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

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, we each must govern ourselves. But I'm still wondering whether anyone can provide some examples of anyone telling the Brethren why they oppose the policy, and to change it, in humility and without the spirit of contention on this policy issue. I don't take the spirit of contention as a spirit of truth, honesty, love, etc., but to each their own; I'd still like some examples. I already know the Brethren can deal perfectly (oops, fallibly) well with all sorts of negativity and surprise (and I don't consider the guy in President Eyring's story or Hugh Nibley to have demonstrated the spirit of contention).

I always recommend that we be very polite in dealing with leaders (I served in the USMC), and I have actually made detailed recommendations to one particular apostle a long time ago.  He sent me a very cordial reply, and dealt with the substance of my comments.  We cannot ask for more than that.  They already have a lot on their plate.

However, I have no problem with someone getting angry and telling an apostle off, if that seems necessary.  If only to get his attention.  8)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I always recommend that we be very polite in dealing with leaders (I served in the USMC), and I have actually made detailed recommendations to one particular apostle a long time ago.  He sent me a very cordial reply, and dealt with the substance of my comments.  We cannot ask for more than that.  They already have a lot on their plate.

However, I have no problem with someone getting angry and telling an apostle off, if that seems necessary.  If only to get his attention.  8)

Also, probably a function of your service in the USMC. 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I always recommend that we be very polite in dealing with leaders (I served in the USMC), and I have actually made detailed recommendations to one particular apostle a long time ago.  He sent me a very cordial reply, and dealt with the substance of my comments.  We cannot ask for more than that.  They already have a lot on their plate.

However, I have no problem with someone getting angry and telling an apostle off, if that seems necessary.  If only to get his attention.  8)

We’ve been told not to write letters to the apostles now.  So I don’t know that there is a way to approach them on issues. 

Share this post


Link to post

CV75, I am pretty sure that I will get just exed from this conversation....but reading through all of this, you are just a big hard a$$!!  You seem to love to aggravate and be plain mean.

Okay...I am kicked off this thread...but I have to tell ya...I feel so much better now!😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The statement I wrote did not misrepresent the policy.  And I wrote the statement, so it was about me.

You actually wrote two statements, and I attributed neither of them to you personally, focusing on your summary that "The former may have come from church critics.  The latter came from men who claim to speak with the authority of God."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I always recommend that we be very polite in dealing with leaders (I served in the USMC), and I have actually made detailed recommendations to one particular apostle a long time ago.  He sent me a very cordial reply, and dealt with the substance of my comments.  We cannot ask for more than that.  They already have a lot on their plate.

However, I have no problem with someone getting angry and telling an apostle off, if that seems necessary.  If only to get his attention.  8)

Thank you, and I won't beat a dead horse (except this once!): "I'm still wondering whether anyone can provide some examples of anyone telling the Brethren why they oppose the policy, and to change it, in humility and without the spirit of contention on this policy issue." Politeness and civility are nice but not the same thing.

On the basis of exercising personal agency "I have no problem with someone getting angry and telling an apostle off" either, but in principle, the power of the Lord will only stand behind the humble and non-contentious in the exchange of ideas and concerns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You actually wrote two statements, and I attributed neither of them to you personally, focusing on your summary that "The former may have come from church critics.  The latter came from men who claim to speak with the authority of God."

Exactly.  And the part that I attributed to our church leaders, the description of the policy, was not misrepresented.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Thank you, and I won't beat a dead horse (except this once!): "I'm still wondering whether anyone can provide some examples of anyone telling the Brethren why they oppose the policy, and to change it, in humility and without the spirit of contention on this policy issue." Politeness and civility are nice but not the same thing.

How would someone do this when we've been counseled not to write them?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

Exactly.  And the part that I attributed to our church leaders, the description of the policy, was not misrepresented.

I'll have to think about that, but my initial impression is that the Church leaders did not describe the policy that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, CV75 said:

I'll have to think about that, but my initial impression is that the Church leaders did not describe the policy that way.

Obviously it wasn't an exact quote, but paraphrasing something doesn't make it incorrect.  

Coincidentally, someone on another thread just asked me not to quote directly from the handbook.  Can't win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

How would someone do this when we've been counseled not to write them?

I can imagine a few ways, but I'm looking for a more concrete, real-life example in relation to the subject policy and by extension, how that influenced the change after 3+ years. If no one has any, that is fine, I only beat the dead horse one last time because no one has answered (or even acknowledged) that question directly. Kind of like what you said I was doing (but wasn't...) LOL

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you, and I won't beat a dead horse (except this once!): "I'm still wondering whether anyone can provide some examples of anyone telling the Brethren why they oppose the policy, and to change it, in humility and without the spirit of contention on this policy issue." Politeness and civility are nice but not the same thing.

On the basis of exercising personal agency "I have no problem with someone getting angry and telling an apostle off" either, but in principle, the power of the Lord will only stand behind the humble and non-contentious in the exchange of ideas and concerns.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We’ve been told not to write letters to the apostles now.  So I don’t know that there is a way to approach them on issues. 

I would suggest that one no write letters to the apostles unless it is actually necessary.  Most Saints have not and never will have an occasion to write such a letter, and that is a good thing.  Most matters can be settled at the local level, but not all.  In any case, all letters to the apostles are going to be screened for relevance and seriousness before the apostle ever sees them.  Some will be rerouted back to local jurisdiction.  This is, after all, a horizontal, not a vertical Church.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Obviously it wasn't an exact quote, but paraphrasing something doesn't make it incorrect.  

Coincidentally, someone on another thread just asked me not to quote directly from the handbook.  Can't win.

I'm OK with quoting and paraphrasing from the Handbook (unless it says not to; I'll have to check that out one of these days). But in paraphrasing, we typically express and preserve the meaning of the authors to achieve greater clarity about what they meant. We have plenty of sources where the Brethren have expressed what the policy means, and what they mean, and this would help us paraphrase. Yours looks nothing like that, prompting my original comment.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But in paraphrasing, we typically express and preserve the meaning of the authors to achieve greater clarity about what they meant. We have plenty of sources where the Brethren have expressed what the policy means, and what they mean, and this would help us paraphrase. Yours looks nothing like that, prompting my original comment.

I didn't depart from what the policy means.  So I've met your standard.

And I would disagree that we have "plenty of sources where the Brethren have expressed what the policy means, and what they mean".  Apart from the handbook, Elder Christofferson's discussion with Brother Otterson, and the 13-Nov-2015 letter from the FP, I am not aware of any.  Are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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.

ETA: Too long a sentence. I don't take righteous indignation to entail disputation (also covered in 3 nephi 11) to entail the spirit of contention, either.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I didn't depart from what the policy means.  So I've met your standard.

And I would disagree that we have "plenty of sources where the Brethren have expressed what the policy means, and what they mean".  Apart from the handbook, Elder Christofferson's discussion with Brother Otterson, and the 13-Nov-2015 letter from the FP, I am not aware of any.  Are you?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

CV75, I am pretty sure that I will get just exed from this conversation....but reading through all of this, you are just a big hard a$$!!  You seem to love to aggravate and be plain mean.

Okay...I am kicked off this thread...but I have to tell ya...I feel so much better now!😊

I hope you don't kicked off just for saying that!

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I do acknowledge your standard and have met it.

Elder Oaks' 4-April-2019 statement and Pres. Nelson's January 2015 address?  They describe it briefly.  My statement on the policy was consistent with their remarks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/2/2019 at 11:40 PM, Calm said:

Straw man...

Just to be clear, I don't accept his at best secondhand claims (and if they passed through more people as they did in the case of Tom Christofferson, third, fourth, whatever) as strong evidence.  Too easy for bias to let us hear what we want to hear.

I just think claiming financial gain as a motivator for his agenda to be silly.  Dehlin, otoh...that is a definite possibility in my view.  (And just so nonmembers don't feel picked on, there are imo plenty of members unfortunately who use the Church to try and make a buck, like the doomsday preppers promoters).

 

On 5/3/2019 at 2:04 PM, Calm said:

 

You are either careless in your reading or intentionally misrepresenting what I say.  I never claimed Prince and anyone seeking financial gain are one and the same, so you can't agree to that from my post.

No, I am not careless in my reading and find no fault in my post. Perhaps the error is on your end. The very fact that you are so against my thoughts on Prince, makes me think that I am on to something. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

 

No, I am not careless in my reading and find no fault in my post. Perhaps the error is on your end. The very fact that you are so against my thoughts on Prince, makes me think that I am on to something. 

Are you for real? What were your thoughts on Prince again. Let’s see, you don’t put any stock in what Greg Prince says. Someone asked why, you say that you don’t like people that come in and get “financial gain” from topics like this. When it was pointed out that Greg Prince is independently wealthy, and has not made a red cent from being interviewed on the topic, most sane people would have apologized and moved on. You? No you moved the goal post and sarcastically posted the following:

“Well once again I have been proven wrong, highly educated and well accomplished individuals can’t push an agenda.“

Not only was this a nonsequitor, but a straw man as well. Obviously anyone can push an agenda, but that wasn’t your stated objection was it? Your stated objection was financial gain. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

 

No, I am not careless in my reading and find no fault in my post. Perhaps the error is on your end. The very fact that you are so against my thoughts on Prince, makes me think that I am on to something. 

User name checks out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, rockpond said:

I do acknowledge your standard and have met it.

Elder Oaks' 4-April-2019 statement and Pres. Nelson's January 2015 address?  They describe it briefly.  My statement on the policy was consistent with their remarks.

I would say your statement (it comes across as more of an opinion) was a reaction to the policy irrespective of their remarks. Also, as for interpreting and representing the policy or their remarks, it did not serve as a paraphrase at all!

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say your statement (it comes across as more of an opinion) was a reaction to the policy irrespective of their remarks. Also, as for interpreting and representing the policy or their remarks, it did not serve as a paraphrase at all!

Again, what I wrote, my paraphrase of the policy:

marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy and that children who live with their gay parents are not welcome in full-fellowship in the church.

Still seems accurate and nobody has yet pointed out where I am wrong. 

  • Like 1

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...