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, provoman said:

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.

I don’t think it is meant as derogatory or disparaging. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think it is meant as derogatory or disparaging. 

I’m on the fence about it. I would sometime use it as shorthand to distinguish between Jack-Mormons, cafeteria Mormons, NOM’s, and those that truly and whole heartedly believe. I do think some use it as a pejorative though for those that blindly believe without thought or consideration, so I try now to avoid the term. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m on the fence about it. I would sometime use it as shorthand to distinguish between Jack-Mormons, cafeteria Mormons, NOM’s, and those that truly and whole heartedly believe. I do think some use it as a pejorative though for those that blindly believe without thought or consideration, so I try now to avoid the term. 

I try to avoid using it because I don’t like it when others try to label or box in my faith. 

When I have heard/read it, it didn’t strike me as disparaging.  But, if some feel that way when labeled as such — that’s enough reason to avoid it. IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post

I say faithful church members  should proudly embrace the term TBM.  Except President Nelson wouldn’t approve of the term.

Share this post


Link to post

I listened to the full podcast on my run yesterday.  I found it to be a good discussion, but calling John Dehlin an idiot was uncalled for.  Not very Christlike.  If John didn’t publicize it, somebody else would have.  

I do think there is some truth to the argument that the negative publicity of the policy fanned the flames a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

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. 

You are asserting the two faith-based claims don’t jibe after making the faith-based claim that the roll-out had to do with the leaders’ grasp on social and moral issues, which comes as a result of “prophecy, seership, and revelation” as stated elsewhere in the quoted paragraph from Elder Holland’s 2006 talk. You are leaving the keys aside yet they qualify the grasp he mentions.

Your faith-based conclusion assumes the faulty reasoning that the Brethren’s strong grasp on the issues should give them control to foresee and prevent the circumstances and reactions attendant to the roll-out. But acting on their revelatory grasp does not prevent others from acting also.

Additionally, m point is that specific to this instance, they don’t need to apologize for your faith-based assertion/conclusion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Yes, the critics give the first impression, and I’m saying they also represent the second claim as you described it (read your own post!). The reason is, contrary to your assertion, the Brethren did not pronounce 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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes, the critics give the first impression, and I’m saying they also represent the second claim as you described it (read your own post!). The reason is, contrary to your assertion, the Brethren did not pronounce 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.

How is it that they did *not* make such a pronouncement.  They published it in the handbook.  You’re being obtuse and still haven’t explained how I am wrong. 

And to @Kenngo1969, since you liked the post, perhaps you could explain how I have misrepresented the policy since @CV75 can’t or won’t. 

 

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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.

Yes, I wanted those questions answered (they interrelate):

  • Who has done it this way [humbly and without the spirit of contention]?
  • Wouldn't anyone be in big trouble when he engages the spirit of contention? [that was more a rhetorical question]
  • If the Brethren lack the wherewithal to know they are otherwise in big trouble, are they really in that much trouble? [this gets to judging whether they are accountable for their fallibility]
  • Who has told the Brethren he himself would be in big trouble if he didn't set them straight? [this gets to the person who, in his humility and charity, is sent to sett hem straight].

Given that you bolded the second and third questions: (2nd) I think that those who engage in the spirit of contention are in big trouble no matter who they are trying to set straight (it doesn't have to be the Brethren), and this big trouble is more a consequence than imposed externally with divine punishment. (3rd) If the Brethren have the wherewithal to receive and act on revelation but not the wherewithal to prevent the offense or contention in response to it, I think they would count that as being in good standing and not in big (meaning an eternal perspective) trouble at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How is it that they did *not* make such a pronouncement.  They published it in the handbook.  You’re being obtuse and still haven’t explained how I am wrong. 

And to @Kenngo1969, since you liked the post, perhaps you could explain how I have misrepresented the policy since @CV75 can’t or won’t. 

 

My post wasn't to assert that you were wrong. It was to point out that critics say both things, and that both things misrepresent the policy.

The Brethren did not pronounce 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 policies are available for all to see. Interpreting and extrapolating emotional attitudes (e.g. "love" and "not welcome") are not in there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are asserting the two faith-based claims don’t jibe after making the faith-based claim that the roll-out had to do with the leaders’ grasp on social and moral issues, which comes as a result of “prophecy, seership, and revelation” as stated elsewhere in the quoted paragraph from Elder Holland’s 2006 talk. You are leaving the keys aside yet they qualify the grasp he mentions.

I don’t think think we are using the same vocabulary. The policy roll out looks like an unmitigated disaster, proven by the poor roll out, slow response from the brethren and the fact that it was unilaterally withdrawn. These are real world observations that can be debated, and falsified. Is it your argument that the policy was a success? We can debate this if you like. The difference between this and a faith based assertion like “the brethren have keys” is that we can’t debate it. It must be accepted by faith. Elder Holland’s statement about a better grasp of issues than any other group stands alone. You and he may think it comes from keys and I may think it comes from hubris, but it is a statement that is either true or it is not. It is not a faith based statement. It is testable and falsifiable. 

Quote

Your faith-based conclusion assumes the faulty reasoning that the Brethren’s strong grasp on the issues should give them control to foresee and prevent the circumstances and reactions attendant to the roll-out. But acting on their revelatory grasp does not prevent others from acting also.

So it’s your contention that forseeing that the policy was poorly written (see the complete rewrite), would be leaked immediately, and would alienate a huge swath of faithful church members was not doable by a the group that claims to have the best grasp on these very issues? Whatever dude. I could have told them all of that and I’m stupid. 

Quote

Additionally, m point is that specific to this instance, they don’t need to apologize for your faith-based assertion/conclusion.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess it’s popular among some believers to say all things are faith based, so if that’s your thing have at it. Given that we can’t agree on what words like faith actually mean I don’t see what purpose further dialogue would serve. Peace. The last word is yours if you want it. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My post wasn't to assert that you were wrong. It was to point out that critics say both things, and that both things misrepresent the policy.

The Brethren did not pronounce 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 policies are available for all to see. Interpreting and extrapolating emotional attitudes (e.g. "love" and "not welcome") are not in there.

Oh.  So it’s that I used the words love and not welcome. You could have made that clarification in your original reply to me to avoid wasting all this time  

But you agree that the Brethren have said, through the publication of the policy that entering a same gender marriage is apostasy, right?

And you agree that the Brethren have said, through the publication of the policy, that children living with custodial parents in a same gender cohabitational relationship cannot be blessed, baptized, or ordained without seeking an exception through the First Presidency, correct?

I feel both of those statements are equivalent to what I originally wrote.  If the Brethren are unaware that gay couples love one another, than they truly are out of touch.  If you can’t understand commonly used language in the church and realize that not blessing, baptizing, and ordaining is the same thing as not welcoming people in full fellowship than that seems like an issue you could work out on your own. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh.  So it’s that I used the words love and not welcome. You could have made that clarification in your original reply to me to avoid wasting all this time  

But you agree that the Brethren have said, through the publication of the policy that entering a same gender marriage is apostasy, right?

And you agree that the Brethren have said, through the publication of the policy, that children living with custodial parents in a same gender cohabitational relationship cannot be blessed, baptized, or ordained without seeking an exception through the First Presidency, correct?

I feel both of those statements are equivalent to what I originally wrote.  If the Brethren are unaware that gay couples love one another, than they truly are out of touch.  If you can’t understand commonly used language in the church and realize that not blessing, baptizing, and ordaining is the same thing as not welcoming people in full fellowship than that seems like an issue you could work out on your own. 

CV appears to have his own vocabulary and definitions. Reading and understanding his posts is really hard. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think think we are using the same vocabulary. The policy roll out looks like an unmitigated disaster, proven by the poor roll out, slow response from the brethren and the fact that it was unilaterally withdrawn. These are real world observations that can be debated, and falsified. Is it your argument that the policy was a success? We can debate this if you like. The difference between this and a faith based assertion like “the brethren have keys” is that we can’t debate it. It must be accepted by faith. Elder Holland’s statement about a better grasp of issues than any other group stands alone. You and he may think it comes from keys and I may think it comes from hubris, but it is a statement that is either true or it is not. It is not a faith based statement. It is testable and falsifiable. 

So it’s your contention that forseeing that the policy was poorly written (see the complete rewrite), would be leaked immediately, and would alienate a huge swath of faithful church members was not doable by a the group that claims to have the best grasp on these very issues? Whatever dude. I could have told them all of that and I’m stupid. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess it’s popular among some believers to say all things are faith based, so if that’s your thing have at it. Given that we can’t agree on what words like faith actually mean I don’t see what purpose further dialogue would serve. Peace. The last word is yours if you want it. 

When applying different vocabulary, statements can easily be proven to be false, and so can they be proven false using different perspectives with the same vocabulary. So that is not a very sound way to go. Nevertheless, Elder Holland attributes the grasp on social and moral issues to keys, not hubris. With that in mind, the relationship between one’s knowledge of one subject (especially from something like revelation) and his control over others’ actions and reactions pertaining to what he does with that knowledge is pretty tenuous.

It does seem that you had faith in a set of beliefs on this issue that you thought were right and now have faith in your conclusions arising from that.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Oh.  So it’s that I used the words love and not welcome. You could have made that clarification in your original reply to me to avoid wasting all this time  

But you agree that the Brethren have said, through the publication of the policy that entering a same gender marriage is apostasy, right?

And you agree that the Brethren have said, through the publication of the policy, that children living with custodial parents in a same gender cohabitational relationship cannot be blessed, baptized, or ordained without seeking an exception through the First Presidency, correct?

I feel both of those statements are equivalent to what I originally wrote.  If the Brethren are unaware that gay couples love one another, than they truly are out of touch.  If you can’t understand commonly used language in the church and realize that not blessing, baptizing, and ordaining is the same thing as not welcoming people in full fellowship than that seems like an issue you could work out on your own. 

I haven’t been wasting my time, and evidently you haven’t either since you now understand what I was saying. And yes, the policy is/was certainly the policy (we can all read it), no matter how someone unhappy with it might frame or spin it. So, no, I don’t accept, and you can’t expect anyone to accept, the kind of equivalency you assert.

I’m sure that the Brethren, like most reasonable people, are aware that some gay couples love one another and that some don’t, but the policy wasn’t about that issue at all. Terms like blessing, baptizing and ordaining are all defined in the Handbook, so I think I understand what they mean. You might have some semantical wiggle room with “welcome” since that colloquially refers to the words the bishop shares to newly baptized individuals, and to the ward’s / branch’s business to publicly sustain new unit members in sacrament meeting when their records arrive and so forth, and obviously anyone without a membership record isn’t given that formal recognition. But I take “welcome” to be more in the sense of inviting and accepting anyone who joins us for any event, activity, ordinance, etc. to the extent he is able, with or without a record.

I wish you well in working out your issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, provoman said:

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.

When did TBM become a slur?  I always thought it meant someone who was extremely faithful.  What do you think it means

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I haven’t been wasting my time, and evidently you haven’t either since you now understand what I was saying. And yes, the policy is/was certainly the policy (we can all read it), no matter how someone unhappy with it might frame or spin it. So, no, I don’t accept, and you can’t expect anyone to accept, the kind of equivalency you assert.

I’m sure that the Brethren, like most reasonable people, are aware that some gay couples love one another and that some don’t, but the policy wasn’t about that issue at all. Terms like blessing, baptizing and ordaining are all defined in the Handbook, so I think I understand what they mean. You might have some semantical wiggle room with “welcome” since that colloquially refers to the words the bishop shares to newly baptized individuals, and to the ward’s / branch’s business to publicly sustain new unit members in sacrament meeting when their records arrive and so forth, and obviously anyone without a membership record isn’t given that formal recognition. But I take “welcome” to be more in the sense of inviting and accepting anyone who joins us for any event, activity, ordinance, etc. to the extent he is able, with or without a record.

I wish you well in working out your issues.

It's hilarious how you play with words in your futile apologetics.

@CV75, suppose we have two male members of the church who love one another.  They choose to marry and live together.  Under the policy, is this considered apostasy?  This isn't rhetorical, if you reply, I'd appreciate an answer.

You may not like that I add in that these two men love one another.  But this is what the policy declares.  If it makes you uncomfortable, you'll need to address that but you can't do it by pretending the policy doesn't mean what it means.

The verb welcome, in the way I was using it, means "willing permitted or admitted" (see Merriam-Webster).  If we agree that the church used terminology "full fellowship" includes full participation in baby blessings, baptisms, and ordinations than the policy doesn't welcome children of custodial gay cohabitating couples into full fellowship in the church.  To claim otherwise is to deny what the policy sought to accomplish.

So it isn't me that has issues to work out.  If you don't like the policy that the Brethren inserted into the handbook (which, as of today, is still there in in the online handbook in its original 5-Nov-2015 form) great, you and are on the same side.  But it is a waste of everyone's time to pretend that words don't mean what they mean and that the policy doesn't do what it was written to do.

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I wanted those questions answered (they interrelate):

  • Who has done it this way [humbly and without the spirit of contention]?
  • Wouldn't anyone be in big trouble when he engages the spirit of contention? [that was more a rhetorical question]
  • If the Brethren lack the wherewithal to know they are otherwise in big trouble, are they really in that much trouble? [this gets to judging whether they are accountable for their fallibility]
  • Who has told the Brethren he himself would be in big trouble if he didn't set them straight? [this gets to the person who, in his humility and charity, is sent to sett hem straight].

Given that you bolded the second and third questions: (2nd) I think that those who engage in the spirit of contention are in big trouble no matter who they are trying to set straight (it doesn't have to be the Brethren), and this big trouble is more a consequence than imposed externally with divine punishment. (3rd) If the Brethren have the wherewithal to receive and act on revelation but not the wherewithal to prevent the offense or contention in response to it, I think they would count that as being in good standing and not in big (meaning an eternal perspective) trouble at all.

To my mind, the "big trouble" (whatever that means) is just this-worldly and evenescent.  We all fail in some respects, some more than others, but this does not excuse us from our need to be courageous.  Nathan could conceivably be in big trouble in denouncing kingly sin, but he doesn't allow that to dissuade him.  He says what has to be said, and lets the chips fall where they may.  Orson Pratt did the same.  A categorical imperative.  In the event, the king realizes his guilt and repents.  What's not to like?  On the other hand, if they burn the prophet alive (Abinadi), well he told the truth and did what he had to do, just like his eternal Lord and Master.  We are all obligated to tell the truth as we see it regardless of consequences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I never found fault with the old policy. It just seemed to make sense. If there are same sex couples who are inactive but yet they want their children to be baptized and attend church, I saw a problem for them and the child. The confusion as the child learns about temple marriage between a man and a woman would create a problem in the home. What would the same sex couple say to the child? Would the child feel comfortable at church learning such a idea?

So, I never quite got the problem. I saw it as protecting the child against harm and respecting the same sex relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Rivers said:

I listened to the full podcast on my run yesterday.  I found it to be a good discussion, but calling John Dehlin an idiot was uncalled for.  Not very Christlike.  If John didn’t publicize it, somebody else would have.  

I do think there is some truth to the argument that the negative publicity of the policy fanned the flames a little bit.

I think that the word idiot came from having to deal with Dehlin for many years. He has made it a point to make the church his life  as far as critiquing it. And this has been going on for quite some time. And what does it mean to be Christlike? Being Christlike is pretty near impossible. Only Christ can be like Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's hilarious how you play with words in your futile apologetics.

@CV75, suppose we have two male members of the church who love one another.  They choose to marry and live together.  Under the policy, is this considered apostasy?  This isn't rhetorical, if you reply, I'd appreciate an answer.

You may not like that I add in that these two men love one another.  But this is what the policy declares.  If it makes you uncomfortable, you'll need to address that but you can't do it by pretending the policy doesn't mean what it means.

The verb welcome, in the way I was using it, means "willing permitted or admitted" (see Merriam-Webster).  If we agree that the church used terminology "full fellowship" includes full participation in baby blessings, baptisms, and ordinations than the policy doesn't welcome children of custodial gay cohabitating couples into full fellowship in the church.  To claim otherwise is to deny what the policy sought to accomplish.

So it isn't me that has issues to work out.  If you don't like the policy that the Brethren inserted into the handbook (which, as of today, is still there in in the online handbook in its original 5-Nov-2015 form) great, you and are on the same side.  But it is a waste of everyone's time to pretend that words don't mean what they mean and that the policy doesn't do what it was written to do. 

I would hardly characterize my comments as apologetics. My sincere apologies to all the apologists!

“Apostasy” as used in the former policy, and still included in the published Handbook, applied to members in a ssm. As you know, this designation was dropped for disciplinary purposes according to recent training announcements, and I expect that will be reflected in a future Handbook edition.

We can go around and around as to whether the policy declares/declared the partners in love (but last word: it doesn’t – I just had to get that point in there). Talk about playing with words!

I think you would also agree that “welcome” also covers inviting and accepting anyone who joins us for any event, activity, ordinance, etc. to the extent he is able, with or without a record. That is how I took you to use it, at least initially. Note that the former policy allowed that the children of “cgccs” may receive the ordinances under certain conditions, so policy-wise they were as just welcome then as they are now in that sense.

I feel pretty neutral about individual policies, including these. My attitude is, “he who lives by policy and procedure dies by policy and procedure.” However, until we no longer need them, I do like that we have them much more than not having them, though I like not having to need them even more than that. I do wish you well in resolving your issues with not liking the policy (either one, former or current).

Share this post


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

I would hardly characterize my comments as apologetics. My sincere apologies to all the apologists!

 

“Apostasy” as used in the former policy, and still included in the published Handbook, applied to members in a ssm. As you know, this designation was dropped for disciplinary purposes according to recent training announcements, and I expect that will be reflected in a future Handbook edition.

 

We can go around and around as to whether the policy declares/declared the partners in love (but last word: it doesn’t – I just had to get that point in there). Talk about playing with words!

 

I think you would also agree that “welcome” also covers inviting and accepting anyone who joins us for any event, activity, ordinance, etc. to the extent he is able, with or without a record. That is how I took you to use it, at least initially. Note that the former policy allowed that the children of “cgccs” may receive the ordinances under certain conditions, so policy-wise they were as just welcome then as they are now in that sense.

 

I feel pretty neutral about individual policies, including these. My attitude is, “he who lives by policy and procedure dies by policy and procedure.” However, until we no longer need them, I do like that we have them much more than not having them, though I like not having to need them even more than that. I do wish you well in resolving your issues with not liking the policy (either one, former or current).

 

You didn’t bother to answer my question.  I can’t dialogue with people who won’t converse.  And your lack of an answer shows how weak your position is.  You have to rely on twisting words so much that a simple question to you can’t be answered in a straightforward way. 

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, california boy said:

When did TBM become a slur?  I always thought it meant someone who was extremely faithful.  What do you think it means

It most definitely can be used as a slur--it depends on the context and the poster.  And, I must admit that when I read that post where you used it, my first reaction was to interpret it negatively.  I realize you did not mean it that way, but there's the problem, it CAN be used and interpreted as a slur, so it's problematic these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

To my mind, the "big trouble" (whatever that means) is just this-worldly and evenescent.  We all fail in some respects, some more than others, but this does not excuse us from our need to be courageous.  Nathan could conceivably be in big trouble in denouncing kingly sin, but he doesn't allow that to dissuade him.  He says what has to be said, and lets the chips fall where they may.  Orson Pratt did the same.  A categorical imperative.  In the event, the king realizes his guilt and repents.  What's not to like?  On the other hand, if they burn the prophet alive (Abinadi), well he told the truth and did what he had to do, just like his eternal Lord and Master.  We are all obligated to tell the truth as we see it regardless of consequences.

If you are talking about courage and obligation despite human foibles, I think the Brethren told the truth (and if you want to use your qualifier, as they saw it) by means of the policy, its 2015 roll-out, and in its current form and faced the consequences, which I’m sure were both positive and negative. This of course puts them on equal footing with those who can be portrayed as courageous and meeting their moral obligation for opposing it. Truth is subjective, right? Thus my question was, given that we’re all pretty much in the same big trouble (using your term and as you described it), do we have some examples of anyone telling the Brethren why they oppose it, and to change it, in humility and without the spirit of contention? We see many examples to the contrary on this board when this topic comes up. Or was it just life going on for the 3- ½ year period, wherein the truth as they saw it under a new set of needs and circumstances gradually dawned on them, as revelation often does prior to obtaining confirmation for a decision as to what to do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You didn’t bother to answer my question.  I can’t dialogue with people who won’t converse.  And your lack of an answer shows how weak your position is.  You have to rely on twisting words so much that a simple question to you can’t be answered in a straightforward way. 

Did I not answer it here? Posted 32 minutes ago

Your question: "... suppose we have two male members of the church who love one another.  They choose to marry and live together.  Under the policy, is this considered apostasy?  This isn't rhetorical, if you reply, I'd appreciate an answer. "

My answer: “Apostasy” as used in the former policy, and still included in the published Handbook, applied to members in a ssm. As you know, this designation was dropped for disciplinary purposes according to recent training announcements, and I expect that will be reflected in a future Handbook edition."

Seems straightforward to me. Is this better: Yes, “Apostasy” as used in the former policy, and still included in the published Handbook, applied to members in a ssm. As you know, this designation was dropped for disciplinary purposes according to recent training announcements, and I expect that will be reflected in a future Handbook edition.

Or is this better: "No, the current policy as explained by Elder Oaks does not use the term apostasy as it did before for disciplinary purposes, for members in a ssm.

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...