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

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

*turns the other cheek*

Does it still count as turning the other cheek when you virtue signal? Something about the left hand not knowing what the right hand does...

;) 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's in the hands of the mods now, they can do with it whatever they want.  As you've illustrated, there's no reason to discuss it with you any further.  

I'm sorry things got heated bluebell. Hope you have a good evening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

*turns the other cheek*

*takes cloak, compels to walk with me a mile*

 

😛

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does it still count as turning the other cheek when you virtue signal? Something about the left hand not knowing what the right hand does...

;) 

No, I see those as two different things altogether.

12 hours ago, Gray said:

*takes cloak, compels to walk with me a mile*

 

😛

You may gladly have my cloak and if you believe I have taken yours, I hope it proves to be a blessing to you.

If I am compelling you to walk a mile with me,  invite you to ask your sincere question. If you are compelling me to walk a mile with you, I invite you to ask me your sincere question.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

It doesn't feel like the correct word choice:

Doesn't iterative imply a repetitive process that improves over time?

In this case, a policy was implemented.  And then the policy was reversed. Doesn't seem to fit the term iterative.

But, perhaps they are suggesting that the repeating process is the council meetings and that there is an expectation that we'll have another one in which the matter of gay marriage and fellowship of their children will be revisited and policies changed again.

In the podcast they spoke of the wise implementation of the policy as a "data gathering" exercise.  They were defending the implementation of the first-presidency approval process so that they could funnel all requests for ordinances through them and learn about the circumstances, issues, family relationships, more so that they could improve relations with lgbtq people.  At least that's what I heard upon listening the discussion on the podcast.  They also said that the brethren never implement a policy without further handbook training and explanation to go along with it.  By directing all requests for ordinances through the first presidency they could fine tune this highly focused, revelatory, inspired training to the local leadership.  The problem with this explanation is that none of those on the panel were in a bishopric or stake presidency at the time of implementation of the policy in Nov 2015.  I was.  I was there - and there was absolutely zero training on this handbook change.  I couldn't obtain a copy of the actual changes to the hand book for weeks later.  I asked the stake clerk and a member of the stake presidency for help to get the actual text of the hand book change, and no one could send to me an official document.  The first counselor in the stake presidency at the time could only fwd to me a copy of Dehlin's scan off the web.  For a number of weeks that's all we had, while lots of people were calling the bishop's office to ask why the church had turned against gays.  We had no training whatsoever on this policy.  As for fine-tuning the policy after data gathering?  Instead what we heard from Pres Nelson was a 1978' style revelatory upgrade on the policy which made God into a revealer of things which made my stomach sick.   At least in my stake all allies of lgbtq, or even those who didn't feel the policy was inspired were barred from receiving a temple recommend if they voiced a concern over the matter.  Why do I know this?  Because I interviewed candidates for the temple signed their recommends, and then when they went to the stake presidency they were denied and the reason was, "I voiced disapproval of the policy".  When I asked our area authority seventy about the policy he said that those who oppose it, "do not understand revelation, and the importance of sustaining the leadership of the church".  

Now with the reversal of the policy - it was framed like they stumbled into an old handbook entry, found that this bad handbook entry which came from "who knows where?" was causing members to have a lack of compassion for gay people, so out of love for the children they decided to throw it out.    Married gay people are no longer apostates, they are just living in sin like married heterosexual people?   This is supposed to make sense?  

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

In the podcast they spoke of the wise implementation of the policy as a "data gathering" exercise.  They were defending the implementation of the first-presidency approval process so that they could funnel all requests for ordinances through them and learn about the circumstances, issues, family relationships, more so that they could improve relations with lgbtq people.  At least that's what I heard upon listening the discussion on the podcast. 

That certainly doesn't make sense since the policy only suggests contacting the FP once the child reaches legal age and has moved out.

11 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I was.  I was there - and there was absolutely zero training on this handbook change.

Same for me.  I was a counselor in the bishopric.  No training was provided and my bishop (with whom I discussed this) never mentioned any training.  If it happened, I have never met anyone who received it.

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Now with the reversal of the policy - it was framed like they stumbled into an old handbook entry, found that this bad handbook entry which came from "who knows where?" was causing members to have a lack of compassion for gay people, so out of love for the children they decided to throw it out. 

Yep - this is one of the things that really bothered me about the reversal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

I understand.

Have you considered Elder Holland's "wrong roads" paradigm?  :)  That's probably a better fit for this.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Mormon-Message-from-Elder-Holland-Wrong-Roads-/s/74180

 

I've wondered how someone would be able to implement Holland's wrong roads teaching.  I suppose this is as good as any.  The leaders "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise" and yet couldn't/didn't consider the most obvious scenario that did arise.  God intentionally sent them down the road of hurting others so they could learn that they were too stubborn and ill-informed in their own thinking to actually decide on this issue.  It makes one wonder what that means about everything else they do and say, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly I don't get this thread or the villianization of Dehlin both in the podcast and the people posting on this thread.  According to President Nelson, this policy was a revelation from God.  How could anyone be villianized for posting a revelation from God.  If anything, the Church should be chastized for not issuing a press release on the revelation.   I really wonder why it didn't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

In the podcast they spoke of the wise implementation of the policy as a "data gathering" exercise.  They were defending the implementation of the first-presidency approval process so that they could funnel all requests for ordinances through them and learn about the circumstances, issues, family relationships, more so that they could improve relations with lgbtq people.  At least that's what I heard upon listening the discussion on the podcast.  They also said that the brethren never implement a policy without further handbook training and explanation to go along with it.  By directing all requests for ordinances through the first presidency they could fine tune this highly focused, revelatory, inspired training to the local leadership.  The problem with this explanation is that none of those on the panel were in a bishopric or stake presidency at the time of implementation of the policy in Nov 2015.  I was.  I was there - and there was absolutely zero training on this handbook change.  I couldn't obtain a copy of the actual changes to the hand book for weeks later.  I asked the stake clerk and a member of the stake presidency for help to get the actual text of the hand book change, and no one could send to me an official document.  The first counselor in the stake presidency at the time could only fwd to me a copy of Dehlin's scan off the web.  For a number of weeks that's all we had, while lots of people were calling the bishop's office to ask why the church had turned against gays.  We had no training whatsoever on this policy.  As for fine-tuning the policy after data gathering?  Instead what we heard from Pres Nelson was a 1978' style revelatory upgrade on the policy which made God into a revealer of things which made my stomach sick.   At least in my stake all allies of lgbtq, or even those who didn't feel the policy was inspired were barred from receiving a temple recommend if they voiced a concern over the matter.  Why do I know this?  Because I interviewed candidates for the temple signed their recommends, and then when they went to the stake presidency they were denied and the reason was, "I voiced disapproval of the policy".  When I asked our area authority seventy about the policy he said that those who oppose it, "do not understand revelation, and the importance of sustaining the leadership of the church".  

Now with the reversal of the policy - it was framed like they stumbled into an old handbook entry, found that this bad handbook entry which came from "who knows where?" was causing members to have a lack of compassion for gay people, so out of love for the children they decided to throw it out.    Married gay people are no longer apostates, they are just living in sin like married heterosexual people?   This is supposed to make sense?  

These, like those examples listed in the OP, seem like misperceptions to me. You attributed some of this to the proponents missing or misunderstanding some key information. It also seems as faulty that someone would conclude that the Church “had turned against gays,” and for the same reason.

How did the subject of the former policy come up during a temple recommend interview? Did applicants voice disapproval of it during the interview, or in some other way that draw the attention of the interviewer?

Exacty what did President Nelson say that made your stomach being made sick?

It would seem that the area authority’s response to your question about opposing the original policy seems to apply to its reversal as well. President Eyring gave an interesting talk about this last conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2019/04/34eyring?lang=eng .I think his counsel hinges on cultivating the spiritual power to judge righteously and charitably. And of course, there can be several takes on the articles quoting President Oaks’ leadership training announcement, and how he framed the message.

It makes sense to me that members in a same gender marriage were designated as apostates for disciplinary purposes in the former policy, and that now they are not. I think the multi-layered conditions that the Lord responded to in arriving at that policy have changed, and He has now responded with its reversal. I would be very interested in seeing how this shows up in writing. As you noted, not everything is rolled-out in a crisp training and publication format, and I think this might also get to the points of President Eyring's message.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I've wondered how someone would be able to implement Holland's wrong roads teaching.  I suppose this is as good as any.  The leaders "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise" and yet couldn't/didn't consider the most obvious scenario that did arise.  God intentionally sent them down the road of hurting others so they could learn that they were too stubborn and ill-informed in their own thinking to actually decide on this issue.  It makes one wonder what that means about everything else they do and say, though.

The 'wrong roads" story is about the Lord understanding individuals’ needs for most safely getting them back to the familiar, correct path once they have stumbled. I’m not sure it applies here since there was no stumbling or departure by the church on the doctrines of marriage, parental stewardship, and direction of the keys. Her position on the intersection of these three principles did not change before, during or after the former policy was rescinded. In the story, they were asking for help in getting back on the right path. With the policy, they were asking for help in staying on the right path under one set of circumstances, and continued to do so as circumstances changed, resulting in teh reversal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I've wondered how someone would be able to implement Holland's wrong roads teaching.  I suppose this is as good as any.  The leaders "considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise" and yet couldn't/didn't consider the most obvious scenario that did arise.  God intentionally sent them down the road of hurting others so they could learn that they were too stubborn and ill-informed in their own thinking to actually decide on this issue.  It makes one wonder what that means about everything else they do and say, though.

This made me think of Kevin Christensen's offering in another thread this morning:

Quote

Troubling history?  Personally, whenever I run across something I did not expect, I take the time to consider, "What should I expect?"  It's easy to be disillusioned if your expectations are unrealistic and unchangeable.  If you insist that LDS members and their productions (including histories) should be perfect, and if you assume without question that you are infallibly capable of judging what should be and what ought to be, then imperfection is, by definition, the only decisive information, and both scandalous and sufficient in answering questions about Joseph Smith or Christianity.  But asking "What is Real?" is a very different question, and different information becomes important.  Asking "What is Real?" requires that a person constantly be concerned with the beams in their own eyes that we might see clearly.  It involves commitment to the ongoing process, perpetual repentance, and seeking "greater light and knowledge" rather than resenting that perfect light and knowledge was not provided as a free inheritance.

"[I ]mperfection is, by definition, the only decisive information, and both scandalous and sufficient in answering questions about [the recent policy change or any other policy change]."

Edited by USU78

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly I don't get this thread or the villianization of Dehlin both in the podcast and the people posting on this thread.  According to President Nelson, this policy was a revelation from God.  How could anyone be villianized for posting a revelation from God.  If anything, the Church should be chastized for not issuing a press release on the revelation.   I really wonder why it didn't.

yes, blaming Dehlin for the mess is one of the sorriest excuses I've seen....and I have 4 kids.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The 'wrong roads" story is about the Lord understanding individuals’ needs for most safely getting them back to the familiar, correct path once they have stumbled.

Stumbled?  I think you should re-consider the story.  Did Holland and son stumble in their little trek through the desert?  

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure it applies here since there was no stumbling or departure by the church on the doctrines of marriage, parental stewardship, and direction of the keys.

If you say so.  I tend to think chanign the ordinance of baptism is a stumbling and departure.  

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Her position on the intersection of these three principles did not change before, during or after the former policy was rescinded. In the story, they were asking for help in getting back on the right path. With the policy, they were asking for help in staying on the right path under one set of circumstances, and continued to do so as circumstances changed, resulting in teh reversal.

In the story they were asking which path was the correct path, not asking how to get back on the right path.  The imagery put out was in life we ask God and he sends us down the wrong way sometimes so we can learn for ourselves that it was wrong, so we can trust him more.  It's pretty sad logic that Holland used, but as it were, this policy change was obviously the wrong path.  The brethren apparently prayed which path to go down and God apparently sent them down the wrong one until they learn they were on the wrong path, all for themselves.  

One question that seemed to keep on coming up when I heard about this different paths story that Holland was touting was, how logn down the wrong path will God send us before we learn it's wrong.  Elder Holland and his son had different stories about how long they traveled before they learned.  But this little scenario helps in the real world for us.  God led the church travel down the wrong path for 3.5 years in this case.  Perhaps for things like the priesthood ban God led the Church down the wrong path for 100+.  Interesting take, Holland has.  But, I guess if that's how God works.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

This made me think of Kevin Christensen's offering in another thread this morning:

"[I ]mperfection is, by definition, the only decisive information, and both scandalous and sufficient in answering questions about [the recent policy change or any other policy change]."

Precisely.  If we accept that God leads us down the wrong path sometimes, then our expectation should be often when we receive revelation it isn't really good or truth.  It is just God leading us in the wrong direction so we can learn for ourselves.  In this case, many members and non members knew the Church was heading down the wrong path from the start.  Indeed, most wouldn't have bothered God with this nonsense from the start.  Oh well, we're all fools to some extent or another.  Sad that the Church leaders get so far behind the rest of society though.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The 'wrong roads" story is about the Lord understanding individuals’ needs for most safely getting them back to the familiar, correct path once they have stumbled. I’m not sure it applies here since there was no stumbling or departure by the church on the doctrines of marriage, parental stewardship, and direction of the keys. Her position on the intersection of these three principles did not change before, during or after the former policy was rescinded. In the story, they were asking for help in getting back on the right path. With the policy, they were asking for help in staying on the right path under one set of circumstances, and continued to do so as circumstances changed, resulting in teh reversal.

And yet, the 'wrong roads' story, and the apologetics surrounding the quick about-face on this policy, look suspiciously like a classic retcon.  

Edited by ttribe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

yes, blaming Dehlin for the mess is one of the sorriest excuses I've seen....and I have 4 kids.  

It is.   Whatever works in circular way to make everything okay...It makes me sad.  Truth hurts...and blaming any messenger for expounding truth does not change anything.

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Stumbled?  I think you should re-consider the story.  Did Holland and son stumble in their little trek through the desert?  

If you say so.  I tend to think chanign the ordinance of baptism is a stumbling and departure.  

In the story they were asking which path was the correct path, not asking how to get back on the right path.  The imagery put out was in life we ask God and he sends us down the wrong way sometimes so we can learn for ourselves that it was wrong, so we can trust him more.  It's pretty sad logic that Holland used, but as it were, this policy change was obviously the wrong path.  The brethren apparently prayed which path to go down and God apparently sent them down the wrong one until they learn they were on the wrong path, all for themselves.  

One question that seemed to keep on coming up when I heard about this different paths story that Holland was touting was, how logn down the wrong path will God send us before we learn it's wrong.  Elder Holland and his son had different stories about how long they traveled before they learned.  But this little scenario helps in the real world for us.  God led the church travel down the wrong path for 3.5 years in this case.  Perhaps for things like the priesthood ban God led the Church down the wrong path for 100+.  Interesting take, Holland has.  But, I guess if that's how God works. 

Yes, I think I added “departed” from the correct path later on in my post. Since they were at a fork, they were not on the “correct” path they had come from, and that was the path they wanted to get back on, they seem to have “stumbled” memory-wise, “departed” semantically, but I guess we can also describe it as “wondering” which way to get back on the path they came in on to that point.

The ordinance or baptism hadn’t changed either, nor the keys for directing it that are required for someone to proceed with the ordinance, nor consideration by the approving authority of parental stewardship in making that decision.

Logic also shows how well God knows those who tend to second-guess (which we all might do at some point), and which approach works with them, including this one. I don’t see this applying to the policy change since I take the Brethren praying about how / what to do to continue moving ahead in a changing world and not how / what to do, to hold onto a policy.

I like to call it a story because whatever the facts of the actual event, they have been used for the setting of a parable. I don’t think it was meant to raise any expectations about the Lord’s timing any more than I think it is a good explanation for the policy change.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

And yet, the 'wrong roads' story, and the apologetics surrounding the quick about-face on this policy, look suspiciously like a classic retcon.  

I'm not sure why you need to preface your remark with "And yet..." when it's in harmony with what I said (aside from the apparent knee-jerk posturing and polemics). Redundancy on both counts!

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I think I added “departed” from the correct path later on in my post. Since they were at a fork, they were not on the “correct” path they had come from, and that was the path they wanted to get back on, they seem to have “stumbled” memory-wise, “departed” semantically, but I guess we can also describe it as “wondering” which way to get back on the path they came in on to that point.

 

The ordinance or baptism hadn’t changed either, nor the keys for directing it that are required for someone to proceed with the ordinance, nor consideration by the approving authority of parental stewardship in making that decision.

 

Logic also shows how well God knows those who tend to second-guess (which we all might do at some point), and which approach works with them, including this one. I don’t see this applying to the policy change since I take the Brethren praying about how / what to do to continue moving ahead in a changing world and not how / what to do, to hold onto a policy.

 

I like to call it a story because whatever the facts of the actual event, they have been used for the setting of a parable. I don’t think it was meant to raise any expectations about the Lord’s timing any more than I think it is a good explanation for the policy change.

 

Thanks CV75.  I admit I'm struggling to make sense of all that you've said about this (i'm sure it's my fault so no worries), but that doesn't change the fact that you don't see the wrong roads teaching really applying I guess, huh?  So...good to hear your position, and all the best to you.  

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is.   Whatever works in circular way to make everything okay...It makes me sad.  Truth hurts...and blaming any messenger for expounding truth does not change anything.

I was definitely surprised and disappointed to hear those guys blame Dehlin (and subsequently people here taking on the position to some extent or another).  

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks CV75.  I admit I'm struggling to make sense of all that you've said about this (i'm sure it's my fault so no worries), but that doesn't change the fact that you don't see the wrong roads teaching really applying I guess, huh?  So...good to hear your position, and all the best to you.  

Yes, I don't see it being applicable. I guess the easiest way to make sense of my take on the story is that God has many ways of helping us both feel well and do well. In this "wrong roads" case, He can foresee and prevent the anxiety and doubt someone might be suffer even after being shown the right path (which may cause them to leave it or not benefit from things along the way) by taking them a short way down wrong path (which they are just as inclined to leave), knowing they will turn back when the danger becomes apparent. He is concerned both about alleviating worry on the right path, giving directions to it, and setting up choices to find it and balances these and more depending on what we need. He doesn't want anxiety-producing leaps of faith, nor denial of danger, nor discouragement when they are going to undermine us, though He stops short of impinging on our agency. The Hollands got what they needed, and their story may inspire others of similar personal makeup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure why you need to preface your remark with "And yet..." when it's in harmony with what I said (aside from the apparent knee-jerk posturing and polemics). Redundancy on both counts!

It's not clear to me that you understood my point.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

How could anyone be villianized for posting a revelation from God

Are you suggesting that is all he did?  

If not, perhaps it is what he did in addition to sharing the policy that pushed people into viewing him as a ‘villain’.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting that is all he did?  

If not, perhaps it is what he did in addition to sharing the policy that pushed people into viewing him as a ‘villain’.

I don’t really follow Dehlin.  So I can’t really answer that.  What do you think he did?  Come out against the policy along with a whole lot of other people?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don’t really follow Dehlin.  So I can’t really answer that.  What do you think he did?  Come out against the policy along with a whole lot of other people?  

 

 

I think he intentionally stoked the fear and anger, but he was not unique in that.  Nor unexpected imo.  I have never seen him as the "villain" of that particular event.  My attitude towards him is based more on other things, including somethings that didn't happen in the public sphere so the strength of my dislike of him may not seem reasonable to some.

Came across this blog that explains the timeline of the "leak".  I pretty much agree with the writer in terms of impact and the process.  Since the interpretation by some leaders of the info provided by the Church initially included children with a gay parent no matter the custody arrangements (and this was a reasonable interpretation imo though I think there were others as well), there would have been cancelations of blessings and baptisms rather quickly and therefore the policy would have been public knowledge that way in a few days even if Denlin and others (including the writer) hadn't drawn attention to it.  The online discussion simply moved up the appearance of the storm. The Church if they had prepared for the release of the info more like they did with the recent change might have been able to lessen the attention of the media and the level of trauma that got ramped up by Dehlin and others, but given how they did act the trauma would still have existed imo because of the uncertainty of parents and children that could only be diffused by very precise descriptions of applications of the policy from official church sources which were lacking imo.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/05/who-leaked-the-policy/

The process the Church went about makes no sense to me and never did if intentional...now if the email and handbook info were drafts based off of the polygamous family policy that got sent out early by mistake and more info was meant to be included, I can see that (but this does not explain the lack of training and solid info that followed; if it was a mistake, did they figure it was too late and just decided to leave it as is?)...but it was never something that wouldn't cause a massive reaction imo.

  • 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...