The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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 membersNo, I do not care. The clarifications would have come whether sputtering people threw a fit online or not about a small insertion into a book they were not supposed to have access to in any case. And yet these people are deluded enough to imagine they are fulfilling some purpose. Are their lives that devoid of meaning or are these the same people who sign internet petitions and imagine they are changing the world?
stemelbow Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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. Haven't shouted yet. but I appreciate being given the green light.
HappyJackWagon 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.With due respect, your 100% guarantee that the policy meant what you hoped it meant doesn't change the fact that what has been clarified wasn't what was stated in the original policy. If it was a simple misunderstanding as you would seem to suggest, can you give me a 100% explanation about why it took a week to clear up? If it was a misunderstanding that would have been clarified quickly...easily. Maybe it was. I don't know. But you surely don't have a 100% guaranteed understanding of how this worked unless...Bednar...is that you? 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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.I can tell you from experience that a professional, responsible journalist would have reached out to the Church leadership directly to give them a chance to comment/clarify before publishing it. Not saying Dehlin is a professional, responsible journalist, or that I have any great expectations regarding his own ethics, but has anyone heard whether he tried to do that? 1
HappyJackWagon 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?Don't forget, this still impacts innocent children. Just not as many as originally expected. 3
Analytics Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) This clarification is a huge step towards the church being more internally consistent. I have to say, though, it is transparently disingenuous to call it clarifying the original policy rather than relaxing it. If the clarified policy really was the intention of the original policy, then 1- everybody who proof-read and approved of the original policy should be fired because it clearly said something different than what we now know was meant, and 2-Otterson and Christofferson would have provided those clarifications in their video interview. Edited November 13, 2015 by Analytics 4
Nofear Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 It didn't take long for that prediction to be fulfilled. No, no it didn't. Not long at all.
Meadowchik Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) But the mess was due to the contents of the handboook, which have been significantly changed by the new letter.That's not fair.John Dehlin shouted out misrepresentations of the policy as part of leaking it. This does not represent a good-faith relationship between Dehlin and those sincere questioners of the Church, nor between him and honesty itself.At least I know the First Presidency cares about those people, but it's clear that Dehlin does not; all indications are that his was a deliberate attempt to sensationalize the policy, cast aspersions on the Church, all the while sewing discontent among church members, families, and friends. Reportedly 4 suicides in Utah are attributed to this last week's leak and tensions. Assuming that's true, do you really believe those four people would have been as intensely affected by a quietly-rolled-out policy that was not sensationalised by Dehlin?I don't think so. This is the problem with those seeking to breed contention. They stir up anger, accusations, and counter-accusations and more people get hurt.There is a fundamental moral difference between a genuine, good-faith discussion about differences and deliberate sensationalism and misrepresentation.I'm mad. It's my turn now :/ Edited November 13, 2015 by Meadowchik 2
The Nehor 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?That was a thing of import? It was a small change in a handbook. If I was an apostle I probably would not notice unless someone told me and even then I might be traveling and figure correctly that it is a minor thing and I can deal with it later.The line in the handbook was unclear and I have no doubt they intended to clarify with letters later as questions popped up. Apostles are not the idiots so many imagine them to be that have no clue that there are going to be situations not covered by that short blurb they put in and that local leaders will ask questions and go by the Spirit for individual adaptation. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Only if you needed time to re-craft the parts you didn't realize were going to be so problematic. Oh wait...But they haven't really re-crafted anything yet. They simply wrote a brief letter of explanation. I would like to see the rewritten policy, though. 2
Gray 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? I guess it depends on what part they're resigning over.
HappyJackWagon Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That was a thing of import? It was a small change in a handbook. If I was an apostle I probably would not notice unless someone told me and even then I might be traveling and figure correctly that it is a minor thing and I can deal with it later.The line in the handbook was unclear and I have no doubt they intended to clarify with letters later as questions popped up. Apostles are not the idiots so many imagine them to be that have no clue that there are going to be situations not covered by that short blurb they put in and that local leaders will ask questions and go by the Spirit for individual adaptation.Your cavalier dismissal of the pain of so many families is disheartening. This was THE news for a week. You're telling me the apostles didn't have time to review the policy again and see what all the hubub was about? Or are you just repeating what FAIR wrote. I'm getting too upset by this thread so I'm out.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) 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.I strongly disagree that the policy is bad at all. but I don't think that comes as any great surprise to you. And somebody holding out for it to be stricken before trying to come back is not manifesting a spirit of repentance. Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) No, I do not care. The clarifications would have come whether sputtering people threw a fit online or not about a small insertion into a book they were not supposed to have access to in any case. And yet these people are deluded enough to imagine they are fulfilling some purpose. Are their lives that devoid of meaning or are these the same people who sign internet petitions and imagine they are changing the world? I think the changes would have come without the ruckus, but only after the damage caused by the policy had made it clear how bad it was. Maybe a year later. The "fit" everyone had seems to have expedited the change and prevented a lot of harm (although I still think some harm will come from even the revised version) Edited November 13, 2015 by Gray 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) How about this: I can give you a 100% guarantee that this was the original intent. Full stop. Yeah, I know. I wish that too. Sadly, I can't reveal more. But what I say is truth. CFR (remember the rules of the board with a CFR -- give a reference or retract your statement) Edited November 13, 2015 by MiserereNobis 3
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Don't forget, this still impacts innocent children. Just not as many as originally expected.What was said before still holds true for the ones it does impact. It is in their best interest, as per what Elder Christofferson said. 1
jwhitlock 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? Or, would you roll your eyes because you understand how inept a large number of people in American society have become, and then carefully create a clarification? Really, though you don't believe it, quite a few people understood the context of the policy and how it probably would be implemented. Of course, the real problem is the can of worms that has been opened because SSM was foisted on us in the first place. 2
Gray Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 That's not fair.John Dehlin shouted out misrepresentations of the policy as part of leaking it. This does not represent a good-faith relationship between Dehlin and those sincere questioners of the Church, nor between him and honesty itself.At least I know the First Presidency cares about those people, but it's clear that Dehlin does not; all infications are that his was a deliberate attempt to sensationalize thr policy, cast aspersions on the Church, all the while sewing discontent among church members, families, and friends. Reportedly 4 suicides in Utah are attributed to this last week's leak and tensions. Assuming that's true, do you really believe those four people would have been as intensely affected by a quietly-rolled-out policy that was not sensationalised by Dehlin?I don't think so.This is the problem with those seeking to breed contention. They stir up anger, accusations, and counter-accusations and more people get hurt.There is a fundamental moral difference between a genuine, good-faith discussion about differences and deliberate sensationalism and misrepresentation.I'm mad. It's my turn now :/ I don't know that Dehlin misrepresented the policy. People were upset by what was actually written in the handbook. 2
bluebell Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Any thoughts on why it took them a week to release a statement about the real concerns? I've got some thoughts (that's all they are), and most of them center around our leaders giving people time to decide what they really believe, not just about the Gospel of Christ, but also about the church and it's Prophet and apostles. And i don't mean that in a 'if you don't agree with the policy you are obviously against the church, etc.' kind of way. But, if people really believe the the prophet and apostles don't care about children and don't seek to do God's will, and to serve us (even if they mess up sometimes) then those people have bigger issues with the church than just this one policy. A quick clarification of the policy might have appeased some of them right away but it would have just been a band-aid. Giving people a reason to decide exactly where they stand and what they believe is, in my opinion, a good thing. Some have left the church because their reaction to this policy has shown them that they don't actually have a testimony anymore, or never really did in the first place. Maybe leaving will help them be able to figure out what they do actually believe in. Also, regardless of who we believe the wheat and tares are, if we believe the scriptures, we know that tares do very much exist mixed in with the wheat. Some self-sifting of the tares before they harm the wheat is not a horrible thing (but i think that would only apply to very VERY few of the people who have left or will leave over this policy). Like i said, just some thoughts... 4
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 CFR (remember the rules of the board with a CFR -- give a reference or retract your statement)I should think that citing (without revealing) a confidential source would be sufficient to answer a CFR. But then, I'm not a moderator and cannot authoritatively speak to that.
volgadon Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Which part? That those in SSM relationships are living contrary to the gospel and are subject to discipline?The part relating to children.
Buckeye Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I can tell you from experience that a professional, responsible journalist would have reached out to the Church leadership directly to give them a chance to comment/clarify before publishing it. Not saying Dehlin is a professional, responsible journalist, or that I have any great expectations regarding his own ethics, but has anyone heard whether he tried to do that? I listened to Dehlin on the Radio West episode about the policy. He said that he confirmed the text with multiple sources (which I understood to be multiple bishops) before going public, but he did not say one way or the other whether he approached the church for comment. I rather doubt he would. One - he's not on the best terms with the COB. Two - he's doesn't portray himself as a journalist so much as an activity/organizer. We can belittle Dehlin all we want, but it's a little disingenuous to hold him to standards he hasn't placed on himself. Heck, I posted this OP without checking with the church for comment. No one criticized me because I'm a nobody poster.
MiserereNobis Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I should think that citing (without revealing) a confidential source would be sufficient to answer a CFR. But then, I'm not a moderator and cannot authoritatively speak to that. It would be interesting to see what the mods say. If we can use anonymous confidential sources to back up our claims and fulfill a CFR, then a CFR becomes pretty useless, because anyone can say they have a confidential source whenever a CFR is issued. I know such sources are used in journalism, but there you've got the publication's reputation and the journalist's reputation (and their names) as some sort of way to trust it. It's hard for me to simply take the word of an anonymous user on the internet saying that he/she has a confidential source that supports his/her claim.
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTSOFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200November 13, 2015To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch PresidentsDear Brethren and Sisters:The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.Sincerely yours, https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?cid=HP_WE_11-11-2015_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_〈=eng That changes everything and makes perfect sense. IMO, problem solved. 2
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Your cavalier dismissal of the pain of so many families is disheartening. This was THE news for a week. You're telling me the apostles didn't have time to review the policy again and see what all the hubub was about? Or are you just repeating what FAIR wrote. I'm getting too upset by this thread so I'm out.Must have been a slow news week if this is "the news" for the week. I am sure there are some people feeling pain. I encourage those causing the pain to repent of their same sex relationships and remove said pain. Pain is an evil but it is one we have to endure in this life. If the pain causes one lapsed Mormon to repent so their children can enjoy the full benefits of the gospel or prevents one child from accepting covenants that will tear them apart before they are ready because of their home environment then I consider that to be worth more then millions of pages of angry and hurt (feigned or not) internet comments. If the innocent suffer God will compensate them and heal them.I have not read FAIR in regards to this matter. If they agree with me it is nice to see the Holy Ghosy is on the job everywhere.
Recommended Posts