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)
On 5/2/2019 at 5:56 PM, stemelbow said:

 They are terribly uninformed if they think the policy wouldn't have been known by the people who were affected by it if Dehlin hadn't leaked it.

Didn't listen.  Don't think additional talk about it is very helpful. But....

I think it was at Todd Christofferson's press conference that he said that he expected that leaders would ask for exemptions when the circumstances dictate.   If they had, then maybe there wouldn't have been very many actually "affected".   I'm one who thinks that to the extent the policy prompted mental health issues and suicide (as yet undetermined),  people who gave the impression that there was no way to be a faithful member if one is gay (and that was what critics seemed to be conveying)  should claim responsibility.  Wouldn't that be the harm interpreter was talking about?

Edited by rpn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Six days to clarify after considering countless permutations of options and implications.

My testimony in the leadership ability and/or communicative clarity of these men is waning.

I am not saying you are saying this, but a next step is "therefore the Church is not true." I wish the Church could learn to accept that leaders are fallible. Joseph Smith himself said, if he fell, the Lord would replace him. The next step is what is to fall mean? Does that mean to lose one's testimony or to make a mistake? I don't think Joseph Smith ever lost his testimony, but he did make mistakes. I believe one led to his death - destroying the printing press set up in town - that was essentially theft. The town had no power to do that. Joseph Smith was sensitive to negative press, so publicly declared not to have more than one wife, while he did. This white lie has caused to testimony of some to wane, and leave the Church. They didn't know JS was polygamous. His unpublished revelation on polygamy seemed to contradict the earlier declaration that marriage was between one man and one wife. There are still those like the Community of Christ who don't believe it. If you can't learn to live with imperfect leaders, you can't live with leaders at all. 

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Luke 8:17

The issue is not a silly, immature discussion by a bunch of kids, and blaming Dehlin certainly won't wash.  We need to accept that the Brethren are full grown men and can take their lumps.  Indeed, that is their job.

Leaders tend to like to accept acclaim, but not lumps so much. I can't recall an occasion of a church leader accepting lumps with the possible exception of Joseph Smith, because he was forced to by the Lord. Rather, I hear from them how they aren't to be questioned. I question everything. It is what I do. It is how I found truth. Yeshua never said, don't question your prophets. He said you shall know them by their fruits. Now, I believe the brethren by and large bring forth good fruit, but I do not agree with everything they have ever said. I question it, and on this board have called some into question like BY. That bothers some. But, if I were to blindly follow BY, I would not pray to the Lord otherwise. Now, I think BY was overall a good president. He had what the Church needed at the time to hold together. But, I do not put him up on some kind of infallibility pedestal. His errors will come to light soon enough, because that scripture you cite shows that the truth will not be hid. I love the Church for the truths it has shown me, but acknowledge its warts. But those don't make her the wicked witch of the north - just a little flawed - the warts are hidden on her backside. ;) 

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, rpn said:

Didn't listen.  Don't think additional talk about it is very helpful. But....

I think it was at Todd Christofferson's that he said that he expected that leaders would ask for exemptions when the circumstances dictate.   If they had, then maybe there wouldn't have been very many actually "affected".   I'm one who thinks that to the extent the policy prompted mental health issues and suicide (as yet undetermined),  people who gave the impression that there was no way to be a faithful member if one is gay (and that was critics seemed to be conveying)  should claim responsibility.  Wouldn't that be the harm interpreter was talking about?

I think there is harm in saying (or giving the impression) that there is no way to be a faithful member if one is gay.

But I also think that much pain, anguish, and "attachment blockade" (see Josh Weed's blog) came from this policy's pronouncements that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy and that children who live with their gay parents are not welcome in full-fellowship in the church.

The former may have come from church critics.  The latter came from men who claim to speak with the authority of God.

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am not saying you are saying this, but a next step is "therefore the Church is not true." I wish the Church could learn to accept that leaders are fallible. Joseph Smith himself said, if he fell, the Lord would replace him. The next step is what is to fall mean? Does that mean to lose one's testimony or to make a mistake? I don't think Joseph Smith ever lost his testimony, but he did make mistakes. I believe one led to his death - destroying the printing press set up in town - that was essentially theft. The town had no power to do that. Joseph Smith was sensitive to negative press, so publicly declared not to have more than one wife, while he did. This white lie has caused to testimony of some to wane, and leave the Church. They didn't know JS was polygamous. His unpublished revelation on polygamy seemed to contradict the earlier declaration that marriage was between one man and one wife. There are still those like the Community of Christ who don't believe it. If you can't learn to live with imperfect leaders, you can't live with leaders at all. 

Of course.  I don't expect perfection at all!

But, I don't think it's too much to ask of leaders of any organization to be honest, and if they make a mistake to admit it.  I mean, they ask me to do those things, so I think it's fair to ask all members of the church to do so at every level.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

It was idiotic if his goal was to prevent suicide among the  LDS LGBT community or to fully understand the policy,   but not if his goal was not make a media spectacle that did the most damage to the church's image and control the narrative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Steve J said:

It was idiotic if his goal was to prevent suicide among the  LDS LGBT community...

This makes the assumption that it wouldn't have gone public without Dehlin.  That's a flawed assumption.

6 minutes ago, Steve J said:

...or to fully understand the policy,

Without the publicity and scrutiny, it might not have ever been altered (13-Nov letter) or explained (Elder Christofferson/Bro. Otterson video).  We don't know.

6 minutes ago, Steve J said:

 but not if his goal was not make a media spectacle that did the most damage to the church's image and control the narrative. 

He did make a media spectacle.  Not sure if he controlled the narrative.

The damage to the church's image is a result of the policy published by the Brethren, not Dehlin.

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

...................... They didn't know JS was polygamous. His unpublished revelation on polygamy seemed to contradict the earlier declaration that marriage was between one man and one wife. There are still those like the Community of Christ who don't believe it. .............................

The RLDS Church long ago formally published its own Church Historian's view that Joseph did in fact practice polygamy.  That acceptance (finally) was one of the steps leading to their reformulation as the Community of Christ.  There are indeed some who don't believe it, but most of those have left and are now members of RLDS offshoots.  They don't even believe that Joseph Smith used a seerstone.

Quote

Leaders tend to like to accept acclaim, but not lumps so much. I can't recall an occasion of a church leader accepting lumps with the possible exception of Joseph Smith, because he was forced to by the Lord. ....................

How soon we forget the words of Elder Bruce McConkie:

Quote

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.  Aug 18, 1978, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god/ .

Scripture is rife with prophets who have feet of clay, who make mistakes, whose prophecies don't come true, who argue with God, and who even get resentful and insolent toward God.  Jonah is a prime example, but there are plenty of others:  I have mentioned on this board St Peter and St Paul at major loggerheads, along with Pres Brigham Young and Apostle Orson Pratt repeatedly in fundamental disputes about (1) Adam-God, (2) making the Utah Territory a slave territory, and (3) denying ordination of Black men.  Pratt had no patience with Brother Brigham, and he was punished for it, yet prevailed in the long run.   As Pres Uchtdorf has said:

Quote

. . . to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.  Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

We need to stop pretending that the Brethren are infallible.  They make mistakes, and we need to help them in their struggle to get it right.  Sometimes a harsh and public "J'accuse" is needed, as in the case of Nathan confronting King David.  At other times, a quiet letter might be helpful.  It all comes under the heading of "sustaining the Brethren."  Right?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2019 at 6:45 AM, USU78 said:

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

You had 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."

If the press is that far gone, then why would self-regulation improve it?  If the only motivation for the so-called "press" is money and fame, why would they ever adopt any sort of ethical canons?  Indeed, aren't there already plenty of written ethical canons for them?  Are journalism schools primarily responsible for inculcating bad habits, e.g., opting for fluff instead of content, ornamentation instead of substance, etc.?

Since I take it that you are expressing hyperbole about the press, which sources of news do you trust?  Which ones demonstrate an adequate commitment to high ethical and moral norms?  Are there public intellectuals and commentators whom you trust?

What does "Freedom of the Press" mean to you?  Does it have any value at all?  As I am sure you are aware, some countries do not have it at all.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I hate podcasts like this where they dodge the obvious questions.  Like this one:

If the policy had never been made public back in 2015, do you think it still would have been rescinded in 2019?

I'd love to hear them discuss that hypothetical.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I hate podcasts like this where they dodge the obvious questions.  Like this one:

If the policy had never been made public back in 2015, do you think it still would have been rescinded in 2019?

I'd love to hear them discuss that hypothetical.

 

I'd love to hear that discussion as well.

My conclusion:  No, if it had not been subject to scrutiny by church membership at large, it would not have been rescinded.  I think that Pres. Oaks comments from 4-April indicate that.

Share this post


Link to post

Had I been invited to this roundtable, I could have set everybody straight. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

the fact the didn't seem to think this would be noticed belies claims that the Brethren are not out of touch with things.

Can't be verified means you can't state this as a "fact"

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We need to stop pretending that the Brethren are infallible.

And to do so humbly and without the spirit of contention. That is the only way the power of the Lord will stand behind it as He stands behind the Brethren.

Share this post


Link to post

 

2 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

I will agree that Mr. Prince and those who promote doomsday to make a money are one in the same.

You are either careless in your reading or intentionally misrepresenting what I say.  I never claimed Prince and anyone seeking financial gain are one and the same, so you can't agree to that from my post.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can't be verified means you can't state this as a "fact"

Excellent point.  Re-reading that post, I'm embarrassed that I wrote that sentence.

I have edited it to fix my error.  Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can't be verified means you can't state this as a "fact"

Regardless of whether or not the Public Affairs department was told “nobody would notice” the whole fiasco on the record (the quiet release of the policy, the delayed response from the church, the required clarification, the backlash from members of the church, Elder Nelson’s statement that the policy was revelation, and finally the policy reversal) belies the claim that the brethren are in touch with things. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, cinepro said:

The Interpreter has a round-table podcast that discussed the 11/5 policy (the one about children being raised by same-sex parents can't get baptized until they turn 18 and disavow their parents' lifestyle).  In discussing the rescission of the policy in early April, they make some interesting claims. 

Frankly, I understand the pickle that the change of direction puts defenders in.  But if this is the best defense on the subject, I weep for the future of apologetics.

It starts around the 16:30 mark here:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/interpreter-radio-show-april-7-2019/

- John Dehlin was an "idiot" for leaking the policy.

- People only got hurt because the policy was leaked.  If it hadn't gotten leaked, no one would have known about it and therefore they wouldn't have gotten hurt. Therefore it's Dehlin's fault people felt "hurt" or "betrayed."

- Policies aren't "suppressed" or "buried", (but people are still idiots if they "leak" policies that aren't suppressed or buried).

- The 11/5 policy must have been an "iterative" step for the leaders down the path towards discerning the will of the Lord on the subject.  (Apparently this path has u-turns).

I did not listen to the link but granted, these samples are pretty bad. I read better ideas offered up on the threads on this board. Personally, I haven't an issue with policies changing like this one did. In my experience, he who lives by policy (especially policy alone) dies by policy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This makes the assumption that it wouldn't have gone public without Dehlin.  That's a flawed assumption.

Without the publicity and scrutiny, it might not have ever been altered (13-Nov letter) or explained (Elder Christofferson/Bro. Otterson video).  We don't know.

He did make a media spectacle.  Not sure if he controlled the narrative.

The damage to the church's image is a result of the policy published by the Brethren, not Dehlin.

We don't know what would have happened. A responsible thing to do would be to contact the church and state that you have this document, can you comment on it, and we are planning to release it at such and such time unless you give us a reason why not to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Steve J said:

We don't know what would have happened. A responsible thing to do would be to contact the church and state that you have this document, can you comment on it, and we are planning to release it at such and such time unless you give us a reason why not to. 

Tens of thousands of church members had the document.  The church had published it to them.  I had the policy... I just didn't realize it because I hadn't looked at that section of the handbook.

As for the person who originally leaked the policy... I don't know who that was but it wasn't Dehlin - he didn't have access to the handbook.

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Excellent point.  Re-reading that post, I'm embarrassed that I wrote that sentence.

I have edited it to fix my error.  Thank you.

It was surprising...

Share this post


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

Regardless of whether or not the Public Affairs department was told “nobody would notice” the whole fiasco on the record (the quiet release of the policy, the delayed response from the church, the required clarification, the backlash from members of the church, Elder Nelson’s statement that the policy was revelation, and finally the policy reversal) belies the claim that the brethren are in touch with things. 

I would not be surprised if personal bias interferes with "being in touch" in some areas while they are on top of other issues, given the responses I have seen.  It is what I would expect of anyone, why should they be seen as superhuman?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would not be surprised if personal bias interferes with "being in touch" in some areas while they are on top of other issues, given the responses I have seen.  It is what I would expect of anyone, why should they be seen as superhuman?

Elder Holland:

Quote

As the least of those who have been sustained by you to witness the guidance of this Church firsthand, I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth.

Find more here:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865612291/Too-old-Out-of-touch-LDS-prophets-and-apostles-engage-globally-to-stay-informed-connected-and.html

or here:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Why-Anyone-Who-Says-the-Apostles-Are-Too-Old-Is-Wrong/s/78279

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm....you want to know my opinion of "think tanks"?

Share this post


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

You had 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."

If the press is that far gone, then why would self-regulation improve it?  If the only motivation for the so-called "press" is money and fame, why would they ever adopt any sort of ethical canons?  Indeed, aren't there already plenty of written ethical canons for them?  Are journalism schools primarily responsible for inculcating bad habits, e.g., opting for fluff instead of content, ornamentation instead of substance, etc.?

Since I take it that you expressing hyperbole about the press, which sources of news do you trust?  Which ones demonstrate an adequate commitment to high ethical and moral norms?  Are there public intellectuals and commentators whom you trust?

What does "Freedom of the Press" mean to you?  Does it have any value at all?  As I am sure you are aware, some countries do not have it at all.

"Who wants that?" was my way of asking all of the questions you just asked and all of the points you just made.  Without even going to issues of bias and undisclosed conflicts of interest, I made the point that the press, as we encounter it, is not a positive.  It's certainly not a Jimmy Stewart movie, with our earnest, idealistic young man butting up against corrupt entrenchment.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Scotty retired from being in-house press agent.  Quite a different thing from being on the religion desk at the Salt Lake Tribune.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...