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

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the point he is making, and I agree with is...

1- He made a statement but never claimed it was "objective fact". You seem to be taking exception with his statement because you think he's stating objective fact, when really he's just making a statement.

2- Is it assumed that every statement should be considered "objective fact" or is it reasonable in a discussion that people will share personal opinions and perceptions? I think we know the answer to that.

3- Your call for a CFR doesn't really make sense unless he claimed his statement was objective fact, which he didn't, so a CFR shouldn't apply

4- It would be a monumental waste of time for every person to have to defend every personal statement made about every subject. We might as well shut down this board.

5- following your line of reasoning, you would be just as responsible for answer his CFR about your statement about his statement being an "objective fact'

 

It's all a waste of time. Kind of like this post  

Nevermind HJW.  The mods can do whatever they want with it.  Life is way to short to spend anymore time on it.    

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

I did back it up, but it was never phrased as a "statement of fact." I look forward to reading your well-researched replies to the five outstanding CFRs that you have been issued.

It's in the hands of the mods now, they can do with it whatever they want.  As you've illustrated, there's no reason to discuss it with you any further.  

[alter idem]

22 hours ago, Gray said:

Your description is inadequate and doesn't communicate the policy well, focusing on perceived reaction rather than actual effects.

Instead of this futile back and forth, which is likely to get the thread closed, maybe we could get back to the original topic of this thread.

 

"Is Dehlin an idiot because he leaked the 2015 policy (which has been replaced) and does the church 'hide policies'?

My opinion;

Dehlin is not an 'idiot', he's no doubt an intelligent man.  I've never listened to his podcasts, but I'd assume he's of normal intelligence.  The use of the epithet 'idiot' was inappropriate and likely said in the heat of the moment. 

I don't believe he 'leaked' the policy, because someone else had to have given him the information--he publicized it.  It seems there are 'leakers' within the Church administration.  Probably some low-level employee who saw it and decided to tell Dehlin, since at the time, he was the best to make it public.

I don't think you can claim that the policy was hidden--it was published and therefore was not meant to be hidden.  The book it was published in is supposed to have limited distribution, not to 'hide' it, but because it is for the use of Bishops and Stake Presidents etc., it's not for the general public.  And, it's not hidden, because I'm pretty sure I can find it on the internet easily, and if anyone wants to see it, they can ask their Bishop and they print and quote portions of it when needed.

Simply because something is not publicized to a wide audience, when it only applies or affects a small percentage, does not make it hidden.

The policy was innocuous to the rest of us--only not to the very small percentage it might affect--the Church has similar policies in place for different family situations but no one gives two hoots over those ones.  But because this one involved LGBTQ+++?,   some who read about it determined it was an opportunity to spin it negatively, presenting church leaders as mean, uncaring, jerks who WANTED to punish the children of people who simply 'love eachother' in their SSM.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a direct link to a post by CV75.

My post was about what the Brethren meant, not how they expressed what they meant.

"The policy certainly means something to you, which I haven't seen expressed by any of the Brethren, and evidently you will not depart from that (enjoy!) or acknowledge my standard.

"I think the references you mentioned provide more than sufficient illumination as to what the Brethren meant. As far as the policy as it now stands, we have Elder Oaks' explanation so far. I seem to recall something from President Nelson as well."

 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I don't believe he 'leaked' the policy, because someone else had to have given him the information--he publicized it.  It seems there are 'leakers' within the Church administration.  Probably some low-level employee who saw it and decided to tell Dehlin, since at the time, he was the best to make it public.

By all accounts I've heard, the leak did not come from Church administration.  The policy had been published in the digital version of the handbook.  That means that tens of thousands of church leaders had access to it.  However, Dehlin was not one of them.  So he can't have been the source of the leak.

37 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The policy was innocuous to the rest of us--only not to the very small percentage it might affect--the Church has similar policies in place for different family situations but no one gives two hoots over those ones. 

I don't consider it innocuous even though I am sealed in an opposite sex marriage.  It was offensive to me that my church would adopt such a policy.  And yes, they have a similar policy for polygamous families but until this policy was published in 2015, I had no idea the policy for polygamists' children existed.  I am opposed to both.

41 minutes ago, alter idem said:

But because this one involved LGBTQ+++?,   some who read about it determined it was an opportunity to spin it negatively, presenting church leaders as mean, uncaring, jerks who WANTED to punish the children of people who simply 'love eachother' in their SSM.

Personally I think the policy spun itself negatively.  It didn't really need any help.  But I don't consider the Brethren to be mean, uncaring jerks who wanted punish children.

I'm not sure why the fact that people in SSM couples love each other seems to be such a trigger.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My post was about what the Brethren meant, not how they expressed what they meant.

"The policy certainly means something to you, which I haven't seen expressed by any of the Brethren, and evidently you will not depart from that (enjoy!) or acknowledge my standard.

"I think the references you mentioned provide more than sufficient illumination as to what the Brethren meant. As far as the policy as it now stands, we have Elder Oaks' explanation so far. I seem to recall something from President Nelson as well."

 

As I said before, this seems to be an attempt on your part to soft peddle an unpopular policy, rather than frankly acknowledging what the policy did.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the point he is making, and I agree with is...

1- He made a statement but never claimed it was "objective fact". You seem to be taking exception with his statement because you think he's stating objective fact, when really he's just making a statement.

2- Is it assumed that every statement should be considered "objective fact" or is it reasonable in a discussion that people will share personal opinions and perceptions? I think we know the answer to that.

3- Your call for a CFR doesn't really make sense unless he claimed his statement was objective fact, which he didn't, so a CFR shouldn't apply

4- It would be a monumental waste of time for every person to have to defend every personal statement made about every subject. We might as well shut down this board.

5- following your line of reasoning, you would be just as responsible for answer his CFR about your statement about his statement being an "objective fact'

 

It's all a waste of time. Kind of like this post  

Yup, exactly the point I was trying to make (albeit probably with too much spice).

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Some folks can't seem to let it go.

Perhaps they have good reason.  When the celebratory dancing ends, let me know and I might even be willing to share my "why."  But maybe not.

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I said before, this seems to be an attempt on your part to soft peddle an unpopular policy, rather than frankly acknowledging what the policy did.

That wasn't the purpose of the CFR. It was for you to provide proof of an objection that another poster "wasn't soft-pedaling the policy sufficiently," not who was soft-pedaling it.

That said, this hardly shows that I downplayed the former policy.

This only shows that I pointed out that the so-called paraphrasing of the policy and the Brethren's statements departed from and clouded over their purpose for the policy by framing it as a tool for invalidating people's emotions and rejecting the worth of souls.

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

By all accounts I've heard, the leak did not come from Church administration.  The policy had been published in the digital version of the handbook.  That means that tens of thousands of church leaders had access to it.  However, Dehlin was not one of them.  So he can't have been the source of the leak.

I don't consider it innocuous even though I am sealed in an opposite sex marriage.  It was offensive to me that my church would adopt such a policy.  And yes, they have a similar policy for polygamous families but until this policy was published in 2015, I had no idea the policy for polygamists' children existed.  I am opposed to both.

Personally I think the policy spun itself negatively.  It didn't really need any help.  But I don't consider the Brethren to be mean, uncaring jerks who wanted punish children.

I'm not sure why the fact that people in SSM couples love each other seems to be such a trigger.

Regarding the conversation this thread is about, and their accusing him of 'leaking' the information--I think they are using the term less literally than you.  I think they mean he 'leaked' the information by making it public, not that he had a handbook and he 'leaked' it.  I doubt he stole a handbook. 😉

Many people find things offensive, that don't bother others.  That can't be helped.  I'm offended when people use the F word in everyday conversation,  but they have no clue they've done anything offensive.  To me, it's better to not take offense when it was not meant as such.

Members certainly have the right to disagree with decisions made by their church leaders--  When this happens, I think the responsibility lies with them to pray and determine what Heavenly Father would want them to do about it.  My guess is the answer will be something like learn patience and develop charity for imperfect individuals called to make these kinds of decisions.

 

As for your last two statements, you are going to stand your ground on what you wrote.  It is your right to refuse to make any concessions.  FYI, you haven't changed MY mind on this, and obviously no one has changed yours either and  since it's futile, I feel it is best to not challenge what you wrote, which allows you to stop defending yourself to me.  I don't know if others will also--some like to have the last word.

 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Regarding the conversation this thread is about, and their accusing him of 'leaking' the information--I think they are using the term less literally than you.  I think they mean he 'leaked' the information by making it public, not that he had a handbook and he 'leaked' it.  I doubt he stole a handbook. 😉

Many people find things offensive, that don't bother others.  That can't be helped.  I'm offended when people use the F word in everyday conversation,  but they have no clue they've done anything offensive.  To me, it's better to not take offense when it was not meant as such.

Members certainly have the right to disagree with decisions made by their church leaders--  When this happens, I think the responsibility lies with them to pray and determine what Heavenly Father would want them to do about it.  My guess is the answer will be something like learn patience and develop charity for imperfect individuals called to make these kinds of decisions.

 

As for your last two statements, you are going to stand your ground on what you wrote.  It is your right to refuse to make any concessions.  FYI, you haven't changed MY mind on this, and obviously no one has changed yours either and  since it's futile, I feel it is best to not challenge what you wrote, which allows you to stop defending yourself to me.  I don't know if others will also--some like to have the last word.

 

Happy to stop defending myself when accusations against me cease.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

... framing it as a tool for invalidating people's emotions and rejecting the worth of souls.

Oh my.  This is funny.  I haven't seen anyone do this.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

It's a direct link to a post by CV75.

Where in that post is there anything about softpeddling?  If you read it that way, it explains why some others are seeing things differently than you.

 

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- He made a statement but never claimed it was "objective fact". You seem to be taking exception with his statement because you think he's stating objective fact, when really he's just making a statement.

 

Then he should just say it was his opinion and avoid any implication that others should be reading it the same way.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Calm

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where in that post is there anything about softpeddling?  If you read it that way, it explains why others are seeing things differently than you.

 

He doesn't use the term soft-peddling (as far as I know I'm the only one using that term, or people responding to me). He's arguing for a soft-peddled interpretation though.

Robert Smith:

"While I agree that the Holy Spirit can certainly be grieved  in certain circumstances, I know of no analysis of Holy Write which verifies that in all circumstances.  I have already cited occasions when contention did occur, and it was appropriate.  Righteous indignation is a thing, CV75, and we all need to acknowledge that.  Sometimes, the exchange of milktoast versions of reality are ridiculous and counterproductive.  The problem as I see it is not knowing the difference."

 

CV75:

Yes, not knowing the difference is a problem. I don't take righteous indignation, which I believe the Lord would stand behind, to entail the spirit of contention per 3 Nephi 11, which precedes the Beatitudes that come in very handy when dealing with and counseling through difficult situations and feelings, nor disputation for that matter.

 

CV75 is advocating for softening and massaging the description and messaging to avoid "the spirit of contention". 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Gray

[Gray]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

That wasn't the purpose of the CFR. It was for you to provide proof of an objection that another poster "wasn't soft-pedaling the policy sufficiently," not who was soft-pedaling it.

That said, this hardly shows that I downplayed the former policy.

This only shows that I pointed out that the so-called paraphrasing of the policy and the Brethren's statements departed from and clouded over their purpose for the policy by framing it as a tool for invalidating people's emotions and rejecting the worth of souls.

You downplayed it every time you objected to a straightforward and frank description of the policy.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Perhaps they have good reason.  When the celebratory dancing ends, let me know and I might even be willing to share my "why."  But maybe not.

I'm sure whatever it is it's meaningful to you.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm sure whatever it is it's meaningful to you.

Yup.  Quite beautiful, actually.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

CV75 is advocating for softening and massaging the description and messaging to avoid "the spirit of contention". 

I think you can avoid contention without soft-peddling.  For example, use more clinical and less emotional language.  Perhaps that assumption is why I don't see anything about softpeddling in CV's post.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you can avoid contention without soft-peddling.  For example, use more clinical and less emotional language.  Perhaps that assumption is why I don't see anything about softpeddling in CV's post.

Exactly. I assume Gray uses the word abortion instead of feticide or killing. Is this soft-peddling?

[SouthernMo]

I keep thinking about the term “iterative” used in the podcast as it applies to a revelatory process.

I’m sure the podcaster finds that using that term strengthens his and maybe others’ testimonies in the revelatory process we see in current LDS leadership and the organization it’s grown in.

To me, it weakens my testimony in orthodox LDS revelation. Why should I have faith that other revelations that come through latter day leaders aren’t just one step in an iterative process?

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I keep thinking about the term “iterative” used in the podcast as it applies to a revelatory process.

I’m sure the podcaster finds that using that term strengthens his and maybe others’ testimonies in the revelatory process we see in current LDS leadership and the organization it’s grown in.

To me, it weakens my testimony in orthodox LDS revelation. Why should I have faith that other revelations that come through latter day leaders aren’t just one step in an iterative process?

It doesn't feel like the correct word choice:

Doesn't iterative imply a repetitive process that improves over time?

In this case, a policy was implemented.  And then the policy was reversed. Doesn't seem to fit the term iterative.

But, perhaps they are suggesting that the repeating process is the council meetings and that there is an expectation that we'll have another one in which the matter of gay marriage and fellowship of their children will be revisited and policies changed again.

[SouthernMo]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It doesn't feel like the correct word choice:

Doesn't iterative imply a repetitive process that improves over time?

In this case, a policy was implemented.  And then the policy was reversed. Doesn't seem to fit the term iterative.

But, perhaps they are suggesting that the repeating process is the council meetings and that there is an expectation that we'll have another one in which the matter of gay marriage and fellowship of their children will be revisited and policies changed again.

U turn or not, my faith in the process described is not strengthened.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

U turn or not, my faith in the process described is not strengthened.

I understand.

Have you considered Elder Holland's "wrong roads" paradigm?    That's probably a better fit for this.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Mormon-Message-from-Elder-Holland-Wrong-Roads-/s/74180

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by rockpond

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It doesn't feel like the correct word choice:

Doesn't iterative imply a repetitive process that improves over time?

In this case, a policy was implemented.  And then the policy was reversed. Doesn't seem to fit the term iterative.

But, perhaps they are suggesting that the repeating process is the council meetings and that there is an expectation that we'll have another one in which the matter of gay marriage and fellowship of their children will be revisited and policies changed again.

I don't have much of an opinion yet on his use of the word iterative, but it doesn't have to imply that the process improves over time.  That's just using how we usually think of it.  Maybe he just means it's a process that is repetitive?  

Edited May 9, 2019 by bluebell

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

You downplayed it every time you objected to a straightforward and frank description of the policy.

*turns the other cheek*