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

[Teancum 1,817]

On 5/2/2019 at 5:27 PM, cinepro said:

The Interpreter has a round-table podcast that discussed the 11/5 policy (the one about children being raised by same-sex parents can't get baptized until they turn 18 and disavow their parents' lifestyle).  In discussing the rescission of the policy in early April, they make some interesting claims. 

Frankly, I understand the pickle that the change of direction puts defenders in.  But if this is the best defense on the subject, I weep for the future of apologetics.

It starts around the 16:30 mark here:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-april-7-2019/

- John Dehlin was an "idiot" for leaking the policy.

- 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."

- Policies aren't "suppressed" or "buried", (but people are still idiots if they "leak" policies that aren't suppressed or buried).

-

I think this demonstrates what I have obviously felt for some time. The past and future of apologetics is dismal.  Good people can disagree with me on this but for me at least, I could not be an active defender of the faith when there was so much to defend and many of the defenses were simply putting your finger in the dyke to have another leak some about. it;s because of things like this that I feel this way even more so.:

-The 11/5 policy must have been an "iterative" step for the leaders down the path towards discerning the will of the Lord on the subject.  (Apparently this path has u-turns).

 

[rockpond 8,223]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

-The 11/5 policy must have been an "iterative" step for the leaders down the path towards discerning the will of the Lord on the subject.  (Apparently this path has u-turns).

It fits into the Elder Holland "wrong roads" theory.  But the idea that we needed to implement a bad policy and then reverse it as an iterative step to discerning the will of the Lord seems to be a very weak explanation given how many people (myself included) stood up immediately after hearing the policy and said that this could not possibly be the will of the Lord.

[Storm Rider 6,082]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It fits into the Elder Holland "wrong roads" theory.  But the idea that we needed to implement a bad policy and then reverse it as an iterative step to discerning the will of the Lord seems to be a very weak explanation given how many people (myself included) stood up immediately after hearing the policy and said that this could not possibly be the will of the Lord.

I take a rather purist approach on these things. If the prophet presents a revelation and it ends with "....thus saith the Lord" and it is brought before the people for approval to add to scripture, then it is direct revelation. If not, to me, it means that they have sought inspiration and made a decision they, as humans, think is best. I don't really get overly excited about it once the first standard is not met. 

After living for many decades, I am convinced that people seek out drama for themselves. When there is peace, humans will seek contention. They are more prone to undermine themselves than consistently hold to building a stronger relationship with Jesus Christ and God - it is reflective of their natural state.

[rockpond 8,223]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I take a rather purist approach on these things. If the prophet presents a revelation and it ends with "....thus saith the Lord" and it is brought before the people for approval to add to scripture, then it is direct revelation. If not, to me, it means that they have sought inspiration and made a decision they, as humans, think is best. I don't really get overly excited about it once the first standard is not met. 

After living for many decades, I am convinced that people seek out drama for themselves. When there is peace, humans will seek contention. They are more prone to undermine themselves than consistently hold to building a stronger relationship with Jesus Christ and God - it is reflective of their natural state.

Determining that the 2015 policy was not the will of the Lord was part of my relationship with Christ.  It wasn't about creating drama or seeking contention.

[CV75 5,545]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I know you are trying to make this about you, but one of the benefits of posting anonymously is that it prevents exactly that. It is about the posts.

I pointed out that this is more like something a critic would say in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the policy, and not something the Brethren would say in paraphrasing it.

Rinse and repeat!

[Storm Rider 6,082]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Determining that the 2015 policy was not the will of the Lord was part of my relationship with Christ.  It wasn't about creating drama or seeking contention.

Rock, I think you misunderstood my point - it was not directed at you personally. I do see individuals tie themselves in knots over things that have no bearing on the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they become so confused, they run from Christ and his teachings. I see others they just like to be in chaos. If it is peaceful, they will seek out contention. 

My point was about all humans rather than just one individual. 

[rockpond 8,223]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, I think you misunderstood my point - it was not directed at you personally. I do see individuals tie themselves in knots over things that have no bearing on the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they become so confused, they run from Christ and his teachings. I see others they just like to be in chaos. If it is peaceful, they will seek out contention. 

My point was about all humans rather than just one individual. 

I understood your point.  I was offering you my point of view and experience in contrast to what you believe about "all humans".

[rockpond 8,223]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I know you are trying to make this about you, but one of the benefits of posting anonymously is that it prevents exactly that. It is about the posts.

I pointed out that this is more like something a critic would say in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the policy, and not something the Brethren would say in paraphrasing it.

Rinse and repeat!

But if you are going to claim that what I wrote is like what a critic would say and that it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy, you ought to be able to explain how it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy.  You can't seem to do that.

[SeekingUnderstanding 1,595]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But if you are going to claim that what I wrote is like what a critic would say and that it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy, you ought to be able to explain how it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy.  You can't seem to do that.

No offense, but why are you still trying? CV75 is being intentionally obtuse and is unlikely to bend here. 

[rockpond 8,223]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No offense, but why are you still trying? CV75 is being intentionally obtuse and is unlikely to bend here. 

Fair question.  Not expecting him to bend. Never did.  Just not feeling like letting his allegations go unchallenged.

[CV75 5,545]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But if you are going to claim that what I wrote is like what a critic would say and that it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy, you ought to be able to explain how it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy.  You can't seem to do that.

I'm sure that i did explain.

Perhaps a better exercise: insert your statements into the policy, or in the Brethren's explanations you referred to, and we can see how well they fit.

[rockpond 8,223]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure that i did explain.

Perhaps a better exercise: insert your statements into the policy, or in the Brethren's explanations you referred to, and we can see how well they fit.

I've read and studied them all.  What I wrote fits well.

[CV75 5,545]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've read and studied them all.  What I wrote fits well.

Note I suggested the exercise so that we can see how well they fit. I understand why you'd rather not, but take the plunge anyway!

[ttribe 1,832]

Just now, CV75 said:

Note I suggested the exercise so that we can see how well they fit. I understand why you'd rather not, but take the plunge anyway!

Why should he provide you entertainment?  

[alter idem 764]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

But if you are going to claim that what I wrote is like what a critic would say and that it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy, you ought to be able to explain how it misunderstands and misrepresents the policy.  You can't seem to do that.

Okaaaay.......I'll take a stab at it, because I was also incensed/irritated when I read your 'paraphrasing' on this.    I doubt it will help, but here goes.

Here's the offending statement:

 

Quote

"But I also think that much pain, anguish, and "attachment blockade" (see Josh Weed's blog) came from this policy's pronouncements that 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.”

First; your statement: 'this policy's pronouncements that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy' -- The policy did not address who people 'love' or don't love.  It addressed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who choose to reject the church teachings on Marriage and instead enter a Same Sex marriage.  Like it or not, that does amount to 'apostasy' because they have rejected the church's teaching that Heavenly Father only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman and being in a marriage which involves anything else is grounds for excommunication(not to mention that homosexual relations will be taking place in that marriage, which are a violation of the Law of Chastity).  But, the church is not making any kind of statement to condemn people who love eachother and they aren't condemning non-members who marry their same sex as being in apostasy.  Only members of the church who do this knowing full well that it is in violation of church teachings are being addressed.  I believe that when a member knowingly rejects church doctrine, violating it with their choices, that can be called 'apostasy' and they can be disciplined for it.

It was the 'you love' that you included that bothered me, otherwise, what you stated was true.  The 2015 policy did mention 'apostasy'.  You got in trouble, IMO, by adding your own spin with 'you love', because that wasn't part of the criteria--it was being a member of the church, and joining in this type of marriage which made it apostasy.  But, adding the 'you love' was how you attempted to persuade readers to perceive the Church leaders who created the policy, as mean, unfeeling types who don't like people to 'love' others.  I can attest that this is not true.  These men encourage us to love others--just not expressions of 'love' which are against the Lord's standards of morality.

 

Second;  You claimed that children who live with gay parents are not welcome in full fellowship in the church.  Everyone is welcome to fully fellowship with us in church--we have signs that say 'Visitors welcome'.  No one is excluded because they are not baptized from fellowshipping with members.  But, there are certain requirements that must be fulfilled for Baptism to take place.  The church does make distinctions and they have the right and responsibility to do so.  This policy reflected requirements for receiving baptism which affected minor children living with parents who are openly violating the laws of God, as taught in our Church.  No condemning of the parents, they have that choice, but the church did have the right to determine that they wanted these children to wait for baptism and could make decisions for themselves.  They do the same thing for children of polygamous parents--but this has been ignored.  Making people wait to meet requirements for baptism is not refusing 'full fellowship' in the church, it's refusing baptism.  The church can do that, it's not a crime, it is a responsibility.  Just because you didn't like it and many others shared your views, did not mean that our Prophet and Apostles were unwelcoming.  Baptism is not a 'right',  it's an ordinance which the church administers and our leaders have an obligation and responsibility to make certain that those who receive baptism are prepared for this sacred, binding ordinance--otherwise it can come back on their own heads and cause misery more than good.

I've tried to answer your request for an explanation.  Now you are welcome to tell me how wrong I am.😀

[ALarson 6,113]

17 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Here's the offending statement:

""But I also think that much pain, anguish, and "attachment blockade" (see Josh Weed's blog) came from this policy's pronouncements that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy...."

 

First; your statement: 'this policy's pronouncements that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy' -- The policy did not address who people 'love' or don't love. 

His statement is still correct (even if you choose to take "love" out of the equation).  How many enter a SSM who don't love each other?

I'd guess it's about the same number as those who enter a heterosexual marriage and don't love each other....

I agree that they don't have to love each other in order to marry, but neither do heterosexual couples.  So this seems rather petty to use as a basis for claiming his statement was not accurate, IMO.

Edited May 7 by ALarson

[ALarson 6,113]

33 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Second;  You claimed that children who live with gay parents are not welcome in full fellowship in the church.  Everyone is welcome to fully fellowship with us in church-

So do you believe those who are not able to be baptized are considered to be "in full fellowship in the church"?  How about young men who are not able to advance in the Priesthood?

Those are honest questions as I'd like your definition of "full fellowship".

(Maybe he should has stated "full membership"?)

Edited May 7 by ALarson

[rockpond 8,223]

41 minutes ago, alter idem said:

First; your statement: 'this policy's pronouncements that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy' -- The policy did not address who people 'love' or don't love.  It addressed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who choose to reject the church teachings on Marriage and instead enter a Same Sex marriage.  Like it or not, that does amount to 'apostasy' because they have rejected the church's teaching that Heavenly Father only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman and being in a marriage which involves anything else is grounds for excommunication(not to mention that homosexual relations will be taking place in that marriage, which are a violation of the Law of Chastity).  But, the church is not making any kind of statement to condemn people who love eachother and they aren't condemning non-members who marry their same sex as being in apostasy.  Only members of the church who do this knowing full well that it is in violation of church teachings are being addressed.  I believe that when a member knowingly rejects church doctrine, violating it with their choices, that can be called 'apostasy' and they can be disciplined for it.

It was the 'you love' that you included that bothered me, otherwise, what you stated was true.  The 2015 policy did mention 'apostasy'.  You got in trouble, IMO, by adding your own spin with 'you love', because that wasn't part of the criteria--it was being a member of the church, and joining in this type of marriage which made it apostasy.  But, adding the 'you love' was how you attempted to persuade readers to perceive the Church leaders who created the policy, as mean, unfeeling types who don't like people to 'love' others.  I can attest that this is not true.  These men encourage us to love others--just not expressions of 'love' which are against the Lord's standards of morality.

But the policy does apply to gay married couples who love each other.  So my statement is an accurate representation of the policy.  Being in love may not be part of the criteria but it is part of the reality of the policy.  You state yourself that the Brethren encourage love but not expressions of love that we "against the Lord's standards of morality.  I never said that those who created the policy are "mean, unfeeling types" and I can't control how others may perceive church leaders as a result of the policy they created.

41 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Second;  You claimed that children who live with gay parents are not welcome in full fellowship in the church.  Everyone is welcome to fully fellowship with us in church--we have signs that say 'Visitors welcome'.  No one is excluded because they are not baptized from fellowshipping with members.  But, there are certain requirements that must be fulfilled for Baptism to take place.  The church does make distinctions and they have the right and responsibility to do so.  This policy reflected requirements for receiving baptism which affected minor children living with parents who are openly violating the laws of God, as taught in our Church.  No condemning of the parents, they have that choice, but the church did have the right to determine that they wanted these children to wait for baptism and could make decisions for themselves.  They do the same thing for children of polygamous parents--but this has been ignored.  Making people wait to meet requirements for baptism is not refusing 'full fellowship' in the church, it's refusing baptism.  The church can do that, it's not a crime, it is a responsibility.  Just because you didn't like it and many others shared your views, did not mean that our Prophet and Apostles were unwelcoming.  Baptism is not a 'right',  it's an ordinance which the church administers and our leaders have an obligation and responsibility to make certain that those who receive baptism are prepared for this sacred, binding ordinance--otherwise it can come back on their own heads and cause misery more than good.

I bolded your words above:  "fully fellowship".  You had to change what I wrote to tell me that it misrepresented the policy.  Welcome in full fellowship is an entirely different statement than welcome to fully fellowship.

As I explained earlier in the thread, I was relying on our common understanding in the church that full fellowship indicates being able to participate in all of the ordinances and blessings of the restored church.  Consider the term "disfellowship" from the handbook which is when certain restrictions are placed upon someone's membership.

But, whether someone is disfellowshipped or just not permitted to participate in "full fellowship" doesn't 'mean that we don't welcome them at church.

I think it is also worth considering the words of Elder Christofferson from his 6-Nov-2015 explanation of the policy regarding blessing and baptism:

"It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

Note that he says the expectation that they will be in primary and other Church organizations is likely not going to be appropriate.  That to me sounds like something less than what we would consider full fellowship.

Edited May 7 by rockpond

[rockpond 8,223]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Note I suggested the exercise so that we can see how well they fit. I understand why you'd rather not, but take the plunge anyway!

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

Edited May 7 by rockpond

[alter idem 764]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

His statement is still correct (even if you choose to take "love" out of the equation).  How many enter a SSM who don't love each other?

I'd guess it's about the same number as those who enter a heterosexual marriage and don't love each other....

I agree that they don't have to love each other in order to marry, but neither do heterosexual couples.  So this seems rather petty to use as a basis for claiming his statement was not accurate, IMO.

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.

[alter idem 764]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So do you believe those who are not able to be baptized are considered to be "in full fellowship in the church"?  How about young men who are not able to advance in the Priesthood?

Those are honest questions as I'd like your definition of "full fellowship".

(Maybe he should has stated "full membership"?)

I've never considered little children to be denied 'full fellowship', but, if I was trying to persuade readers that it's mean to deny younger children baptism, I might couch it in those terms.  I just wouldn't use that term 'full fellowship', because to me, it doesn't apply in this context.  Little children have to wait to be eligible for baptism, just as the policy tried to do for children living in the home of a married gay couple.  They were not being denied baptism forever, just until they were older.  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'?  IMO, only if you want to make the church out to be the bad guy--which is what I perceived from Rockpond's writing it in that way.

Yes, full membership and full fellowship are similar--that wasn't the problem.  It was saying the church was making them 'not welcome' because they could not get baptized right away, was the problem.  As I said, little children are denied baptism until later, children who's parents won't give permission, and couples living together are denied baptism until later--but I doubt Rockpond would accuse the church of making them 'unwelcome'.

Children of Gay parents, living in the home were only denied baptism until later.  That's no different from others.

[ALarson 6,113]

17 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 wasn't Rockpond who made the "love" part of his statement relevant or not relevant.  His statement is correct whether you leave it in or take it out. 

But I hope people can move on from being so nit picky.  (And I don't believe you are petty....just that it was petty for the one specific poster who just kept harping on the love part of his statement, IMO).

[rockpond 8,223]

18 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.

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.

[ALarson 6,113]

5 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I've never considered little children to be denied 'full fellowship', but, if I was trying to persuade readers that it's mean to deny younger children baptism, I might couch it in those terms.  I just wouldn't use that term 'full fellowship', because to me, it doesn't apply in this context.  Little children have to wait to be eligible for baptism, just as the policy tried to do for children living in the home of a married gay couple.  They were not being denied baptism forever, just until they were older.  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'?  IMO, only if you want to make the church out to be the bad guy--which is what I perceived from Rockpond's writing it in that way.

Yes, full membership and full fellowship are similar--that wasn't the problem.  It was saying the church was making them 'not welcome' because they could not get baptized right away, was the problem.  As I said, little children are denied baptism until later, children who's parents won't give permission, and couples living together are denied baptism until later--but I doubt Rockpond would accuse the church of making them 'unwelcome'.

Children of Gay parents, living in the home were only denied baptism until later.  That's no different from others.

Oh, I believe that it's very different "from others".  I'm not sure why you don't see that.  The only ones who are similarly affected are children of parents involved in living polygamy.

Edited May 7 by ALarson

[alter idem 764]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But the policy does apply to gay married couples who love each other.  So my statement is an accurate representation of the policy.  Being in love may not be part of the criteria but it is part of the reality of the policy.  You state yourself that the Brethren encourage love but not expressions of love that we "against the Lord's standards of morality.  I never said that those who created the policy are "mean, unfeeling types" and I can't control how others may perceive church leaders as a result of the policy they created.

I bolded your words above:  "fully fellowship".  You had to change what I wrote to tell me that it misrepresented the policy.  Welcome in full fellowship is an entirely different statement than welcome to fully fellowship.

As I explained earlier in the thread, I was relying on our common understanding in the church that full fellowship indicates being able to participate in all of the ordinances and blessings of the restored church.  Consider the term "disfellowship" from the handbook which is when certain restrictions are placed upon someone's membership.

But, whether someone is disfellowshipped or just not permitted to participate in "full fellowship" doesn't 'mean that we don't welcome them at church.

I think it is also worth considering the words of Elder Christofferson from his 6-Nov-2015 explanation of the policy regarding blessing and baptism:

"It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

Note that he says the expectation that they will be in primary and other Church organizations is likely not going to be appropriate.  That to me sounds like something less than what we would consider full fellowship.

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.