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

[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

 

I am glad the policy has been clarified but to believe that this is what was meant all along insults my intelligence.

[Mars]

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.

 

oh please.  your ascribed intent and motive is a reflection of how you see the church and its leadership.  not how they really are.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Mars

[carbon dioxide]

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?

That all depends on how much time as spent discussing the issues and how many were involved.  If it was not an issue that was discussed in much depth or a fast decision, things like that would get missed.  It is impossible to know and they probably will never tell us how much time went in on it before hand.

Edited November 13, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Ron]

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. 

 

I agree and I don't think the new clarification addresses the reason they are resigning.  Its the policy as a whole.  Just because some of the children that would have been harmed now will not be doesn't lessen the anger over a policy that already has and will continue to cause harm to gay families.

[Mars]

volgadon, please clear a spot in your inbox for a PM.

[CV75]

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.

That is like saying, "It is obvious to anyone but a backlasher that the lesson on reliable information and portrayals, proper context, and making sound conclusions was provided in reaction to their faulty approach to the matter."

[carbon dioxide]

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.

I would agree that it was done as are result by members and local leaders.  I don't think the church cares as much about non-members.  Policy or not, they still would be non-members and the church gains little catering to them.

[JAHS]

I am glad the policy has been clarified but to believe that this is what was meant all along insults my intelligence.

Do you actually believe they did not anticipate these questions that the clarification covers when they were making up the new policy? Now you are insulting their intelligence.  The policy was meant for bishops and stake presidents as a basis for gay marriage situations. Of course there will be clarifications needed and advice for the many unique situations that are bound to come up. 

[The Nehor]

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.

And I seriously doubt this isn't you projecting your own weaselly ways onto Church leaders.

[The Nehor]

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.

Oh hooray. Yet another weasel projecting their own back pedaling ways on the Brethren.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

Any thoughts on why it took them a week to release a statement about the real concerns? I mean, if the policy was so wildly misunderstood in the breadth of its application it would have been very simple for the leadership to quickly come out and say "wait. No. It only applies to kids currently living in SSM home over 50% of the time and does not impact those who have already received ordinances."

 

Instead, it took a week for them to understand what the problem was and make a change. And that's assuming it was all just a misunderstanding of a poorly written policy. The church did well to walk this back a bit but so much damage has already been done AND the application to SSM children is still problematic.

 

 

The episode demonstrates clearly the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information. The Church quickly responded to many of those concerns with a video interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. By the end of the weekend, that interview had been viewed by millions. 

Christofferson didn't really address any of my concerns in his message so it took a week for them to tell us how we were incapable of reading their carefully worded policy. They're blaming us for not being smart enough to understand what was written. That is poor taste. They also downplay and dismiss the dissent as misunderstanding of new headlines as if we didn't all poor over the details of the policy as written. So this is a classic non-apology, apology. "I'm sorry you weren't smart enough to understand me correctly."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Do you actually believe they did not anticipate these questions that the clarification covers when they were making up the new policy? Now you are insulting their intelligence.  The policy was meant for bishops and stake presidents as a basis for gay marriage situations. Of course there will be clarifications needed and advice for the many unique situations that are bound to come up. 

This was less of a clarification and more of a re-write.

[Ron]

Do you actually believe they did not anticipate these questions that the clarification covers when they were making up the new policy? Now you are insulting their intelligence.  The policy was meant for bishops and stake presidents as a basis for gay marriage situations. Of course there will be clarifications needed and advice for the many unique situations that are bound to come up. 

 

My intelligence is insulted!  The policy was effective immediately! Had there not been backlash how long and how many children/families would have been harmed before the clarifications would have been released?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Ron

[HappyJackWagon]

Do you actually believe they did not anticipate these questions that the clarification covers when they were making up the new policy? Now you are insulting their intelligence.  The policy was meant for bishops and stake presidents as a basis for gay marriage situations. Of course there will be clarifications needed and advice for the many unique situations that are bound to come up. 

If they did, they sure sucked at providing clarification. If they really understood the problem and waited an entire week to release a correction then they clearly weren't concerned about the level of damage and hurt amongst the members over the past week.

 

IF it was all a misunderstanding it wouldn't take them a week to provide clarification. (NO- Elder Christoffersons video didn't clarify much of anything).

 

More likely, the policy was intended the way it was written. They underestimated the backlash. They became concerned by the level of angst and decided to walk it back in a way that they could save most face.

[Gray]

This is a clarification that significantly alters the original policy. That should be obvious no matter how you felt about the original version, yes?

[HappyJackWagon]

I'll add that I hope to see a rewritten policy. In other words, if that policy that caused so much contention and angst because of its sloppy language remains in the handbook as written, not much has changed. I want to see the rewritten policy and hope they get it right this time.

[stemelbow]

Awesome! I always assumed and hoped such clarification was coming.

Looks like Dehlin caused a lot of hurt and pain that was completely unnecessary by leaking the policy change before the brethren were ready to ask bishops to put it into practice.

I'm not exactly a fan of Dehlin either. But I don't see him as a cause of pain and hurt in this. Indeed, if this policy never saw the light of day think how individual bishops and leaders might have seen this? It might have actually caused far more damage. Now that it was made public, the Church felt it necessary to clarify, which is really a rewrite but that's ok. That's a good thing.

[Storm Rider]

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. 

 

That and if people would have been patient rather than having their brains explode unnecessarily there would have been no problems for anyone - NOTHING HAPPENED.  Still nothing has happened.  The only thing that has been clarified is that individuals who lead an active gay lifestyle will be excommunicated.  Surely there is not a single LDS that is surprised at that?  

 

The policy was not for the membership.  The policy was for leaders and would have required training.  Since almost zero time had elapsed and no training had taken place, nothing occurred except in the minds of those who were desperate to be offended.  You get what you look for in life.  

 

Much ado about nothing. 

[stemelbow]

I'll add that I hope to see a rewritten policy. In other words, if that policy that caused so much contention and angst because of its sloppy language remains in the handbook as written, not much has changed. I want to see the rewritten policy and hope they get it right this time.

I'd rather see it stricken completely, re-write and all. Everyone is better off without any such policy change regarding homosexuals. Of course one day we'll see the Church going back on their idea of homosexual relations being a sin anyway.

[Mars]

I'm not exactly a fan of Dehlin either. But I don't see him as a cause of pain and hurt in this. Indeed, if this policy never saw the light of day think how individual bishops and leaders might have seen this? It might have actually caused far more damage. Now that it was made public, the Church felt it necessary to clarify, which is really a rewrite but that's ok. That's a good thing.

 

this assumes no one would have piped up or asked a question.

[The Nehor]

If they did, they sure sucked at providing clarification. If they really understood the problem and waited an entire week to release a correction then they clearly weren't concerned about the level of damage and hurt amongst the members over the past week.

 

IF it was all a misunderstanding it wouldn't take them a week to provide clarification. (NO- Elder Christoffersons video didn't clarify much of anything).

 

More likely, the policy was intended the way it was written. They underestimated the backlash. They became concerned by the level of angst and decided to walk it back in a way that they could save most face.

Those poor apostles huddled in a dark room being eviscerated by the media staring in wide-eyed fear at each other wringing their hands and wondering how they are going to recover from this tragedy.

- what humans who are allowed to vote and drive actually think happened, kind of scary

[Storm Rider]

My intelligence is insulted!  The policy was effective immediately! Had there not been backlash how long and how many children/families would have been harmed before the clarifications would have been released?

 

Obviously zero.  Why would you think otherwise?

[The Nehor]

I'd rather see it stricken completely, re-write and all. Everyone is better off without any such policy change regarding homosexuals. Of course one day we'll see the Church going back on their idea of homosexual relations being a sin anyway.

Prophecy is sometimes rare so it is refreshing to see someone still practicing it.

Edited November 13, 2015 by The Nehor

[Gray]

I'm not exactly a fan of Dehlin either. But I don't see him as a cause of pain and hurt in this. Indeed, if this policy never saw the light of day think how individual bishops and leaders might have seen this? It might have actually caused far more damage. Now that it was made public, the Church felt it necessary to clarify, which is really a rewrite but that's ok. That's a good thing.

 

That's why scrutiny and push back are so important. It makes the church better, not worse

[Mars]

Those poor apostles huddled in a dark room being eviscerated by the media staring in wide-eyed fear at each other wringing their hands and wondering how they are going to recover from this tragedy.

- what humans who are allowed to vote and drive actually think happened, kind of scary

 

and their passing the candy they stole from babies back and forth