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

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s what I wrote:

“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.”

Now explain how I misrepresented the policy.  

See how easy that was, Seeking Understanding? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

See how easy that was, Seeking Understanding? ;)

No. Kenngo. I still have no idea what you are taking about. The full quote from Elder Holland (that I shared with sources) and my paraphrase are literally 14 posts apart in an unbroken string of conversation and replies (less than a page in this forum). I’ve linked to them several times. I stand by the paraphrase. You have questions and suspicions (your words) about how accurate the paraphrase is but can’t quite bring yourself to state them. Instead you aggressively “badger” me (your word) and claim I didn’t meet your special standard of a call for references (despite references being supplied by me multiple times as well as Calm who is likely the sanest poster on this forum)  

So no I don’t understand how easy it is, but clearly there is no appeasing you. Apparently I live in alternative plane of existence where words and logic have different meanings than the plane you exist in. Go in peace Kenngo. Live long and prosper and all that. The next time you completely misread a thread, I will not engage. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No. Kenngo. I still have no idea what you are taking about. The full quote from Elder Holland (that I shared with sources) and my paraphrase are literally 14 posts apart in an unbroken string of conversation and replies (less than a page in this forum). I’ve linked to them several times. I stand by the paraphrase. You have questions and suspicions (your words) about how accurate the paraphrase is but can’t quite bring yourself to state them. Instead you aggressively “badger” me (your word) and claim I didn’t meet your special standard of a call for references (despite references being supplied by me multiple times as well as Calm who is likely the sanest poster on this forum)  

So no I don’t understand how easy it is, but clearly there is no appeasing you. Apparently I live in alternative plane of existence where words and logic have different meanings than the plane you exist in. Go in peace Kenngo. Live long and prosper and all that. The next time you completely misread a thread, I will not engage. 

 

I already congratulated you on your win (it was only by attrition), but I guess it won't hurt me to do it again: Congratulations!  And of course, Calm is on your side because you're one of the "speshul" people who are exempt from Board rules!  Congratulations, again!  (How would it be? :huh::unknw:)  This is my last post on the thread. You're welcome to dismember, disembowel, rip to shreds, incinerate, and obliterate my sorry corpse.  Have at it, and I hope you enjoy yourself!

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

He's still missing a crucial qualifier that Elder Holland used which is my whole point of allegedly "badgering" him, but if "fast and loose" or "quick and dirty" (all my words and phrases in quotes) is good enough for the rest of you, I'm no longer going to press the issue.

Kenngo, you're not making any sense here. Perhaps you can clearly explain to us what you are after? I've been following this thread and I saw the original quote of Elder Holland, the link, and the paraphrase. As Calm has pointed out, he has more than provided you with what you appear to be asking for. Maybe the problem is that it's not clear what you are after. Can you clearly and specifically state what you are asking for?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/4/2019 at 8:48 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Kenngo, you're not making any sense here. Perhaps you can clearly explain to us what you are after? I've been following this thread and I saw the original quote of Elder Holland, the link, and the paraphrase. As Calm has pointed out, he has more than provided you with what you appear to be asking for. Maybe the problem is that it's not clear what you are after. Can you clearly and specifically state what you are asking for?

No, I already said, I'm done with this thread.  Thanks.

poster suspended

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, CV75 said:

Who has done it this way? Wouldn't anyone be in big trouble when he engages the spirit of contention? If the Brethren lack the wherewithal to know they are otherwise in big trouble, are they really in that much trouble? Who has told the Brethren he himself would be in big trouble if he didn't set them straight?

A real-world analysis or appraisal should tell you right off the bat that these guys are not inexperienced greenies.  Pres Nelson has been a professor at Harvard Medical School, Counselor Oaks has taught law at a major secular university, and has been a state supreme court justice.  These guys are fully familiar with the rough and tumble of real life.  They and their colleagues are not rubes.  They've been there and done that.  They understand the way of the world all too well and are inveighing against it.  We need to respectfully give them their props for being able to deal with disagreements.  Not sure I understand why you doubt their ability to do so.  That is their job.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I already congratulated you on your win (it was only by attrition), but I guess it won't hurt me to do it again: Congratulations!  And of course, Calm is on your side because you're one of the "speshul" people who are exempt from Board rules!  Congratulations, again!  (How would it be? :huh::unknw:)  This is my last post on the thread. You're welcome to dismember, disembowel, rip to shreds, incinerate, and obliterate my sorry corpse.  Have at it, and I hope you enjoy yourself!

da83e38c3e1ca7969e257ab5d3ac36f4.jpg

He followed the rules just fine.  For some reason you expected him to hold your hand. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, USU78 said:

No and hell no.

 

17 hours ago, USU78 said:

Don't know Tim Pool. I've heard of Deadpool, though.

Here is some very recent commentary by Pool, who sees the internet and social media as the modern "public square":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTbGkAhQjl8  (CNN Journalist DEFENDS Censorship Of Conservatives, May 3, 2019)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAGVgd3Nzjs&feature=em-uploademail   (Conservative News Sites SMEARED By 'Fake News' List WIN Battle, List is DELETED, May 3, 2019)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijwSlIwKFYw&feature=em-uploademail (Woah... Trump DENOUNCED Censorship Retweeted Paul Joseph Watson And Lauren Southern, May 4, 2019)

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And of course, Calm is on your side because you're one of the "speshul" people who are exempt from Board rules! 

You may or may not believe me, but I am a stickler for providing CFRs, especially repeated ones and I report unfulfilled ones I see, but I am clueless here to what is the problem and don't know what I should report.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

da83e38c3e1ca7969e257ab5d3ac36f4.jpg

He followed the rules just fine.  For some reason you expected him to hold your hand. 

Speaking of violating Board rules, Seeking(Mis-)Understanding may or may not understand them and/or he may or may not be committed to following them.  Got substance, TTribe?  As shown brilliantly by the foregoing, YOU DEFINITELY do not and/or are not!

KNOCK IT OFF!!!

P.S.: And "butt-hurt"?  No.  That just goes to show the limits of being acquainted with someone solely on line (although I'm confident that if you'd even done so much as pay sufficient attention to the thousands of posts I've made on this Board and its predecessors in the last 20 years or so, let alone somehow gotten to know me in real life, the last descriptor you would use would be butt-hurt.  IMO, that's the kind of descriptor that says more about the user than it ever could about the person he's describing.

Now, [email protected]?  Yep.  [email protected] is more apt.  (Not that it matters to anyone, of course ...)  You may wonder what the hell I'm doing back here.  (That makes two of us! :rolleyes:)  If someone wants to violate Board rules and if he and others want to attack the person who called out the violator rather than hold the violator to account, that's one thing.  TTribe's post, however, is nothing but a personal cheap-shot which also violates the rules, but which, of course, will go entirely unsanctioned because of who happens to agree with him.  The Mods may not give a damn, and no one else may give a damn, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone take personal cheap shots (see TTribe, above) without responding.

Yep.  [email protected] covers it just fine.  Thanks.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You may or may not believe me, but I am a stickler for providing CFRs, especially repeated ones and I report unfulfilled ones I see, but I am clueless here to what is the problem and don't know what I should report.

Nothing.  (But remember: Even if you don't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

  (But remember: Even if you don't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ;))

Of course.  Which is why I think you should post the specific problem you see rather than just talk about it.  I don't understand your reluctance to do so.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course.  Which is why I think you should post the specific problem you see rather than just talk about it.  I don't understand your reluctance to do so.

Nope!  Now I really am done with the thread. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nope!  Now I really am done with the thread. ;)

Okay, won't keep bugging you.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Seeking(Mis-)Understanding 

Seems like a personal cheap shot (no worries, I’m amused not pi**ed). I chose the name years ago and would definitely choose different one if I could do it over again. But someone else seems to be against personal cheap shots. Who was that? Oh yeah it was you! :)

Quote

 TTribe's post, however, is nothing but a personal cheap-shot which also violates the rules, but which, of course, will go entirely unsanctioned because of who happens to agree with him. 

 

That the two statements were in the same post just adds to my surreal experience with you in this thread. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Speaking of violating Board rules, Seeking(Mis-)Understanding may or may not understand them and/or he may or may not be committed to following them.  Got substance, TTribe?  As shown brilliantly by the foregoing, YOU DEFINITELY do not and/or are not!

KNOCK IT OFF!!!

P.S.: And "butt-hurt"?  No.  That just goes to show the limits of being acquainted with someone solely on line (although I'm confident that if you'd even done so much as pay sufficient attention to the thousands of posts I've made on this Board and its predecessors in the last 20 years or so, let alone somehow gotten to know me in real life, the last descriptor you would use would be butt-hurt.  IMO, that's the kind of descriptor that says more about the user than it ever could about the person he's describing.

Now, [email protected]?  Yep.  [email protected] is more apt.  (Not that it matters to anyone, of course ...)  You may wonder what the hell I'm doing back here.  (That makes two of us! :rolleyes:)  If someone wants to violate Board rules and if he and others want to attack the person who called out the violator rather than hold the violator to account, that's one thing.  TTribe's post, however, is nothing but a personal cheap-shot which also violates the rules, but which, of course, will go entirely unsanctioned because of who happens to agree with him.  The Mods may not give a damn, and no one else may give a damn, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone take personal cheap shots (see TTribe, above) without responding.

Yep.  [email protected] covers it just fine.  Thanks.

Wow!  For the self-appointed court jester around here, you sure do lack a sense of humor when it comes to your own actions.

And, yeah, by every definition of "butt-hurt" I've ever seen, your tantum is a textbook example.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I already congratulated you on your win (it was only by attrition), but I guess it won't hurt me to do it again: Congratulations!  And of course, Calm is on your side because you're one of the "speshul" people who are exempt from Board rules!  Congratulations, again!  (How would it be? :huh::unknw:This is my last post on the thread. You're welcome to dismember, disembowel, rip to shreds, incinerate, and obliterate my sorry corpse.  Have at it, and I hope you enjoy yourself!

 

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, I already said, I'm done with this thread.  Thanks.

 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Nope!  Now I really am done with the thread. ;)

😊 

I don’t think anyone wishes you to leave...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/3/2019 at 9:50 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Keys aside, Elder Holland asserted that the brethren have a better grasp of every moral and societal issue than any group on earth - yet they misjudge on something so simple as this policy? That doesn’t jibe. Sorry. 

He is asserting one thing, and you another. That doesn't need to jibe, so setting the keys aside is not necessary,

On 5/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Btw, did they actually acknowledge fallibility here? Apologize? 

I think that their acknowledgement of their fallibility is ongoing, but needing to apologize for your assertion doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s what I wrote:

“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.”

Now explain how I misrepresented the policy.  

The policy does not say or give the impression that there is no way to be a faithful member if one is gay. The policy does not say that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy nor that children who live with their gay parents are not welcome in full-fellowship in the church. Both are misinterpretations of and/or misrepresentations of the policy, and the Brethren would not agree with them. I can only explain how these statements misrepresent the policy, not how you do. My point was that neither idea comes from the Brethren, who shared their more charitable and reasoned view on this subject all along.

Share this post


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

A real-world analysis or appraisal should tell you right off the bat that these guys are not inexperienced greenies.  Pres Nelson has been a professor at Harvard Medical School, Counselor Oaks has taught law at a major secular university, and has been a state supreme court justice.  These guys are fully familiar with the rough and tumble of real life.  They and their colleagues are not rubes.  They've been there and done that.  They understand the way of the world all too well and are inveighing against it.  We need to respectfully give them their props for being able to deal with disagreements.  Not sure I understand why you doubt their ability to do so.  That is their job.

Not sure I understand why you are saying I doubt their ability to do so. is that your job?

Share this post


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

He is asserting one thing, and you another. That doesn't need to jibe, so setting the keys aside is not necessary,

This is ridiculous. I am not asserting anything. Elder Holland claimed that the leaders of the church have a better grasp on social and moral issues facing us than any other known group. The policy roll out was a disaster that most people on this board could have predicted. These two things don’t jibe  

I have not brought up keys, and to my knowledge you are the only one in this thread to do so. If you want to talk about them do it with someone else. I have no interest in debating faith based claims. 

Quote

I think that their acknowledgement of their fallibility is ongoing, but needing to apologize for your assertion doesn't make sense.

So that would be a no. They acknowledge fallibility in loose generic terms only, never specifics. My esteem for them would increase exponentially if any of them owned up and said I’m wrong. Elder McConkie is the only one I’ve ever heard of doing it (with the priesthood ban), but even here they soft pedal. Long taught doctrine becomes folk lore held onto by individual members. Brigham taught why he established the ban very clearly, but today we don’t know why. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The policy does not say or give the impression that there is no way to be a faithful member if one is gay. The policy does not say that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy nor that children who live with their gay parents are not welcome in full-fellowship in the church. Both are misinterpretations of and/or misrepresentations of the policy, and the Brethren would not agree with them. I can only explain how these statements misrepresent the policy, not how you do. My point was that neither idea comes from the Brethren, who shared their more charitable and reasoned view on this subject all along.

Read my post:  I stated the it was critics giving the impression that there is no way to be a faithful member if one is gay. 

The policy states quite explicitly that entering a same gender marriage is apostasy.  That’s exactly what it says. If the Brethren disagree with that, then they shouldn’t have published a policy that stated such. 

I’ll give you that the term I used “full fellowship” might not be understood in the same way.  By that I meant fully participating including in ordinances.  And the policy does state that children living with (custodial) parents who are in a gay relationship may not be blessed, baptized, receive the priesthood (which also means not participating in Youth temple baptism trips for boys). 

You have not explained how I misrepresented the policy.  You’ve only claimed that I have.  Twice now.  So please retract your false statement or explain how I am misrepresenting it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Not sure I understand why you are saying I doubt their ability to do so. is that your job?

You're the one who said "Who has done it this way? Wouldn't anyone be in big trouble when he engages the spirit of contention? If the Brethren lack the wherewithal to know they are otherwise in big trouble, are they really in that much trouble? Who has told the Brethren he himself would be in big trouble if he didn't set them straight?"

Sorry I misunderstood or misinterpreted.  Can't quite grok it, Bro.  And, yeh, that is my job.  But, if you take me to task for it, I can handle the disapproval.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/3/2019 at 9:20 PM, 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?

Given the responses we get from the TBM on this board, I would completely agree.  They defended the idea that this policy was "for the children".  Yet logically imo that made absolutely no sense at all.  And if it made sense, then a whole lot of other children shoud be prevented from baptism if their parents are living a life that is conflict with church teachings.

I think it took a firestorm for the bretheren to realize that their perspective is extremely narrow, similar to the opinions that some on this  board also have.  They can't see the bigger picture of the real harm this policy did with many member's extended families, let along the reinforcement of a church that seems to attack gay families.  Some still hold to the idea that if Deliums hadn't reported it, none of this would have happened.  How can you possibly hold that point of view is beyond me.  But hey, we all come at this from a different perspective, including the bretheren.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Given the responses we get from the TBM on this board, I would completely agree.  They defended the idea that this policy was "for the children".  Yet logically imo that made absolutely no sense at all.  And if it made sense, then a whole lot of other children shoud be prevented from baptism if their parents are living a life that is conflict with church teachings.

I think it took a firestorm for the bretheren to realize that their perspective is extremely narrow, similar to the opinions that some on this  board also have.  They can't see the bigger picture of the real harm this policy did with many member's extended families, let along the reinforcement of a church that seems to attack gay families.  Some still hold to the idea that if Deliums hadn't reported it, none of this would have happened.  How can you possibly hold that point of view is beyond me.  But hey, we all come at this from a different perspective, including the bretheren.

I think we can discuss topics without resorting to slurs or derogatory language; my experience is that the use of TBM is meant as derogatory or disparagement towards the individual(s) against whom the label is used.

Edited by provoman
  • 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...