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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 

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.  

 

Right for the sin of SSM, being in love has no bearing on the situation. Only gender. Rockponds summary makes this point very well. Highlights it in-fact, which seems to be people’s issue?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

I apologize if i misunderstood you.  Are you asking if fornication is the sin of having sex outside of marriage, then yes, that's what that sin is.  It's a sin if the people are in love and committed and it's a sin if they aren't in love and aren't committed.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right for the sin of SSM, being in love has no bearing on the situation. Only gender. Rockponds summary makes this point very well. Highlights it, in-fact which seems to be people’s issue?

If that was Rockpond's point then I think myself and others have missed it because i've used almost those exact same words to argue against his point in quite a few posts now.  Since I've made that argument myself, that's obviously not the issue that I have with what he said (and to be clear, I barely have an issue with what he said.  I've stated why I believe it's reasonable to see his statement as inaccurate but I wouldn't personally have reacted to it in such a way.  Like I said before, we all use language to our advantage in these discussions).  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

No one is making you join in the discussion ALarson.  But you keep doing it. ;) :P

Oh....I know.  I'm a sucker for feeling like I have to stand up for someone who's been unfairly accused of doing something they have not done.  So, I stood up for Rockpond.

That doesn't change the fact that I still feel many are being ridiculous here :P

But, I'll bow out now!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

If that was Rockpond's point then I think myself and others have missed it because i've used almost those exact same words to argue against his point in quite a few posts now.  Since I've made that argument myself, that's obviously not the issue that I have with what he said (and to be clear, I barely have an issue with what he said.  I've stated why I believe it's reasonable to see his statement as inaccurate but I wouldn't personally have reacted to it in such a way.  Like I said before, we all use language to our advantage in these discussions).  

I wholeheartedly agree on using language to manipulate (not meant in a negative way) emotions / gain advantage. I'm not rockpond, but I too would describe the policy almost exactly as he did. I would be doing it to highlight the fact that the policy doesn't care if a couple is committed, in love etc. At the end of the day these don't matter. Only the fact that the two participants have the same gender matters. I'd use the same tactic for those arguing against interracial marriages. For me this contrasts what matters to me (love and commitment) with what matters to the policy (gender or race).

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wholeheartedly agree on using language to manipulate (not meant in a negative way) emotions / gain advantage. I'm not rockpond, but I too would describe the policy almost exactly as he did. I would be doing it to highlight the fact that the policy doesn't care if a couple is committed, in love etc. At the end of the day these don't matter. Only the fact that the two participants have the same gender matters. I'd use the same tactic for those arguing against interracial marriages. To me it contrasts what matters to me (love and commitment) with what matters to the policy (gender or race).

...and the policy was and is about the covenant of marriage, which has an ecclesiastical definition involving gender. No policy will dictate that couples shall love each other or else be disciplined for apostasy.

The policy concerning children was and is about a balanced relationship between parent, child and Church jurisdiction and included terms by which the children could and can be approved to receive the ordinances.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

...and the policy was and is about the covenant of marriage, which has an ecclesiastical definition involving gender. No policy will dictate that couples shall love each other or else be disciplined for apostasy.

Right, the policy is about gender not love. Rockpond’s post points this out. Even if a same gendered couple is committed, in love, married, it's still apostasy based solely on gender. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right the policy is about gender not love. Rockponds post points this out. Even if a same gendered couple is committed, in love, married, it's still apostasy based solely on gender. 

While that's all true, I didn't read Rockpond's remarks as meaning to point that out.  It seems weird to point out the obvious.  But like I said before, maybe we've all misunderstood him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not to be nitpicky, but I think this paints the policy in too secular of a color.  The statement attempts to reduce the policy to it's simplest points but in doing so it reduces it too much and that causes a distortion.

In the end, what actually matters (to the church, the policy has no feelings on the subject) isn't the gender in the marriage, but what God has taught about gender and marriage.  The policy doesn't exist to serve itself, it exists to serve God.  I don't think there is anyway to remove God from the equation without creating misleading (and inaccurate) implications about the purpose of the policy.  

Fine. Contrast what matters to me (love and commitment) and what matters to your God (gender and race*). 

*As taught as doctrine in the past

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Fine. Contrast what matters to me (love and commitment) and what matters to your God (gender and race*). 

*As taught as doctrine in the past

Thank you, that is much better. 😊

Share this post


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

Even if a same gendered couple is committed, in love, married, it's still apostasy based solely on gender. 

First of all, I think we should be using the past tense since we're discussing the former policy. Second, the language was very succinct and gender-neutral, in that apostasy referred to members who were in a same-gender marriage.

Hence, the policy was and is about the covenant of marriage, which has an ecclesiastical definition involving gender just as "same-sex" is used to describe the appropriated term "marriage" -- rendering gender only a descriptor for the kind of marriage in a policy that covered the subject of apostasy on the point of marriage, not describing the members in that marriage.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not to be nitpicky, but I think this paints the policy in too secular of a color.  The statement attempts to reduce the policy to it's simplest points but in doing so it reduces it too much and that causes a distortion.

In the end, what actually matters (to the church, the policy has no feelings on the subject) isn't the gender in the marriage, but what God has taught about gender and marriage.  The policy doesn't exist to serve itself, it exists to serve God.  I don't think there is anyway to remove God from the equation without creating misleading (and inaccurate) implications about the purpose of the policy.  

Nothing inflammatory was meant by my paraphrase of the policy.  If it bothers people that I pointed out that the gay couple is in love with one another than I would submit that the problem is with the policy, not my paraphrase that mentioned the love of the married couple.

If a member believes that the policy was God's revealed will or even the Lord's inspiration for the church, than they should be comfortable with the fact that a loving gay couple commits apostasy by legally marrying.  This is what the policy mandates as written in the handbook (and as of this moment, it is still that way in the online handbook).  If the acknowledgement that the apostate gay couple is in love makes one think that the policy has been misrepresented, they are incorrect because the policy makes no exception for a couple that is in love.

Again, if humanizing the policy by suggesting that the it could actually be a loving couple makes one think that there is a negative spin being put on the policy, than the problem is with the policy - not my paraphrase.  And since the Brethren (and possibly the Lord) also seem to think the policy shouldn't be in place, you are in good company.  Regarding the reversal of the policy, President Oaks stated (4-April-2019): "We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

First of all, I think we should be using the past tense since we're discussing the former policy. Second, the language was very succinct and gender-neutral, in that apostasy referred to members who were in a same-gender marriage.

Hence, the policy was and is about the covenant of marriage, which has an ecclesiastical definition involving gender just as "same-sex" is used to describe the appropriated term "marriage" -- rendering gender only a descriptor for the kind of marriage in a policy that covered the subject of apostasy on the point of marriage, not describing the members in that marriage.

No the key part being the gender of the participants in the marriage and whether the gender of the participants is the same or different. But whatever. Enjoy your word games!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Nothing inflammatory was meant by my paraphrase of the policy.  If it bothers people that I pointed out that the gay couple is in love with one another than I would submit that the problem is with the policy, not my paraphrase that mentioned the love of the marriecouple.

No, I get that’s what you believe. I think your submission is wrong and also a bit of you plugging your ears to any explanation but the one you keep assigning to people, but that’s ok. I’m fine agreeing to disagree on this. 😊

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No the key part being the gender of the participants in the marriage and whether the gender of the participants is the same or different. But whatever. Enjoy your word games!

But the adjective is not the object, and marriage and the members in ssm were the objects in the language of the former policy.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I think you're abusing CFR, but here you go:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209904485"

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Gray said:

That link just takes me to a page of posts.  If you could put up the quote where someone says that the reason they objected to his statement was because he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently, that will answer the CFR.

CFRs exist to hold people accountable for the statements of fact that they make.  I'm asking you to be accountable for the statement of fact that you made, and to either show that it's accurate or to rescind it.  I'm not sure how that is abusing CFR.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, USU78 said:

😂🤣😂

You seem to see anything other than PR spin as an attack.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


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

That link just takes me to a page of posts.  If you could put up the quote where someone says that the reason they objected to his statement was because he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently, that will answer the CFR.

CFRs exist to hold people accountable for the statements of fact that they make.  I'm asking you to be accountable for the statement of fact that you made, and to either show that it's accurate or to rescind it.  I'm not sure how that is abusing CFR.

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

CFR that the link just takes you to a page of posts.

CFR that "If you could put up the quote where someone says that the reason they objected to his statement was because he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently" would answer the CFR

CFR that CFRs apply to ALL statements.

CFR that I was making a statement of objective fact.

CFR that you're asking me to be accountable for a "statement of fact" that I made

These are serious CFRs and you must answer  or retract.

Enjoy the rest of your day answering these very serious and important CFRs.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

CFR that the link just takes you to a page of posts.

CFR that "If you could put up the quote where someone says that the reason they objected to his statement was because he wasn't soft-peddling the policy sufficiently" would answer the CFR

CFR that CFRs apply to ALL statements.

CFR that I was making a statement of objective fact.

CFR that you're asking me to be accountable for a "statement of fact" that I made

These are serious CFRs and you must answer  or retract.

Enjoy the rest of your day answering these very serious and important CFRs.

You made a statement of fact that you can't back up.  I'm not the bad guy for pointing that out.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Gray said:

You seem to see anything other than PR spin as an attack.

You seem to see anything other than Godbeite flatulence as PR spin

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You made a statement of fact that you can't back up.  I'm not the bad guy for pointing that out.  

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 :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You made a statement of fact that you can't back up.  I'm not the bad guy for pointing that out.  

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.

Share this post


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

You seem to see anything other than Godbeite flatulence as PR spin

Nope.

You made your position clear - you can't understand why "speaking to the virtues or benignity" of a church's policy is acting like a PR agent.  But that's exactly what PR agents DO.

Even the church has stopped defending this policy and wisely dropped it. Some folks can't seem to let it go.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 2

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...