Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[CV75]

Everything's opinion. In this case, the fact that the FP needed to issue a clarifying letter - a letter specifically addressing the issues of joint custody and children who are already baptized but not yet ordained - shows definitively that the policy was not clearly written in the first instance. If it had been clear, there would have been no need for clarification. 

http://www.mormonnew...ng-the-handbook

Note in the link how the policy was written for a narrow set of intended recipients (lay leaders). I’d say the contextual understanding of the uninitiated was far more problematic than the language of the policy:

 

“One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Sensitivity to individual circumstances is learned through the Spirit, Christ’s teachings and example as found in the scriptures, from talks and teachings of General Authorities, and from the leaders’ own experience and exposure to real-life situations.  No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance.”

 

“Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.”

 

I didn’t quote the other paragraphs about the other problems.

[jwhitlock]

http://www.mormonnew...ng-the-handbook

Note in the link how the policy was written for a narrow set of intended recipients (lay leaders). I’d say the contextual understanding of the uninitiated was far more problematic than the language of the policy:

 

“One difficulty was a general lack of understanding of the Handbook itself, which is a guide for lay leaders of the church in 30,000 congregations across the world. A purpose of the Handbook is to provide bishops and other leaders with a standard reference point when they make decisions. Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Sensitivity to individual circumstances is learned through the Spirit, Christ’s teachings and example as found in the scriptures, from talks and teachings of General Authorities, and from the leaders’ own experience and exposure to real-life situations.  No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance.”

 

“Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.”

 

I didn’t quote the other paragraphs about the other problems.

 

Quite a number of us church members who aren't lay leaders were able to readily understand the probably context of the policy, and properly predict how it would be carried out. This was because we have taken the time to understand the overall direction of where the church was headed, and how the policy itself fit consistently within that direction.

 

The church has sent out letters with clarifications to the handbook before, IIRC.

 

There are those who are still going to want to stone the church on this. That's to be expected. However, it doesn't have to be respected.

[Buckeye]

Don't have much experience with law do you?

 

Huge difference between laws and policy

 

I am currently preparing for a trial right now.   

 

The policies of respondent have no bearing at all on legality of what the respondent did.

 

The actual law does.  It is important to know the difference.

 

Congratulations. I'm happy to put my trial experience against yours any day. I don't know the particulars of your case (probably shouldn't be discussed here), but corporate policies certainly can create legal obligations in many contexts. And principles of statutory interpretation can often been brought in to understand a corporate policy. The "plain language" of a policy matters. And here the plain language would encompass children with a gay parent in a SS relationship even though their hetero mother had a 100% custody. The clarification changes this (thankfully). Therefore, the policy was obviously poorly written.

 

Next time, please turn the snark off. Thanks.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Though I seriously doubt this was the original intention of the policy and not a backpedal in the face of the reaction, even this clarification still does not address many of the main concerns people are having. Kids still have to choose between their faith and their family and move out at 18 (assuming they have the money), children of parents with 50-50 custody have no primary residence, the comparison to polygamy and Muslims/Israel is still insufficient, transgender issues are not addressed, there is still a lack of comparable concern and consequences for extremely serious heterosexual sins, baptism is still being downplayed despite the grandfather clause, the child's agency is still being curtailed for ten years, there will still necessarily be inquiries into the sexual relationships of the parents of young members and potential converts, the wording of the actual policy is still so unclear that unless the handbook itself is updated there will inevitably be local leaders who enforce the harsher version, etc., etc..  

This is still not about protecting the kids, and the policy is still wrong. 

[CV75]

Though I seriously doubt this was the original intention of the policy and not a backpedal in the face of the reaction, even this clarification still does not address many of the main concerns people are having.

I think the best thing for them to do is discuss their particular concerns with their local leader.

[jwhitlock]

Though I seriously doubt this was the original intention of the policy and not a backpedal in the face of the reaction, even this clarification still does not address many of the main concerns people are having. Kids still have to choose between their faith and their family and move out at 18 (assuming they have the money), children of parents with 50-50 custody have no primary residence, the comparison to polygamy and Muslims/Israel is still insufficient, transgender issues are not addressed, there is still a lack of comparable concern and consequences for extremely serious heterosexual sins, baptism is still being downplayed despite the grandfather clause, the child's agency is still being curtailed for ten years, there will still necessarily be inquiries into the sexual relationships of the parents of young members and potential converts, the wording of the actual policy is still so unclear that unless the handbook itself is updated there will inevitably be local leaders who enforce the harsher version, etc., etc..  

This is still not about protecting the kids, and the policy is still wrong. 

 

Here's the first pitchfork. Who's next?

 

The bolded claim above is so inaccurate that it calls into question all of the other claims made.

[CV75]

Quite a number of us church members who aren't lay leaders were able to readily understand the probably context of the policy, and properly predict how it would be carried out. This was because we have taken the time to understand the overall direction of where the church was headed, and how the policy itself fit consistently within that direction.

 

The church has sent out letters with clarifications to the handbook before, IIRC.

 

There are those who are still going to want to stone the church on this. That's to be expected. However, it doesn't have to be respected.

Its leak to the "uninitiated" left it open for them to misunderstand it since they are not familiar with the workings of the handbook, take too much stock in unreliable sources, don't understand the the direction of the Church, etc. The timing of the September Ensign article on the Handbook is interesting to me in that people who read it (or already understood the principles it taught) would have had an advantage over those who didn't and may have been able to prevent being unnecessarily offended.

Edited November 13, 2015 by CV75

[CV75]

Here's the first pitchfork. Who's next?

I'd like to hear someone blame the Church for almost making them resign over this.

[Ron]

If the new clarification was what was originally intended then why did not Christopherson just set the record straight during his first clarification?

[Thinking]

Tens upon tens, surely.

 

You need to read your own scriptures before you mock the number of people that are resigning.

 

D&C 18:15-16

 

Matthew 18:11-13

Edited November 13, 2015 by Thinking

[volgadon]

Though I seriously doubt this was the original intention of the policy and not a backpedal in the face of the reaction, even this clarification still does not address many of the main concerns people are having. Kids still have to choose between their faith and their family and move out at 18 (assuming they have the money), children of parents with 50-50 custody have no primary residence, the comparison to polygamy and Muslims/Israel is still insufficient, transgender issues are not addressed, there is still a lack of comparable concern and consequences for extremely serious heterosexual sins, baptism is still being downplayed despite the grandfather clause, the child's agency is still being curtailed for ten years, there will still necessarily be inquiries into the sexual relationships of the parents of young members and potential converts, the wording of the actual policy is still so unclear that unless the handbook itself is updated there will inevitably be local leaders who enforce the harsher version, etc., etc..  

This is still not about protecting the kids, and the policy is still wrong.

The bit about Muslims/Israel is not insufficient, it is disingenuous.

[MiserereNobis]

You need to read your own scriptures before you mock the number of people that are resigning.

 

D&C 18:15-16

 

Matthew 18:11-13

 

Good point.  As Christians, we should strive after souls, even if it is just one.  We shouldn't say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out."  I imagine such words (or thoughts) might come back to haunt us at  judgement day:  "Then He shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me."

[volgadon]

I still don't particularly care for the policy, but the clarification helps.

[Ron]

I still don't particularly care for the policy, but the clarification helps.

 

I agree it helps, but it has already caused harm and will continue to cause harm to families :-(

[carbon dioxide]

The revision is a lot better but it still should be consistent across the board to also to the children of heterosexual couples who are not married.  Also I still do understand why its ok for children of gay couples who have already been baptized can continue but future children can not?  If current children are able to be ok with the situation, why not future kids who are not yet baptized?  I think this policy will be revised again in the future when the Church sees that SSM children can live the standards of the Church and the teachings of the Church while in a SSM home.  The problem is with the parents, not the kids.

[BlueDreams]

If the new clarification was what was originally intended then why did not Christopherson just set the record straight during his first clarification?

I got the sense when I first watched it that it was meant for children primarily raised. It was a blindspot that probably would have been fixed before it became public knowledge by collecting info from the SP. Unfortunately rumor and mass hysteria won out as people hypothesized the worse case scenarios.

 

Personally this was what I was expecting would happen and was hoping for. So my main issue/concern is rectified and I'm at a personal peace/relief about it.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[carbon dioxide]

I knew a clarification would come and this is almost exactly what I thought it would say.

Let's see how many still show up to the mass resignaton event.

Many of them still will show up.  Very few people who have been active in the Church all their life and were strong members suddenly change everything on one day with a policy like this.  They might question and seek more understanding but they just don't turn around and leave.  I would predict the majority have been inactive for years and just have not gone through the process of resigning.  This is an opportunity to make their statement of sorts and get it done.  A few active but doubting members will be in this group.  They have been questioning a lot of things and have not got the answer for whatever reason. The policy change simply was the last straw but even with this revision they are gone. 

[Gray]

Everything's opinion. In this case, the fact that the FP needed to issue a clarifying letter - a letter specifically addressing the issues of joint custody and children who are already baptized but not yet ordained - shows definitively that the policy was not clearly written in the first instance. If it had been clear, there would have been no need for clarification. 

 

This is quite a dramatic change from the policy as it was written. It's a change for the better, and will affect fewer children. It still affects some children, so it is still problematic. But much improved

[Buckeye]

The revision is a lot better but it still should be consistent across the board to also to the children of heterosexual couples who are not married.  Also I still do understand why its ok for children of gay couples who have already been baptized can continue but future children can not?  If current children are able to be ok with the situation, why not future kids who are not yet baptized?  I think this policy will be revised again in the future when the Church sees that SSM children can live the standards of the Church and the teachings of the Church while in a SSM home.  The problem is with the parents, not the kids.

 

FWIW, I can see exceptions being allowed for families where older children are already baptized/ordained, but younger ones have not yet reached 8.

[jwhitlock]

I still don't particularly care for the policy, but the clarification helps.

 

Which part? That those in SSM relationships are living contrary to the gospel and are subject to discipline?

[Gray]

Dehlin is shameless in his need to stay relevant to the news media, and he threw a whole bunch of people under the bus trying to feed that need.

I'm not going to blame the church for the mess he created. Expecting private communication to remain private is not at all unreasonable.

 

But the mess was due to the contents of the handboook, which have been significantly changed by the new letter. 

[Ron]

I got the sense when I first watched it that it was meant for children primarily raised. It was a blindspot that probably would have been fixed before it became public knowledge by collecting info from the SP. Unfortunately rumor and mass hysteria won out as people hypothesized the worse case scenarios.

 

Personally this was what I was expecting would happen and was hoping for. So my main issue/concern is rectified and I'm at a personal peace/relief about it.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Blindspot?  The first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the policy was the children of the divorced gay parent in our ward! None of the apostles or prophet or seventies were able to see what was so obvious?

[Ron]

I got the sense when I first watched it that it was meant for children primarily raised. It was a blindspot that probably would have been fixed before it became public knowledge by collecting info from the SP. Unfortunately rumor and mass hysteria won out as people hypothesized the worse case scenarios.

 

Personally this was what I was expecting would happen and was hoping for. So my main issue/concern is rectified and I'm at a personal peace/relief about it.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

It is obvious to anyone but a true believer that the clarification was done in reaction to the mass amount of backlash from active, fringe and non members.

 

Do not insult those who disagree with you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Blindspot?  The first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the policy was the children of the divorced gay parent in our ward! None of the apostles or prophet or seventies were able to see what was so obvious?

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the brethren that they did not intend this, but the wording of the policy is very clear. They have no one to blame but themselves for the misinterpretations.  Certainly not John Dehlin (who received the same document from three different sources). If he didn't leak it someone else would have. 

[carbon dioxide]

Which part? That those in SSM relationships are living contrary to the gospel and are subject to discipline?

Yes and that never has been an issue.  The question is should children also be disciplined as well for the actions of the parents?  I think every case should be handled differently according to the situation.  In some situations, it might not be good for a child to be baptized before 18.  In other situations it might be.  It depends if the parents accept the fact that the Church has its views and will not change them.  As long as the parents accept it and are willing to allow the child to have those views, what is the problem?