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, bluebell said:

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.  

In addition, the portrayal 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” did not come from the Brethren. The policy is not written that way, and the Brethren did not explain it that way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I don't think you've made a good case for that claim. I think to imply that it's misleading is decidedly unreasonable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In addition, the portrayal 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” did not come from the Brethren. The policy is not written that way, and the Brethren did not explain it that way.

Nevertheless, his description was  100% accurate. Not soft-peddling the policy is not the same thing as distorting it.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Gray said:

soft-peddling

There's you an absolutely unfraught term.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think you've made a good case for that claim. I think to imply that it's misleading is decidedly unreasonable.

That's fine.  I don't think others have made a good case for why it's not.  Ultimately, how we each feel about the other's arguments is also irrelevant to anything.  :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nevertheless, his description was  100% accurate. Not soft-peddling the policy is not the same thing as distorting it.

Here’s an example of what would have been accurate: “In reaction to the policy, some felt their love was invalidated and felt that they and their children were not welcome.”

Nice to know that soft-peddling isn't distortion!

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

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.

You know, if you really want this line of discussion to end,  you should do your part to end it; you keep saying things that cause those on the other side to want to counter what you say!--and then insisting that the rest of us should 'move on'...that is..... after you've shared your views.....

I'll do my part in exercising a little self control  by NOT commenting on what you wrote, even though I would like to.  How about you do the same.🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There's you an absolutely unfraught term.

That's what the objection was, though. That he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently. There is virtue in being completely frank.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here’s an example of what would have been accurate: “In reaction to the policy, some felt their love was invalidated and felt that they and their children were not welcome.”

Nice to know that soft-peddling isn't distortion! 

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

But you've captured Rockpond's point exactly (at least as I read it). Love doesn't matter! Your God doesn't care if a gay couple loves each other and makes a lifelong state endorsed commitment to each other. He only cares that they have they have the wrong gender in that marriage.

The same holds true for the church's position on fornication. I could say: "the church's policy on fornication is that two people in a loving committed relationship are committing a sin next to murder if they don't have a piece of paper from the state saying that they are legally married." And what would my point be? Love and commitment don't matter to your God when it comes to fornication. Only the legalistic piece of paper. In other words, it would be better for two people to hate each other, fight all the time, and have sex assuming they are legally married, than to be in a committed loving relationship without the piece of paper. Or to use your words: "when has 'being in love' ever impacted one of God's commandments." That's exactly the point. When it comes to your God, he doesn't care about being in love when it comes to sin. That’s what makes Rockpond’s paraphrase of the policy spot on. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's what the objection was, though. That he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently. There is virtue in being completely frank.

And there is virtue in using words accurately.  Accusing another of incessently negatively spinning and indiscriminately murdering the English language in order to find and take offense at pretty benign policies is not being "frank," unless you define "frank" as:  "being an attack dog" or "proceeding as though one were an attack dog."

Share this post


Link to post

After reading the last few pages, I'm wondering if Godot is going to show up...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's what the objection was, though. That he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently. There is virtue in being completely frank.

CFR on the bolded and underlined part. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But you've captured Rockpond's point exactly (at least as I read it). Love doesn't matter! Your God doesn't care if a gay couple loves each other and makes a lifelong state endorsed commitment to each other. He only cares that they have they have the wrong gender in that marriage.

The same holds true for the church's position on fornication. I could say: "the church's policy on fornication is that two people in a loving committed relationship are committing a sin next to murder if they don't have a piece of paper from the state saying that they are legally married." And what would my point be? Love and commitment don't matter to your God when it comes to fornication. Only the legalistic piece of paper. In other words, it would be better for two people to hate each other, fight all the time, and have sex assuming they are legally married, than to be in a committed loving relationship without the piece of paper. Or to use your words: "when has 'being in love' ever impacted one of God's commandments." That's exactly the point. When it comes to your God, he doesn't care about being in love when it comes to sin. That’s what makes Rockpond’s paraphrase of the policy spot on. 

You really think that the bolded part above was Rockpond's exact point??

You certainly haven't captured my point and you haven't captured the church's position either.  I didn't bring up the sin of hatred at all because it was irrelevant to the discussion but, though God's commandments are not impacted by whether or not we are 'in love,' it is always a sin to hate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You really think that the bolded part above was Rockpond's exact point??

You certainly haven't captured my point and you haven't captured the church's position either.  I didn't bring up the sin of hatred at all because it was irrelevant to the discussion but, though God's commandments are not impacted by whether or not we are 'in love,' it is always a sin to hate.

No absolutely not. The underlined is my understanding of yours and rockponds point. Love doesn’t matter to the church when it comes to SSM. Only the gender of the participants. 

The bolded would be a similar counter to fornication which Rockpond has not touched. You did though and that’s why I wrote the bolded. And last I checked, fornication is viewed as a more serious sin than hatred. One can get you exed, requires confession to priesthood, the other doesn’t. 

Edit: Didn’t you say your point was that love doesn’t matter to God when it comes to committing sin?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

CFR on the bolded and underlined part. :lol:

Is this a serious CFR?

"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. "

This is a 100% accurate description of the policy. The objections have been that saying children are not in full fellowship makes it sound bad, as does including "person you love". But those things are 100% true. Under the policy these children were not in full fellowship, and the policy did apply to same gender couples (who obviously love each other). Accurate statements do not put the policy in the best light, because the policy seems immoral. Soft peddling is required to make it less unpalatable.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And there is virtue in using words accurately.  Accusing another of incessently negatively spinning and indiscriminately murdering the English language in order to find and take offense at pretty benign policies is not being "frank," unless you define "frank" as:  "being an attack dog" or "proceeding as though one were an attack dog."

If you define "not acting as a PR agent for church policy" being an "attack dog" then that goes a long way to explaining your knee jerk reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you define "not acting as a PR agent for church policy" being an "attack dog" then that goes a long way to explaining your knee jerk reactions.

So  ...  in your worldview anyone speaking to the virtues or benignity of the Church's doctrines, policies, and/or procedures or in response to criticisms, however wild and irrational, is essentially a press agent?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  in your worldview anyone speaking to the virtues or benignity of the Church's doctrines, policies, and/or procedures or in response to criticisms, however wild and irrational, is essentially a press agent? 

Anyone soft peddling a rough policy and downplaying its actual effects is essentially acting like a press agent. Rockpond spoke frankly about the policy, without any wishy washy spin, but also without negative spin either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

without negative spin

😂🤣😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't bring up the sin of hatred at all because it was irrelevant to the discussion but, though God's commandments are not impacted by whether or not we are 'in love,' it is always a sin to hate.

I'd like to add that I should not have brought hatred into this. It is not necessary to my point. Most of my posts have been written with my phone and baby in hand which isn't best for productive conversation. I can rephrase. The churches position on fornication is that it is a serious sin (next to murder) to have sex before marriage. If unrepentant, this can lead to excommunication. It doesn't matter if you are in a committed relationship or not. It doesn't matter if you love each other or not. I disagree with this perspective. I believe that love and commitment are much more important than the legal status of a relationship. If I were to summarize the church's position I could say without distorting the church's position:

Quote

 

The church's policy on fornication is that two people in a loving committed relationship are committing a sin next to murder if they don't have a piece of paper from the state saying that they are legally married.

And what would my point be? Love and commitment don't matter to your God when it comes to fornication. Only the legalistic piece of paper. Isn't this your point? That love doesn't matter? I am just calling direct attention to the fact that love and commitment don't matter. You are leaving it unstated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No absolutely not. The underlined is my understanding of yours and rockponds point. Love doesn’t matter to the church when it comes to SSM. Only the gender of the participants. 

It's not true to say that God only cares about the gender either though.  There are lots of heterosexual couples that God would not condone being married.

Quote

The bolded would be a similar counter to fornication which Rockpond has not touched. You did though and that’s why I wrote the bolded. And last I checked, fornication is viewed as a more serious sin than hatred. One can get you exed, requires confession to priesthood, the other doesn’t. 

Neither is it accurate to say that God doesn't care if someone hate's their spouse.  Some sins are seen as more serious because they impact more serious things and are more difficult to repent of but no one is getting into the Celestial kingdom who hates their spouse.  The spiritual consequences for that are pretty severe, as exaltation won't be possible unless there is a change of heart and repentance before it's too late to do so.  

Quote

Edit: Didn’t you say your point was that love doesn’t matter to God when it comes to committing sin?

My point was that being "in love" doesn't make a sin not a sin.  Being "in love" as no bearing on whether or not a choice is sinful.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'd like to add that I should not have brought hatred into this. It is not necessary to my point. Most of my posts have been written with my phone and baby in hand which isn't best for productive conversation. I can rephrase. The churches position on fornication is that it is a serious sin (next to murder) to have sex before marriage. If unrepentant, this can lead to excommunication. It doesn't matter if you are in a committed relationship or not. It doesn't matter if you love each other or not. I disagree with this perspective. I believe that love and commitment are much more important than the legal status of a relationship. If I were to summarize the church's position I could say without distorting the church's position:

And what would my point be? Love and commitment don't matter to your God when it comes to fornication. Only the legalistic piece of paper. Isn't this your point? That love doesn't matter? I am just calling direct attention to the fact that love and commitment don't matter. You are leaving it unstated. 

 

Being in love does not negate the sin or the negative spiritual consequence for it.  That does not then imply that all that matters is the 'legalistic piece of paper' though.  That's a conclusion that is not supported by the text.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Being in love does not negate the sin or the negative spiritual consequence for it.  That does not then imply that all that matters is the 'legalistic piece of paper' though.  That's a conclusion that is not supported by the text.  

I didn’t say or imply all that matters is the piece of paper. I said that’s all that matters when it comes to the sin of fornication. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Gray said:

Is this a serious CFR?

 

Yes, it's a serious CFR (even though the statement itself was laughable).

You said that the objection to Rockpond's statement was that "he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently."  I'm asking for a reference to support the bolded statement.  If you can't provide it, then you need to withdraw it.  We don't get to editorialize what someone said until it's absurd and then pretend like it's what was actually said.  

  • 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...