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)
6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Greg Prince indicates that there was no plan to make any announcements. The backlash after the quiet insertion of the POX was apparently unexpected.

I know he said that - I listened to his interview on Mormon Land. I'm not entirely convinced that was the case. It seemed to me like there was a lot of chaos due to Pres. Monson being unable to exert a leadership role simultaneous with people upset at Obergefell. I'm not sure they'd thought through everything yet (something Prince seems to agree with). Had the news not leaked I suspect more would have happened behind the scenes. Including probably announcing things.

That said as Robert said I think it's stupid to blame Dehlin for this. It's exactly the sort of thing that would come out and the brethren should have realized post Prop-8 that passions were inflamed on all sides. Regardless of how one views the policy it was poorly handled in implementation.

58 minutes ago, blueglass said:

In this interview with Dehlin,

Tom Christofferson speaks about his conversation with his brother after the policy was released to the public. 

For those of us unable to wade through video what does he say? My impression was that most of Prince's stuff came thirdhand via Tom Christofferson and thus open to distortion somewhat.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, USU78 said:

................................

The press is nobody's friend. The press is not a friend of accuracy. The press is not the friend of people. The press is only interested in subscriptions and clicks and market share. The press is a moral and ethical cesspool.

Given that this is true in many instances, why do you think that is, and what ought to be done about it?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am guessing the problem was using the polygamous families as a template where divorce wasn't calculated into it, while it is a major part of most kids with gay parents in the Church.

I wonder if there are any polygamous parents that share custody with monogamous or unmarried parents.

There was a family in our ward when I was growing up where the wife decided to join a polygamous family.  She divorced her husband.  And yes, she had joint custody.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, USU78 said:

 

The press is nobody's friend. The press is not a friend of accuracy. The press is not the friend of people. The press is only interested in subscriptions and clicks and market share. The press is a moral and ethical cesspool.

Perhaps you should alert the brethren as the Church owns multiple press outlets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, USU78 said:

My father the football coach entertained a desnews reporter during two-a-days. He was asked, "How's your team going to be this year?"

His reply? "Well, it'll take a good team to beat us."

The headline in next day's desnews sports section?

"Coach '78 predicts region championship."

And this reporter was a friend and a second cousin.

You're aware of the concept of "locker room fodder," right?

The press is nobody's friend. The press is not a friend of accuracy. The press is not the friend of people. The press is only interested in subscriptions and clicks and market share. The press is a moral and ethical cesspool.

Brother - I totally see where you’re coming from here!

It is horrible at worst, and useless at best when people make broad, hyperbolic statements that are designed to evoke emotion and attention.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Given that this is true in many instances, why do you think that is, and what ought to be done about it?

I could suggest that effective selfregulation be employed with tight ethical canons, but who wants that?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

There was a family in our ward when I was growing up where the wife decided to join a polygamous family.  She divorced her husband.  And yes, she had joint custody.

Hmm.  Well, perhaps, as close as you might've been to the situation, still, you lacked access to dispositive facts?  And/or perhaps someone made a mistake with respect to seeing that the policy in place was followed?

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmm.  Well, perhaps, as close as you might've been to the situation, still, you lacked access to dispositive facts?  And/or perhaps someone made a mistake with respect to seeing that the policy in place was followed?

I have no knowledge on how the policy was used.  I didn’t even know the policy existed until recently.  Is all I know is what I reported happened.  Her children were already baptized  They had 2 girls and one boy.  The girls remained active   The boy didn’t.  So the policy probably didn’t affect them.  

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have no knowledge on how the policy was used.  I didn’t even know the policy existed until recently.  Is all I know is what I reported happened.  Her children were already baptized  They had 2 girls and one boy.  The girls remained active   The boy didn’t.  So the policy probably didn’t affect them.  

Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, USU78 said:

My father the football coach entertained a desnews reporter during two-a-days. He was asked, "How's your team going to be this year?"

His reply? "Well, it'll take a good team to beat us."

The headline in next day's desnews sports section?

"Coach '78 predicts region championship."

And this reporter was a friend and a second cousin.

You're aware of the concept of "locker room fodder," right?

The press is nobody's friend. The press is not a friend of accuracy. The press is not the friend of people. The press is only interested in subscriptions and clicks and market share. The press is a moral and ethical cesspool.

To a great extent in a general sense, I agree with your overall point that, too often, the media lack fairness and objectivity, are not as concerned as they should be with accuracy, too often pursue their own agendas rather than endeavoring to ferret out the truth, and so on.  That said, to be fair, usually, reporters don't write headlines.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what did the actual policy say? Did it mention custody or living arrangements? What is the most straightforward reading? I allow that the church didn’t intend it that way, but if that is the case, I hope whoever drafted the policy was severally reprimanded for writing it so poorly. 

The original "Nov 5 2015" policy still remains in the online (most current) version of Handbook 1 as of TODAY.  I just check and just copied it to paste it here.  You'll notice that it neither mentions custody nor living arrangements unless you click on the link in parentheses at the end.

 

16.13

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

  1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

  2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

(See First Presidency letter, November 13, 2015.)

 

It appears that the link works without needing to be logged in to an account that has Handbook 1 access so you can read it in its entirety if you'd like.  The most relevant paragraph states:

"The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13... apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same gender marriage or similar relationship."

 

I think its laughable to put any blame on Dehlin for this.  He didn't leak it as he didn't have access to Handbook 1.  He may have publicized the leak and sped up the process but reports are that the leak was already on Reddit before Dehlin publicized it through his channels.  So, it was going to be out there soon enough.  I was a counselor in a bishopric at the time and we were never given any specific training on the policy (just mentioning this since the point was raised earlier).

The Brethren only have themselves to blame for the member/public pushback on this policy.  What really bothered me about Pres. Oaks' statement on 4 April 2019 was that it still seemed to not accept any responsibility for the damaged caused by this policy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Greg Prince indicates that there was no plan to make any announcements. The backlash after the quiet insertion of the POX was apparently unexpected.

I was told that when Michael Otterson was told of the policy he asked that Public Affairs have a week to prepare a response, but that he was denied and told that nobody would notice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, the narrator said:

I was told that when Michael Otterson was told of the policy he asked that Public Affairs have a week to prepare a response, but that he was denied and told that nobody would notice.

We obviously can't verify that conversation but if the Brethren didn't think this would be noticed than they are out of touch with where many members stand on this issue.

And, if it hadn't gone public and generated so much negative feedback -- would the 13-Nov letter altering the policy ever have been written?

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I was told that when Michael Otterson was told of the policy he asked that Public Affairs have a week to prepare a response, but that he was denied and told that nobody would notice.

If that’s true, making a policy change that apparently the Q15 thought no one would notice, then why would there have been such long prayer and fasting and temple visits and discussion over this change (as Elder Nelson explained in January 2016)?

Huge deal or no big deal to the Q15 when it was contrived?

Edited by SouthernMo

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Dehlin's idiocy here is only his vain thinking that without him it would never have been public.

Has Dehlin made such a claim?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If that’s true, making a policy change that apparently the Q15 thought no one would notice, then why would there have been such long prayer and fasting and temple visits and discussion over this change

I don't know how the policy was created or how it was approved. I am certain, though, that at least one apostle thought it was wrong.

And it also seems that it was not originally intended to go out when it did. According to an editor who works for the Church, it was initially sent to the editing team for a proofing and told that it was for an update to the handbook for a later date. An editor pointed out problems in the policy (I wasn't told what the problems were, but I'm guessing it might have been ambiguity of the original version that seemed to strongly imply that children could not be baptized if a parent had ever lived in a same-sex relationship--which was changed a couple weeks later). Nelson apparently did not like being told this and chose to rush out the policy earlier than planned and without further debate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Has Dehlin made such a claim?

I was maybe a little hyperbolic. My disdain of him is legion, so my memories of what stupid things he says get all jumbled up.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, the narrator said:

I was maybe a little hyperbolic. My disdain of him is legion, so my memories of what stupid things he says get all jumbled up.

You're welcome to your disdain but we should not try to misrepresent people.

I've not heard him make the claim that without him it would not have gone public.  In fact, I think he's talked about it being on the ex-Mormon reddit (independent of him) which seems to be an acknowledgement that it went public without him.

That said, he also knows the reach of his audience, so he would likely agree that his sharing of it caused it to spread more quickly than it might have otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I have great respect for John.   I do think that many here are way too quick to judge.  He has asked and or has had quite a few apologists and faithful members be a part of his stories.  It is hard to understand why many do not like John..and yet..say..I will NOT listen to his podcasts.  You would think that you would really want to know...you don't have to pay....at least 10% anyway.😗

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If that’s true, making a policy change that apparently the Q15 thought no one would notice, then why would there have been such long prayer and fasting and temple visits and discussion over this change (as Elder Nelson explained in January 2016)?

Huge deal or no big deal to the Q15 when it was contrived?

Again not knowing the details matters a lot. Was Otterson told this by one person? By all the Apostles? We don't know. Further, even if they thought it a minor change, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have reconsidered it over the subsequent week. There lots of conflicting reports in all this, and I'm a bit loath to take just one of the accounts and say that's the truth. Rather it seems to me there was a lot of chaos and differing opinions and perhaps no small share of miscommunication.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, USU78 said:

The press is nobody's friend. The press is not a friend of accuracy. The press is not the friend of people. The press is only interested in subscriptions and clicks and market share. The press is a moral and ethical cesspool.

This is not a very nice thing to say about @Scott Lloyd...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

Straw man...

Just to be clear, I don't accept his at best secondhand claims (and if they passed through more people as they did in the case of Tom Christofferson, third, fourth, whatever) as strong evidence.  Too easy for bias to let us hear what we want to hear.

I just think claiming financial gain as a motivator for his agenda to be silly.  Dehlin, otoh...that is a definite possibility in my view.  (And just so nonmembers don't feel picked on, there are imo plenty of members unfortunately who use the Church to try and make a buck, like the doomsday preppers promoters).

My comment about "Well once again I have been proven wrong, highly educated and well accomplished individuals can’t push an agenda." was sarcasm not straw man. Sorry you missed that. It is just great the we can each share a different opinion on Mr. Prince. I will agree that Mr. Prince and those who promote doomsday to make a money are one in the same. 

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...