The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That's why scrutiny and push back are so important. It makes the church better, not worseOr it makes useless people feel important, one of the two.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Prophecy is sometimes rare so it is refreshing to see someone still practicing it. OD III Or maybe by then it'll be OD XI
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Or it makes useless people feel important, one of the two. Are you upset by today's policy change? You seemed to support the first version. I would think this version would address most of the concerns of orthodox/conservative members 4
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 this assumes no one would have piped up or asked a question. That's what I took as Bluebell's assumption. I agree, if not Dehlin someone else in this case.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Or it makes useless people feel important, one of the two. Time to stop seeing people as useless, the Nehor. There was use for the very people you are want to complain about. We just saw their use. Edited November 13, 2015 by stemelbow 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Also this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook If there’s one thing that virtually all Christians agree on, it’s Jesus Christ’s tender love of children. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon deliver touching accounts of His love for “little ones,” blessing them and forbidding His disciples from keeping children from Him. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the family is reverenced and children are its centerpiece. Yet last week an instructional letter from Church leadership addressing the sensitive topic of how to respond to same-sex relationships sparked a wave of inquiries from Church members. Most of the questions were about children. Because the letter was an instructional document to leadership throughout the world, and not a Church-wide announcement through LDS.org or through Church Public Affairs, there was no additional information or context on the usual Church websites. That prompted questions from many Church members, who were mostly reading media headlines portraying the instructions as a rejection of children and refusal to name babies. Members understandably had specific questions about how the announced change might affect their loved ones.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. Today, a letter clarifying what the Handbook changes mean and do not mean has been posted on the primary Church website, LDS.org.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.Here are the key points to understand as background to the recent changes and additions to the leaders’ Handbook: It is not a sin simply to feel attraction to another person of the same sex. Some faithful members of the Church experience those attractions yet participate in the Church without breaking the Lord’s commandments. They serve missions and attend the temple. The Church teaches its members to embrace these brothers and sisters and encourage them in their faithful lives in the Church.There is no change in the doctrinal position that sexual relations between people of the same sex is sinful.There is new information in the Handbook that addresses a narrow range of situations involving the children of same-sex couples. With same-sex marriage now legal in the United States and some other nations, the Church felt the need specifically to address such marriages in the Handbook to draw a firm line and encourage consistency among local leaders. In particular, Church leaders are concerned for children–whether biologically born to one of the partners, adopted or medically conceived. In reality, very few same-sex couples would bring children for the formal Church ordinance of naming and blessing, since this creates a formal membership record. But Church leaders want to avoid putting little children in a potential tug-of-war between same-sex couples at home and teachings and activities at church.This sensitivity to family circumstances is practiced elsewhere. For example, the Church doesn’t baptize minor children without parental consent, even if the children want to be associated with their LDS friends. A married man or woman isn’t baptized if the spouse objects. Missionaries don’t proselytize in most Muslim countries or in Israel, where there are particular sensitivities with family. In some African and other nations where polygamy is practiced, anyone whose parents practice polygamy needs special permission for baptism so they know that a practice that is culturally acceptable for many in the region is not acceptable in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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.The vast majority of Church members understand that there has been no doctrinal change with regard to LGBT issues. Church doctrine is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is a strong tendency today for many to talk of Jesus Christ as if His teachings on love were somehow inconsistent with his teachings on divine commandments. Of course the Savior’s love was never withheld from anyone and His words on the cross exemplify that. But, He also expressed love by teaching clear doctrine and standing firmly against sin with sometimes-tough lessons for which people rejected Him. That is where Church leaders stand today – holding firm to the doctrinal position of right and wrong, while extending love to all people. Church members who believe in modern prophets and apostles understand and appreciate the intent of their leaders to guide the Church through the complexities of diverse societies and rapidly changing social circumstances.calm(oriah), a suggestion: Edit your post to put the material in a quote field to make clear it is a copy-and-paste of Otterson's statement, not your own commentary. Of course, that immediately becomes clear when clicking on the link, but there might be some initial confusion with some.
Mars Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That's what I took as Bluebell's assumption. I agree, if not Dehlin someone else in this case. maybe an actual bishop.
Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted November 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) As someone who would know (trust me, I do), this was the original intent. Was it poorly written, probably, but this was its intent. To claim otherwise you are basically calling the brethren liars. I am not okay with that. Edited November 13, 2015 by Mystery Meat 7
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 maybe an actual bishop.Not sure but I believe Dehlin claimed he had it comfirmed by various bishop's before he went public with it. So, we can already say that some were in on it and seemingly upset with the Church over it.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Not sure but I believe Dehlin claimed he had it comfirmed by various bishop's before he went public with it. So, we can already say that some were in on it and seemingly upset with the Church over it.What was it that they confirmed to him? That the new policy was issued or that they were upset over it? Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 As someone who would know (trust me, I do), this was the original intent. Was it poorly written, probably, but this was its intent. To claim otherwise you are basically calling the brethren liars. I am not okay with that. It could not have been the original intent and the brethren not be liars at all. They didn't say in the clarification that it was the original intent. 1
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted November 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 13, 2015 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.You've got to be kidding. You're blaming Dehlin for causing the pain? Absolutely absurd. Let me refresh you on the timeline. The church likely spent months preparing this new policy. The brethren released the updated policy to the CH1. The policy stated it was for "immediate" implementation. Dehlin leaked the policy that had already been made available to thousands of church leaders. And it's Dehlin's fault? Either the church was inept at writing and rolling out a policy that didn't really say what they intended OR they totally miscalculated the reaction to the original policy as intended. Neither inspires much confidence. 6
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 What was it that the confirmed to him? That the new policy was issued or that they were upset over it? Not sure. I believe he suggested he reached out to some friend's he knew to be bishop's to confirm the policy change was in the handbook before he went public with it. I only assumed since his bishop friend's told him about it they were unhappy about the policy change themselves. But to confirm that I'd have to go back and listen to his podcast from the other day. Not sure I'm up for it now.
Mystery Meat Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 It could not have been the original intent and the brethren not be liars at all. They didn't say in the clarification that it was the original intent. How about this: I can give you a 100% guarantee that this was the original intent. Full stop. 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 How about this: I can give you a 100% guarantee that this was the original intent. Full stop. Great. Now if only I had more than your word on it.... 2
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 As someone who would know (trust me, I do), this was the original intent. Was it poorly written, probably, but this was its intent. To claim otherwise you are basically calling the brethren liars. I am not okay with that. I didn't see where they are claiming that the clarification was the original intent. The wording of the original doesn't mesh with the clarification today 2
HappyJackWagon Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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 scaryHow do you explain the ineptitude?If you said something of such import and were misunderstood by people you care about, would you wait an entire week to figure out how to correct the misunderstanding? 4
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I predict that those most vocal critics this past week will not be assuaged.It didn't take long for that prediction to be fulfilled. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 So what will those who've announced their resignations do? Say "never mind"? Or will identifying gay marriage as an act of apostasy be enough all by itself? 1
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 It didn't take long for that prediction to be fulfilled. Yeah...I gotta say everyone would be better off without a policy at all. But the clarification is surely better than what it was as originally written. It'd been nice if, when E. Christofferson talked about it, he added the clarifications, but those didn't seem to be thought of until later. After all the commotion. That's kind of an interesting thought. Tons of people could have ideas that should and could influence leadership thinking and policy. I hope they learn from this and listen even more--not that they don't listen at all. But I think more could help. 4
Mystery Meat Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Great. Now if only I had more than your word on it.... Yeah, I know. I wish that too. Sadly, I can't reveal more. But what I say is truth.
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 How do you explain the ineptitude? If you said something of such import and were misunderstood by people you care about, would you wait an entire week to figure out how to correct the misunderstanding? Only if you needed time to re-craft the parts you didn't realize were going to be so problematic. Oh wait...
volgadon Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I agree it helps, but it has already caused harm and will continue to cause harm to families :-(Agreed.
Mystery Meat Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Yeah...I gotta say everyone would be better off without a policy at all. But the clarification is surely better than what it was as originally written.It'd been nice if, when E. Christofferson talked about it, he added the clarifications, but those didn't seem to be thought of until later. After all the commotion.That's kind of an interesting thought. Tons of people could have ideas that should and could influence leadership thinking and policy. I hope they learn from this and listen even more--not that they don't listen at all. But I think more could help. You know you can shout it to the sky for as long you want, but just because you think this was not the original intent, does not make it so. 3
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 So what will those who've announced their resignations do? Say "never mind"? Or will identifying gay marriage as an act of apostasy be enough all by itself? The policy is still bad enough, no doubt. If the policy was stricken from the record I'd imagine some of the resignations will try and come back.
Recommended Posts