolutely sure no one is going to change their mind or rethink their original opinions. 

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not offensive, just inaccurate in representing the policy. 

What an odd thing to say.  How does putting love into the sentence make it "inaccurate in representing the policy"?  Are you actually saying that the policy only applied to couples not in love but who enter a SSM?

What a crazy conversation this thread has turned into!!!

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, alter idem said:

No, that's fine, but I hesitated to even get involved because I'm not interested in being pulled in to have to defend my position, I only felt like I could offer my explanation for what you were asking.  I'm absolutely sure no one is going to change their mind or rethink their original opinions. 

Very true, alter.

I think we're all ready for this to get back on topic.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What an odd thing to say.  How does putting love into the sentence make it "inaccurate in representing the policy"?  Are you actually saying that the policy only applied to couples not in love but who enter a SSM?

What a crazy conversation this thread has turned into!!!

LOL no I'm not saying that, but that it is neutral on that point, addressing those involved no matter the emotional state of the ssm partners. I think I've said that a few times already!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL no I'm not saying that, but that it is neutral on that point, addressing those involved no matter the emotional state of the ssm partners. I think I've said that a few times already!

So your problem with Rockpond is that he is only addressing a subset of the population that was impacted by the policy?

[ttribe]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL no I'm not saying that, but that it is neutral on that point, addressing those involved no matter the emotional state of the ssm partners. I think I've said that a few times already!

It may be written in a neutral tone; its impact was not, however.  Are you able to get that?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

No, that's fine, but I hesitated to even get involved because I'm not interested in being pulled in to have to defend my position, I only felt like I could offer my explanation for what you were asking.  I'm absolutely sure no one is going to change their mind or rethink their original opinions. 

Pro Tip-

Don't engage on a discussion board unless you want to engage in a discussion.

Positions are so much easier to maintain when they don't have to be defended.  

Just teasing.

Now I'm ducking for cover

[alter idem]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Pro Tip-

Don't engage on a discussion board unless you want to engage in a discussion.

Positions are so much easier to maintain when they don't have to be defended.  

Just teasing.

Now I'm ducking for cover

No, very true. I often wonder why I give in to the urge to post, when it's best to just read. 😶

[Gray]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

What an odd thing to say.  How does putting love into the sentence make it "inaccurate in representing the policy"?  Are you actually saying that the policy only applied to couples not in love but who enter a SSM?

What a crazy conversation this thread has turned into!!! 

Conversations with some of our beloved board members can resemble an out of body experience.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

What an odd thing to say.  How does putting love into the sentence make it "inaccurate in representing the policy"?  Are you actually saying that the policy only applied to couples not in love but who enter a SSM?

What a crazy conversation this thread has turned into!!!

Maybe he's saying that since the policy applies equally to those in love and those not in love, 'love' is irrelevant to the policy.  And if love is irrelevant to the policy then it could reasonably be seen as inaccurate to imply that love has anything to do with anything as far as the policy is concerned.  

Maybe.  I might be misunderstanding him.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Maybe he's saying that since the policy applies equally to those in love and those not in love, 'love' is irrelevant to the policy.  And if love is irrelevant to the policy then it could reasonably be seen as inaccurate to imply that love has anything to do with anything as far as the policy is concerned.  

Maybe.  I might be misunderstanding him.

It often makes us better to use clinical terms or euphemisms when talking about things. We don’t kill fetus’s we abort them. I’m sure slavers who separated parents from children didn’t describe the act as “ripping apart loving family units.” Maybe they just thought of themselves as separating old from young.  Would it be silly to object to this description because they didn’t care if the families loved each other or even care what their familial status was? Should we be obligated to use one set of vocabulary over the other?

The idea of condemning a loving relationship as apostasy makes some people feel uncomfortable. Easier to leave out the love? Sure. Has the policy been misrepresented in anyway? Nope. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not offensive, just inaccurate in representing the policy. And not as much a reasonable assumption so much as one of all reasonable assumptions, or perhaps an assumption of the ideal.

Not inaccurate since we all seem to agree that gay couples who marry could very well be in love and it would be considered apostasy by the policy.  

The reasonable assumption claim was made by @alter idem

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

It simply doesn't doesn't work without the semantic gymnastics; it doesn't fit, especially in terms of paraphrasing (your claim). "Let me paraphrase and then explain what I mean (not them) in several paragraphs -- for clarity -- *ahem* while I do it" LOL

Not true.  My statement stands on its own.  Those who have tried to explain why it misrepresented the policy have had to alter what I wrote to make their case. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It often makes us better to use clinical terms or euphemisms when talking about things. We don’t kill fetus’s we abort them. I’m sure slavers who separated parents from children didn’t describe the act as “ripping apart loving family units.” Maybe they just thought of themselves as separating old from young.  Would it be silly to object to this description because they didn’t care if the families loved each other or even care what their familial status was? Should we be obligated to use one set of vocabulary over the other?

The idea of condemning a loving relationship as apostasy makes some people feel uncomfortable. Easier to leave out the love? Sure. Has the policy been misrepresented in anyway? Nope. 

Obviously reasonable people can disagree on whether the policy has been misrepresented or not. You’re “nope” is as effectual as my “yep” would be.

I think that everyone tends to use language to their advantage regardless of the topic, and none of us are stupid.  In the end, your portrayal will caused eyes to roll from those who disagree and mine will do the same with those that disagree with me.  

I’m sure we’re both ok with that.  

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Obviously reasonable people can disagree on whether the policy has been misrepresented or not. You’re “nope” is as effectual as my “yep” would be.

Here I disagree. Abortion rights groups may dislike it that an abortion can be called killing a human with a beating heart, but it’s an accurate description. One made to appeal to potential mother’s heart strings? Yes. But an accurate description none the less. Rockponds description used words the church would not have used. Words meant to tug on emotions. But accurate? Absolutely. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that everyone tends to use language to their advantage regardless of the topic, and none of us are stupid.  In the end, your portrayal will caused eyes to roll from those who disagree and mine will do the same with those that disagree with me.  

Here we are in total agreement. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I’m sure we’re both ok with that.  

 

Yep

[CV75]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So your problem with Rockpond is that he is only addressing a subset of the population that was impacted by the policy?

I don’t have a problem with Rockpond, and I invite you to re-read our conversation. But obvuiously, the policy covers a subset of the population and I haven't a problem with that.

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

It may be written in a neutral tone; its impact was not, however.  Are you able to get that?

Of course, and I empathize with the various reactions to the former policy.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not inaccurate since we all seem to agree that gay couples who marry could very well be in love and it would be considered apostasy by the policy.  

The reasonable assumption claim was made by @alter idem

But the policy is neutral to that. An assumption does not constitute a representation or paraphrase, and typically lends itself to misunderstanding.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not true.  My statement stands on its own.  Those who have tried to explain why it misrepresented the policy have had to alter what I wrote to make their case. 

But I haven’t altered anything you wrote.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t have a problem with Rockpond, and I invite you to re-read our conversation. But obvuiously, the policy covers a subset of the population and I haven't a problem with that.

 

Of course, and I empathize with the various reactions to the former policy.

 

But the policy is neutral to that. An assumption does not constitute a representation or paraphrase, and typically lends itself to misunderstanding.

But I haven’t altered anything you wrote.

I don’t know if neutral is the right word.  But, yes, the policy mandated excommunication whether the gay couple loved one another or not.  

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Here I disagree. Abortion rights groups may dislike it that an abortion can be called killing a human with a beating heart, but it’s an accurate description. One made to appeal to potential mother’s heart strings? Yes. But an accurate description none the less. Rockponds description used words the church would not have used. Words meant to tug on emotions. But accurate? Absolutely. 

That's the crux of the issue, I don't think it was accurate, and not because he chose to use words that he hoped would emotionally manipulate his audience into thinking he was holding the moral high ground.  I disagree because when has 'being in love' ever impacted one of God's commandments?  Never.

There are no actions or choices that are sins unless the people are in love.  Being in love doesn't matter to God.  Adultery?  It's still a sin even if the people are in love.  Fornication?  It's still a sin even if the people are in love.  Living together before marriage?  It's still a sin even if both people are madly in love.  Polyamorous relationships?  They are still a sin, even if everyone involved is in love.  Polygamy in this day and age?  Still a sin regardless of how much love is involved.   Someone abandons a spouse to be with someone else?  Still a sin even if that person really loves the other one.

SSM?  Still a sin even if the couple is in love.  

Being in love doesn't matter.  Something is either sinful or it's not and whether or not love is involved has no affect on that designation.  It's irrelevant to the issue being discussed.  People can throw that out there and try to persuade others that 'being in love' positively impacts the spiritual consequences of the choice being made but all the emotionally charged words in the world won't ever make that true.

We've all heard people try to argue "God doesn't care if we are sleeping together as long as we love each other."  Or "as long as two people love each other, that's what matters most."   Those are the arguments of people who don't know what they are talking about. 

Rockpond's description can be seen as misleading because whether or not the couple is in love does not change--in any way--whether or not there are negative spiritual consequences for SSM families.  That's not how spiritual consequences work and it's inaccurate to portray those consequences as if they should be affected by the presence of love.

 

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Rockpond's description can be seen as misleading because whether or not the couple is in love does not change--in any way--whether or not there are negative spiritual consequences for SSM families.  That's not how spiritual consequences work and it's inaccurate to portray those consequences as if they should be affected by the presence of love.

Come on...this discussion has become borderline ridiculous.

Rockpond never stated that the couple has to be in love for the policy to apply to them (or that it would alter the consequences of them being labeled an apostate  in any way  if they did not love each other).  I would hope that one would just assume that most couples who get married, love each other.  What he stated is not misleading...not even a little bit.  Nothing in his statement is not the truth.  You can add more details, (such as, "the couple doesn't have to love each other for the policy to apply")....but is that really necessary?

I cannot even believe this is still being discussed.

Edited May 8, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Come on...this discussion has become borderline ridiculous.

Rockpond never stated that the couple has to be in love for the policy to apply to them (or that it would alter the consequences of them being labeled an apostate  in any way  if they did not love each other).  I would hope that one would just assume that most couples who get married, love each other.  What he stated is not misleading...not even a little bit.  Nothing in his statement is not the truth.  You can add more details, (such as, "the couple doesn't have to love each other for the policy to apply")....but is that really necessary?

I cannot even believe this is still being discussed.

No one is making you join in the discussion ALarson.  But you keep doing it.  

And I agree that Rockpond never said that.  What I said was that it can reasonably be implied as being misleading to bring love up at all in a discussion where love is completely and utter irrelevant to the issue.