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

Yes.  Divorce as I quoted.  The Church no longer looks at women who remarry as committing adultery.  So Christ through his prophet removed that sinful behavior.  I am assuming that Christ was ok with divorce no longer being considered adultery.  And I am assuming that adulltery is still a serious moral sin.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, california boy said:

I fully acknowledge the distinction the church makes now.  The church made the same distinction with inter racial couples. I remember ward members freaking out when a guy I grew up with married a black woman. It just wasn’t acceptable and his family could not go to the temple.  Now there are whole generations who think nothing of inter racial marriages and can’t quite understand why that was ever a problem.   

It won’t be long when gays marrying has always been legal in their lifetime.  They won’t understand why it ever was a problem.  

Church rules may stay as they are, but more and more it will be harder to justify.  When the next generation asks why can’t gays marry.  Why is sex within a gay marriage immoral.  The answers will start sounding as weak as the answers to why can’t inter racial couples marry.in the temple when I was growing up.  

This is an issue that will accelerate not diminish don’t you think?  At some point it will come to a head. 

‘Would you want to be living in a church that kept inter racial couples out of the temple today?  Or are you relieved that chapter is behind us?

The Church’s teachings on this subject will always be deemed unjustifiable through the lens of secular and secular-infused religion. We each must come to terms, with intent or not, as to “Which church is true?” and “Do these answers sound weak?” Each generation of societal-secular-religious interplay is basically the same though topics of focus may change and I some cases accumulate.

I became a member of the Church 2-1/2 years before the priesthood ban was lifted. I remember blacks joining the Church anyway, their interracial marriages, and the ban preventing temple marriage. I relate to those who joined and stayed the Church under those circumstances. You might also if you look up their stories online. We joined and stayed “for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,” even though it was wasn’t easy to transcend that psychic barrier. See Elder Gong’s talk that I linked to above.

I expect to have the faith to continue living in the Church no matter how the chapters roll out, and that there will be other barriers to faith to come as well; I don’t see things getting any “easier.”

As far as another or the next generation's questions, or what I might do differently now than what I did before, and even you, who knows? I do know that “[He] giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Because this is so no matter what dispensation or phase within them His children are born into, I expect my eternal spirit would still recognize that the Church is what she says it is, and that the fundamental principles are as Joseph Smith explained them to be. I am certainly glad the Restoration continues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure love has anything to do with marriage - at least initially. I don't recall God ever asking Adam, "Do you love her?" Nor does love have anything to do with arranged marriages in the world. Love is something that grows with a marriage. 

In the US, I suspect the vast majority of marriages start out more in lust than love. Ask any older couple if their love today is the same as the love when they were first married. 

Should sinners be treated like children of God? Of course. However, society has often chosen throughout history to strongly disapprove of certain things. These things change from one thing to another; humans are fickle beings and when left to their own devices they cannot decide what they like or not. 

There have been periods in history when what was once bad becomes acceptable only to fall back into disfavor. I won't be taking any bets on how the future deals with this topic that troubles the moral fiber of today's society. 

I don't any Christian church that states they believe in the Bible as the Word of God will ever begin to teach that homosexuality is acceptable in any degree. There will be and there are a number of Christian churches that have begun to change their belief systems and necessarily forfeit many of the theological bulwarks they have held from the beginning of their belief systems. The Church of God and the Body of Christ will become more clearly delineated from those churches of created in the minds of men. This was foretold and should not be a surprise to anyone. 

As I said, it depends. My interest is that the policy did not address love but marriage, and that those who saw the policy as invalidating their marriage as their expression of love and thus invalidating their love and dehumanizing them, were reading waaaaay too much into it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The Church’s teachings on this subject will always be deemed unjustifiable through the lens of secular and secular-infused religion.

And, the "Church's teaching on this subject" have evolved and changed.  There's no real logical reason to believe that will stop at this point in time.  

This is a topic where none of us know what future changes will take place.  All one can do at this point is speculate....and then disagree on those speculations.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And, the "Church's teaching on this subject" have evolved and changed.  There's no real logical reason to believe that will stop at this point in time.  

This is a topic where none of us know what future changes will take place.  All one can do at this point is speculate....and then disagree on those speculations.

What teachings on ssm have not changed (since say 1830), and how do they intersect with and relate to those teachings on ssm that have changed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

While penalties are different (no more stonings for example), I am curious as to what OT commandments against sin you do not see as also included in Christ's laws even if treated differently.  Circumcision, kosher, and animal sacrifice no longer are necessary, but those weren't restrictions on behaviour seen as sinful, but more what one needed to do as a member of the faith community.

It's no longer considered a sin to eat "uncircumcised" fruit.  (Lev 19)

FairMormon found a way around the Prophet Joseph's marrying of "near kinswomen" that is named as sin in the same Leviticus chapters that condemn homosexuality.  Interestingly though, their rationale is that the prophet's practice of restored polygamy predates the Mosaic Law.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What teachings on ssm have not changed (since say 1830), and how do they intersect with and relate to those teachings on ssm that have changed?

That has been discussed here before and I'm not sure we need to go through all of the past teachings that have now changed regarding this subject.  (If you want to, then maybe you should start another thread.)

The point I was making is that teachings have changed and will continue to change.  I doubt anyone can disagree with that.

What there is disagreement on is which teachings will change and as I pointed out, that is all just speculation at this point.  But one cannot say that there will be no more changes if they want to be taken seriously, IMO.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The Church’s teachings on this subject will always be deemed unjustifiable through the lens of secular and secular-infused religion. We each must come to terms, with intent or not, as to “Which church is true?” and “Do these answers sound weak?” Each generation of societal-secular-religious interplay is basically the same though topics of focus may change and I some cases accumulate.

I became a member of the Church 2-1/2 years before the priesthood ban was lifted. I remember blacks joining the Church anyway, their interracial marriages, and the ban preventing temple marriage. I relate to those who joined and stayed the Church under those circumstances. You might also if you look up their stories online. We joined and stayed “for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,” even though it was wasn’t easy to transcend that psychic barrier. See Elder Gong’s talk that I linked to above.

I expect to have the faith to continue living in the Church no matter how the chapters roll out, and that there will be other barriers to faith to come as well; I don’t see things getting any “easier.”

As far as another or the next generation's questions, or what I might do differently now than what I did before, and even you, who knows? I do know that “[He] giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Because this is so no matter what dispensation or phase within them His children are born into, I expect my eternal spirit would still recognize that the Church is what she says it is, and that the fundamental principles are as Joseph Smith explained them to be. I am certainly glad the Restoration continues.

I agree with  just about everything you state here.  Really what it comes down to is what the will of God is and what the will of men is.  As far as I know, the church has never declared a revelation from God on gay marriage.  Ironically, when President Nelson announced his belief that the 2015 policy was given by revelation, one of the first things Scott Lloyd said to me is, there, we have the revelation.   I told him at the time, I was skeptical that President Monson and all the others that were in the room felt it was a revelaton from God because no one else stood up and reaffirmed his statement.

Now it has been effectively wiped out, and things are as they were.  Kinda supports my opinion of the claim of revelation more than it does the assurance from Scott that we finally have that revelation on gay marriage.

So I guess we both along with many others that are divided on this issue will see how this all plays out.   It is certainly facinating to watch from the outside looking in.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That has been discussed here before and I'm not sure we need to go through all of the past teachings that have now changed regarding this subject.  (If you want to, then maybe you should start another thread.)

The point I was making is that teachings have changed and will continue to change.  I doubt anyone can disagree with that.

What there is disagreement on is which teachings will change and as I pointed out, that is all just speculation at this point.  But one cannot say that there will be no more changes if they want to be taken seriously, IMO.

Just because something has been discussed here before means it cannot be discussed again? New board rule? :)

I asked the question because you brought it up, and I took “this subject” to refer to ssm specifically. A more general and broader theme, as you can see, doesn’t lend itself to very useful discussion. So yes, generally and broadly, anything closely/distantly/directly/indirectly related to whatever subject you were referring to could have and will potentially continue to change. And sometimes and object changes and sometimes it changes because the observer has. I think it reasonable as well to acknowledge the differences between doctrine (teaching), political activity and ecclesiastical policies and procedures with regards to the propensity for change.

It seems to me that the Church taught nothing about ssm until it became a political issue a decade or so ago, and maybe before that in relation to same-sex civil unions. But when she did teach it, it seems the argument was based on the definition of marriage, not ssm. After that debate fizzled out and ssm became a recognized social construct, she created her own ecclesiastical regulation to treat it as apostasy for disciplinary purposes. Some take that as a teaching on ssm; I do not, and recently that regulatory designation was dropped. What will she teach about ssm in the future? I do not know; I doubt not much of anything if the past can be used to predict the future.

Share this post


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

Just because something has been discussed here before means it cannot be discussed again? New board rule? :)

No...go for it :)   (I just didn't know if that would be a derail for this thread?)

It's easy to show that the teachings have changed from our leaders over the years regarding our gay members (and this issue).  

What it seems to come down to eventually with all the past discussions is teachings vs. doctrine....but then, trying to pin down what is doctrine can be an entire other discussion.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree with  just about everything you state here.  Really what it comes down to is what the will of God is and what the will of men is.  As far as I know, the church has never declared a revelation from God on gay marriage.  Ironically, when President Nelson announced his belief that the 2015 policy was given by revelation, one of the first things Scott Lloyd said to me is, there, we have the revelation.   I told him at the time, I was skeptical that President Monson and all the others that were in the room felt it was a revelaton from God because no one else stood up and reaffirmed his statement.

Now it has been effectively wiped out, and things are as they were.  Kinda supports my opinion of the claim of revelation more than it does the assurance from Scott that we finally have that revelation on gay marriage.

So I guess we both along with many others that are divided on this issue will see how this all plays out.   It is certainly facinating to watch from the outside looking in.   

See above re: “Which church is true?” and “Do these answers sound weak?”

I don’t think a change in revealed instruction, especially concerning policy, is an indicator that one or the other was not a revelation after all. Policies, especially effective ones, by nature change, and should change.

As I noted above, “all this” and "this issue" when taken as a broad, general and unfocused subject, is too imprecise to be staking any all-encompassing prediction on, especially to the point of divisiveness. Being a personal emotional choice and tactic, divisiveness is enabled by generalizing and doesn’t help discussion of a particular subject. That is why a discussion board can be helpful in teasing through the details together, where we will likely find more reasoned agreement than disagreement. MDDB means "More Disciplined Discussion Board" right?

And I do not consider you being on the outside looking in, as you have demonstrated to have been very much a part of and invested in this discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No...go for it :)   (I just didn't know if that would be a derail for this thread?)

It's easy to show that the teachings have changed from our leaders over the years regarding our gay members (and this issue).  

What it seems to come down to eventually with all the past discussions is teachings vs. doctrine....but then, trying to pin down what is doctrine can be an entire other discussion.

I did go for it in the second paragraph, and I don't see it as a derail since it is about the policy in the OP.

Being so easy to show the changes, stretch a bit and come up with a teaching (I'll qualify that in a second) that has not changed regarding gay members that constitutes revealed doctrine but not revealed counsel or revealed policy which by design should change proportional to their specificity. If what you have in mind is a derail, by all means start a new thread.

Share this post


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

I did go for it in the second paragraph, and I don't see it as a derail since it is about the policy in the OP.

Being so easy to show the changes, stretch a bit and come up with a teaching (I'll qualify that in a second) that has not changed regarding gay members that constitutes revealed doctrine but not revealed counsel or revealed policy which by design should change proportional to their specificity. If what you have in mind is a derail, by all means start a new thread.

That entering a SSM is apostasy (and cause for a member to be excommunicated for being an apostate).  That has been walked back and changed....or do you disagree with me on that?  Wasn't that called a "revelation"?

(I was referring more broadly to this topic as well regarding past teachings that have changed.  Those changes are well documented.  Teachings will continue to change too, IMO).

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

As I said, it depends. My interest is that the policy did not address love but marriage, and that those who saw the policy as invalidating their marriage as their expression of love and thus invalidating their love and dehumanizing them, were reading waaaaay too much into it.

I think you stated that well. One of the more god-like qualities that humans have been given is the ability to love. Too often, the word love is overused and trite; even more often the word love is used when the more appropriate word is lust. 

Love has nothing to do with gender and it has just as little to do with humans. Humans can love almost anything. The attempt to ennoble a relationship because two individuals love each other is foolish and trite. Humans can love dogs, cats, birds, trees, old quilts, and old pictures of specific individuals. If you can think of it, I suspect that humans have loved it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you stated that well. One of the more god-like qualities that humans have been given is the ability to love. Too often, the word love is overused and trite; even more often the word love is used when the more appropriate word is lust. 

I personally do not care for the word "lust" when describing the love I have for my wife as it goes much deeper than that.

I believe it's exactly the same for those entering SSM as well.  

Of course there should be a physical attraction (for most at least), but it's only a part of the feelings one has that is described as love, IMO.  There's an emotional and spiritual connection as well as the physical....

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That entering a SSM is apostasy (and cause for a member to be excommunicated for being an apostate).  That has been walked back and changed....or do you disagree with me on that?  Wasn't that called a "revelation"?

(I was referring more broadly to this topic as well regarding past teachings that have changed.  Those changes are well documented.  Teachings will continue to change too, IMO).

But my request was for you to come up with a teaching (your term)  / revealed doctrine (my term, and qualified as not revealed counsel or revealed policy which by design should change proportional to their specificity) that has not changed regarding gay members that constitutes revealed doctrine. Can you do that?

Share this post


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

But my request was for you to come up with a teaching (your term) 

Of course (let's stick to teachings as that was my claim).  The teachings regarding SSM and temple sealings have thus far not changed.

Now, can you name a teaching that has changed regarding or pertaining to the members of the church who are gay?

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I personally do not care for the word "lust" when describing the love I have for my wife as it goes much deeper than that.

I believe it's exactly the same for those entering SSM as well.  

Of course there should be a physical attraction (for most at least), but it's only a part of the feelings one has that is described as love, IMO.  There's an emotional and spiritual connection as well as the physical....

I suspect the a most young people's initial feelings for their future mate entertained lust. Then, marriage happens and lust is intertwined with love. As we age together, have children, raise a family, lust disappears as love grows into something that we did not know was possible. 

If you are trying to say that two individuals - regardless of gender - can be in love with each other. Of course! It does not matter what sexual preference they have. As I already stated, humans can love almost anything - from cats and dogs to birds and trees....as well as another human. 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course (let's stick to teachings as that was my claim).  The teachings regarding SSM and temple sealings have thus far not changed.

Now, can you name a teaching that has changed regarding or pertaining to the members of the church who are gay?

I see the terms as synonymous yet vague, which is why I qualified what I meant so that you could give it a try. Can you do that?

I was going along with your statement, "It's easy to show that the teachings have changed from our leaders over the years regarding our gay members (and this issue)" and asking you to now show how the teachings (as I qualified the term as revealed doctrine and not revealed counsel or policy) have not changed over the years regarding our gay members (not SSM and temple sealings as you posted above--not the same thing). If  you can't or won't, that is fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see the terms as synonymous yet vague, which is why I qualified what I meant so that you could give it a try. Can you do that?

I was going along with your statement, "It's easy to show that the teachings have changed from our leaders over the years regarding our gay members (and this issue)" and asking you to now show how the teachings (as I qualified the term as revealed doctrine and not revealed counsel or policy) have not changed over the years regarding our gay members (not SSM and temple sealings as you posted above--not the same thing). If  you can't or won't, that is fine with me.

Trying to agree on what revealed doctrine means or what that even is regarding this topic is something I've yet to see agreed upon here.  Was the original policy "revealed doctrine"?  If so....it's now been changed 😉

So, I'm not really interested in getting into a game of semantics with you (as you continue to attempt to "qualify"). 

My statement stands as the truth (unless you want to specifically dispute it):

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=1209905469

 

Also, I have given an example of a teaching that has changed and an example of one that has not changed.  So there's no "can't" involved when naming what has evolved or changed regarding this topic.    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Trying to agree on what revealed doctrine means or what that even is regarding this topic is something I've yet to see agreed upon here.  Was the original policy "revealed doctrine"?  If so....it's now been changed 😉

So, I'm not really interested in getting into a game of semantics with you (as you continue to attempt to "qualify"). 

My statement stands as the truth (unless you want to specifically dispute it):

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=1209905469

 

Also, I have given an example of a teaching that has changed and an example of one that has not changed.  So there's no "can't" involved when naming what has evolved or changed regarding this topic.

I am not asking you to agree with my semantic, just to use it for the purpose of completing the task I requested, which your linked post does not address. You don't need to agree with whatever you come up with. If you can't or won't, that is fine with me.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am not asking you to agree with my semantic, just to use it for the purpose of completing the task I requested, which your linked post does not address. You don't need to agree with whatever you come up with. If you can't or won't, that is fine with me.

How about you give an answer to what I've requested (or asked)?

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Now, can you name a teaching that has changed regarding or pertaining to the members of the church who are gay?

 

Or maybe just state what you are referring to here....I'm not interested in playing guessing games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

How about you give an answer to what I've requested (or asked)?

That's not really @CV75's "thing".  :)

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's not really @CV75's "thing".  :)

I agree....but I thought I'd at least try 😛

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's not really @CV75's "thing".  :)

Ha-ha... after all, i asked first :) !

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I agree....but I thought I'd at least try 😛

 

No, no you haven't tried yet! :)

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How about you give an answer to what I've requested (or asked)?

Or maybe just state what you are referring to here....I'm not interested in playing guessing games. 

I would but I asked you first -- and I am interested in what you come up with for a revealed doctrine that has not changed regarding gay members.

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...