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

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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. 😶

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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. ;) :P

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.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...