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

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

No, you didn't.  It was a yes or no question.

And then you went on to further twist what I had said.

It's interesting that you claim to be neutral on the policy and yet you can't seem to answer the question.  What bothers you about the fact that a loving gay couple was deemed to be in apostasy by the policy?  Why, when the "l" word is inserted do you have to recoil from direct responses?  Is it hard for you to admit that the policy did that to loving, committed same gender couples?

You may think that's not a relevant point, but for me it is.  And if you read the 4-April statement by President Oaks, I think it turned about to be important to the Lord and our prophet and apostles as well.

Quote

In addition, our members’ efforts to show more understanding, compassion and love should increase respect and understanding among all people of goodwill. We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

Well considered.  And, of course, it does depend on your point of view.  Leaders don't like "obtuse" comments from the wings, but many of them are humble enough to accept it anyhow.  Pres Eyring, for example, tells the story of his mistaken advice as bishop, when later (confronted by one who rejected his advice) he realized his error of judgment.  So too, Hugh Nibley was a very harsh social critic here in Provo, often taking favorite Church culture to task openly and publicly.  There were fellow faculty who hated him.  Nibley asked the Brethren if he should keep quiet, and they said No, by no means.  One man's spirit of contention is another man's honesty.  Here on this board, the mods try to maintain decorum.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 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

In my experience, and where most often see it used, it is used to disparage or otherwise as a slur against the person against whom it is used. 

The use of it was unnecessary, in my opinion, in your post. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, provoman said:

In my experience, and where most often see it used, it is used to disparage or otherwise as a slur against the person against whom it is used. 

The use of it was unnecessary, in my opinion, in your post. 

I've never thought of it as a slur.  Doesn't it mean "true believing Mormon"?  Or does it have a different meaning?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just wondering if we're all on the same page:  TBM stands for True Believing Mormon, right?

As I said earlier, if people don't like being labeled as TBM, that is sufficient reason for me not to use it (and I typically don't).  But seeing it referred to as a "slur" made me wonder if we are all in agreement on what the acronym is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

Just wondering if we're all on the same page:  TBM stands for True Believing Mormon, right?

As I said earlier, if people don't like being labeled as TBM, that is sufficient reason for me not to use it (and I typically don't).  But seeing it referred to as a "slur" made me wonder if we are all in agreement on what the acronym is.

Go hang out on exmormon reddit for a while ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Go hang out on exmormon reddit for a while ;)

I'd really rather not. :)

But, are you saying that they have other definitions for the acronym?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Go hang out on exmormon reddit for a while ;)

I'm pretty sure even just the word "Mormon" is used pejoratively there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, provoman said:

In my experience, and where most often see it used, it is used to disparage or otherwise as a slur against the person against whom it is used. 

The use of it was unnecessary, in my opinion, in your post. 

Maybe just take california boy at his word.  No offense was meant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

No, you didn't.  It was a yes or no question.

And then you went on to further twist what I had said.

It's interesting that you claim to be neutral on the policy and yet you can't seem to answer the question.  What bothers you about the fact that a loving gay couple was deemed to be in apostasy by the policy?  Why, when the "l" word is inserted do you have to recoil from direct responses?  Is it hard for you to admit that the policy did that to loving, committed same gender couples?

You may think that's not a relevant point, but for me it is.  And if you read the 4-April statement by President Oaks, I think it turned about to be important to the Lord and our prophet and apostles as well.

 

You certainly see them as yes/no questions with yes/no answers, and that this is appropriate for the conversation and dialogue, but I do not. I find yes/no approaches to undermine understanding, compassion, love, respect, and optimism and thus feed the hate and contention so common today.

So I don’t judge people’s love, and I don’t take the policy to do so. “Apostasy” was applied to the individuals engaged in a ssm whether they loved their spouse or not. I explained that a couple of times I think. This neutrality now carries into in the new policy with regards to “serious transgression,” which I take as a measure of a good policy. Elder Oaks’ remarks seem to follow suit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So I don’t judge people’s love, and I don’t take the policy to do so. “Apostasy” was applied to the individuals engaged in a ssm whether they loved their spouse or not. 

 

I wasn't asking you to judge people's love.  What a ridiculous statement.  I was asking you to support your claim that I was misrepresenting the policy.  Through far more posts than were necessary you made it clear to me that you just like to play little semantic games since here, in the end, you admit that SSM couples that love one another are guilty of apostasy per the policy.  Which is what I had stated in the beginning and you claimed was a misrepresentation.

Is it enjoyable for you to turn the discussion board into this?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Well considered.  And, of course, it does depend on your point of view.  Leaders don't like "obtuse" comments from the wings, but many of them are humble enough to accept it anyhow.  Pres Eyring, for example, tells the story of his mistaken advice as bishop, when later (confronted by one who rejected his advice) he realized his error of judgment.  So too, Hugh Nibley was a very harsh social critic here in Provo, often taking favorite Church culture to task openly and publicly.  There were fellow faculty who hated him.  Nibley asked the Brethren if he should keep quiet, and they said No, by no means.  One man's spirit of contention is another man's honesty.  Here on this board, the modes try to maintain decorum.

Yes, we each must govern ourselves. But I'm still wondering whether anyone can provide some examples of anyone telling the Brethren why they oppose the policy, and to change it, in humility and without the spirit of contention on this policy issue. I don't take the spirit of contention as a spirit of truth, honesty, love, etc., but to each their own; I'd still like some examples. I already know the Brethren can deal perfectly (oops, fallibly) well with all sorts of negativity and surprise (and I don't consider the guy in President Eyring's story or Hugh Nibley to have demonstrated the spirit of contention).

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't asking you to judge people's love.  What a ridiculous statement.  I was asking you to support your claim that I was misrepresenting the policy.  Through far more posts than were necessary you made it clear to me that you just like to play little semantic games since here, in the end, you admit that SSM couples that love one another are guilty of apostasy per the policy.  Which is what I had stated in the beginning and you claimed was a misrepresentation.

Is it enjoyable for you to turn the discussion board into this?

You seem overwrought.

Share this post


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

You seem overwrought.

Nope.  But I'll admit to being frustrated that I let you drag me through so many replies when in the end, you go on to state almost the same thing that you had claimed was misrepresenting the policy.

I'll take some solace in now realizing that you and I at least reached a point of agreement.

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nope.  But I'll admit to being frustrated that I let you drag me through so many replies when in the end, you go on to state almost the same thing that you had claimed was misrepresenting the policy.

I'll take some solace in now realizing that you and I at least reached a point of agreement.

You are welcome. Sometimes explaining the same thing in different ways helps.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You are welcome. Sometimes explaining the same thing in different ways helps.

No, that isn't what you did.  What you actually did is accuse me of misrepresenting the policy when I had not.  It was a childish move and I still don't understand why you even bothered.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, that isn't what you did.  What you actually did is accuse me of misrepresenting the policy when I had not.  It was a childish move and I still don't understand why you even bothered.

Accusing you of bad behavior and observing the accuracy of what you wrote are two very different things. CFR if you would like to review.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Accusing you of bad behavior and observing the accuracy of what you wrote are two very different things. CFR if you would like to review.

Not interested in your silly games.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not interested in your silly games.

I'm amazed you've remained so patient throughout this exchange!  You never did misrepresent the policy....not even a little.  

EVERYBODY get back on topic or the thread will be closed.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm amazed you've remained so patient throughout this exchange!  You never did misrepresent the policy....not even a little.  

He may not have misrepresented the policy as much as he framed it in a pretty negative way.  IMO, it was uncharitable towards the Prophet and Apostles responsible for the policy, but I guess for many others who did not take offense, it was not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, alter idem said:

He may not have misrepresented the policy as much as he framed it in a pretty negative way.  IMO, it was uncharitable towards the Prophet and Apostles responsible for the policy, but I guess for many others who did not take offense, it was not a problem.

I didn't see where he did that.  I thought it was a very honest assessment of the policy and the aftermath that led up to it being reversed.

But....time to move on :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

del - just saw the mods comment.  sorry.

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see where he did that.  I thought it was a very honest assessment of the policy and the aftermath that led up to it being reversed.

But....time to move on :) 

Well.....Time to move on was two pages ago, but that didn't happen; it was still being belabored, so I decided to share my views also.😀

You saw it as an 'honest assessment', I saw it as a harsh criticism.  We perceive things differently and that's why we don't interact with everyone 'liking' and agreeing on all points.

Share this post


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

How did I frame it negatively that made it uncharitable towards the Prophet and Apostles?

Is the idea here that we can't use language that humanizes those impacted by the policy in any way?

We should use such language and I encourage it. This is what you wrote:

    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.

---

And this is how I replied:

It seems to me that both the first and the second came from critics or the offended. Such statements demonstrate a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the policy that came from the Church's top leaders in the manner and for the purpose they said it did, as with the current status (as reported so far) as well. 

---

And this is my assessment of your sense that accused you: I did not say that you were either a critic or an offended saying both things. I said, “Such statements demonstrate a misunderstanding or misrepresentation …” It never was about you!

Accusing you of bad behavior and observing the accuracy of what you wrote are two very different things. I won't even stoop to suggest that you are playing silly games.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We should use such language and I encourage it. This is what you wrote:

    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.

---

And this is how I replied:

It seems to me that both the first and the second came from critics or the offended. Such statements demonstrate a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the policy that came from the Church's top leaders in the manner and for the purpose they said it did, as with the current status (as reported so far) as well. 

---

And this is my assessment of your sense that accused you: I did not say that you were either a critic or an offended saying both things. I said, “Such statements demonstrate a misunderstanding or misrepresentation …” It never was about you!

Accusing you of bad behavior and observing the accuracy of what you wrote are two very different things. I won't even stoop to suggest that you are playing silly games.

The statement I wrote did not misrepresent the policy.  And I wrote the statement, so it was about me.

  • Like 2

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...