Teancum Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Darn, almost got here first...that is what happens when I let my concern for my family get in the way of my board participation. This sounds to me like it should be reassuring to most people. I will be curious to see the reaction. Reads like tax law: Here is general rule.. Here are exceptions... Partly kidding here.... While I am still not a big fan of the policy I am pleased with the modification and it should eliminate most my concerns. But along the tax law line how does one define "Primary Residence?"
Buckeye Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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... I realize this is just a parable, but a few important points: 1) The sifting is done by angels, not the wheat. So even if we are correct in our belief that we're wheat, that gives us no right to call out tares and demand their removal. Our task is just to keep growing. 2) Wheat and tares don't "harm" each other. They are allowed to grow up fully together before being sifted. If you trust the sifter, there is no harm from having a tare growing next to you. 2
Mystery Meat 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 will do neither, because answering this CFR will have serious personal ramifications for me and the statement is true, so out of principal I cannot retract it.
mfbukowski Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I just hope bishops held onto letters of resignation for those who wish to maintain membership.They get a year to reconsider anyway. Resignations get held for a year, or at least they used to be, before they are final. 1
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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)The sill Internet harm of everyone grandstanding about resignations and their outrage never would have happened if Dehlin and anyone else who would have leaked it had kept their mouths shut and just let it develop.I do not concede the policy is harmful. It may hurt feelings but in this generation you can barely breathe without hurting some delicate emotional flower's feelings.
Buckeye Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Reads like tax law: Here is general rule.. Here are exceptions... Partly kidding here.... While I am still not a big fan of the policy I am pleased with the modification and it should eliminate most my concerns. But along the tax law line how does one define "Primary Residence?" If I were the bishop, I would take this to mean custody. So unless the SS couple were the primary custodian (51%+), I would not apply the policy the children.
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Reads like tax law: Here is general rule.. Here are exceptions... Partly kidding here.... While I am still not a big fan of the policy I am pleased with the modification and it should eliminate most my concerns. But along the tax law line how does one define "Primary Residence?"As it is not a legal document that will probably be bishop's discretion.
jwhitlock Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 The part relating to children. So you agree that SSM is contrary to the gospel, and as such is not an appropriate environment for children to be raised in?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) 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. As a matter of integrity, even news media who are "not on the best of terms" with a source will give that source a chance to comment/clarify. We can belittle Dehlin all we want, but it's a little disingenuous to hold him to standards he hasn't placed on himself. The ethic in the journalism profession are based on fairness and common decency. You don't get a pass on lack of fairness and decency just because you're not a professional journalist. Heck, I posted this OP without checking with the church for comment. No one criticized me because I'm a nobody poster. Not at all the same thing. You posted something from a public source -- a public Internet website -- not a confidential, in-house document. It would be like quoting from a newspaper or magazine or a transcription of a news broadcast. I'm amazed you don't see the difference. Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell 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. I think he means that it assumes that no bishop would have piped up or asked questions for clarification. Maybe i misunderstood him though.
Avatar4321 Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37345295 ETA: Well not much here, thought it had footage of a new released statement. Looks like only the children of SSM couples can't get baptized under the age of 18. Wish they had made that clear in the beginning. Would have saved a lot of trouble. But still ostracizes our gay members more than ever has been.Which is what I was saying to begin with but no you guys want to read in lots that's not.I hope those that are rushing to resign and protest will think things through next time.
Ron Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 The sill Internet harm of everyone grandstanding about resignations and their outrage never would have happened if Dehlin and anyone else who would have leaked it had kept their mouths shut and just let it develop.I do not concede the policy is harmful. It may hurt feelings but in this generation you can barely breathe without hurting some delicate emotional flower's feelings. I've heard you and others arguing over the last week that the policy is not harmful. Then a re-written policy was released to prevent the obvious harm that would have been caused by the original policy. Can you see why your statement that it is not harmful does not resonate? 4
Popular Post Calm Posted November 13, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 13, 2015 Dehlin can be a pain, but the church should have known that a leak would happen almost immediately. This policy would start affecting children set to be baptized this weekend. If not by Dehlin, the media would have picked it up from someone.Yes, let's excuse Dehlin because he was so anxious to be the first to leak it, he wasn't willing to ask the Church if there would be clarification to avoid causing unnecessary pain. 5
canard78 Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Darn, almost got here first...that is what happens when I let my concern for my family get in the way of my board participation. This sounds to me like it should be reassuring to most people. I will be curious to see the reaction. Just because the policy now applies to fewer people, doesn't make it ok. This now just means that a smaller minority is being discriminated against. Don't be fooled into thinking this is good news. This is still a homophobic policy.The justification given by Elder Christofferson was this:"It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different." This latest clarification makes a complete mockery of that quickly hashed together bit of media spin. If the children's relationship with their parents were such a major concern than why are they now willing to baptise the children who live with their gay parents 50% of the time or less? What a crock of farce! Discuss this respectfully without the name calling. 3
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I realize this is just a parable, but a few important points: 1) The sifting is done by angels, not the wheat. So even if we are correct in our belief that we're wheat, that gives us no right to call out tares and demand their removal. Our task is just to keep growing. 2) Wheat and tares don't "harm" each other. They are allowed to grow up fully together before being sifted. If you trust the sifter, there is no harm from having a tare growing next to you.However it is important to point out which are the tares sometimes so the wheat does not try to emulate the tares and ends up thrown into the fire screaming: "Stop! You are making a mistake. I am in disguise!"It takes a lot of extra paperwork to not get burned at the Last Day if you take that route.
BlueDreams Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 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 can't keep up with fast paced threads.... You'd have to take it from their perspective or from the assumptions of thinking about newly formed SSfamilies which are becoming more common. If they were thinking about these families first when writing it, they may not have thought immediately about the language covering divorced couples a with same sex parent involved. When I first read it, I assumed it was talking about children being born/adopted directly into a SS relationship. It's an obvious blindspot now because we had the blind run with it, as opposed to the contextual discussions that they were probably having. 2
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Just because the policy now applies to fewer people, doesn't make it ok. This now just means that a smaller minority is being discriminated against. Don't be fooled into thinking this is good news. This is still a homophobic policy.The justification given by Elder Christofferson was this: This latest clarification makes a complete mockery of that quickly hashed together bit of media spin. If the children's relationship with their parents were such a major concern than why are they now willing to baptise the children who live with their gay parents 50% of the time or less? What a crock of farce!Yes, but how do you really feel? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) 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 disagree that it would necessarily be useless. It depends upon how much credence you give the person who is purveying the information obtained from a confidential source. I would give, say, calm(oriah) or Dan Peterson a great deal of credence, confidential source or not. I agree it's better if you can identify and document where the information came from, but I don't agree that the information should necessarily be discarded if you cannot. 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. Posters on a message board have something of a reputation to maintain as well if they hope to be trusted going forward, and especially if they post under their real names, as I do. In any event, it's a reader's choice as to whether to believe the information, but that's always the case, isn't it? You pay a cost in credibility if you use a confidential source, but what you're calling for is that doing it be forbidden altogether by the board moderation team. I'm not certain whether they want to go there, and I don't think they should. 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. See what I wrote above. For me it depends on who the person is and what sort of track record he/she has. Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I've heard you and others arguing over the last week that the policy is not harmful. Then a re-written policy was released to prevent the obvious harm that would have been caused by the original policy. Can you see why your statement that it is not harmful does not resonate?No.If option A is not harmful it does not automatically follow that option B is harmful. They are not opposites. I believe neither was harmful and I anticipated clarification and it happened. Probably more public then intended but that is not important.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 ......................................... Looks like only the children of SSM couples can't get baptized under the age of 18. ......................................................................... So, that means children in polygamous families can get baptized?
Ron Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) No.If option A is not harmful it does not automatically follow that option B is harmful. They are not opposites. I believe neither was harmful and I anticipated clarification and it happened. Probably more public then intended but that is not important. What? Just yesterday I argued with many here and was told the policy was not harmful. Obviously the church thought it was harmful because they have released a new version of the policy (after much backlash) that reduces some of the harm being caused. Your arguments that the policy is not harmful is not credible to me. Edited November 13, 2015 by Ron
Scott Lloyd Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I guess it depends on what part they're resigning over.Well, it's going to be a lot clearer now what part they're resigning over.
Buckeye Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 As a matter of integrity, even news media who are "not on the best of terms" with a source will give that source a chance to comment/clarify. The ethic in the journalism profession are based on fairness and common decency. You don't get a pass on lack of fairness and decency just because you're not a professional journalist. Not at all the same thing. You posted something from a public source -- a public Internet website -- not a confidential, in-house document. It would be like quoting from a newspaper or magazine or a transcription of a news broadcast. I'm amazed you don't see the difference. The point is that I did not seek a comment. That is the issue you raised re Dehlin. You haven't alleged that he should have taken better measures to authenticate the source (he obviously did). Your objection is that a media person should seek the other side's comment before going public. But that assumes that Dehlin is media. He's not. He's an activist. So no obligation attaches to him anymore than to me. 1
The Nehor Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 What? Just yesterday I argued with many here and was told the policy was not harmful. Obviously the church thought it was harmful because they have released a new version of the policy (after much backlash) that reduces some of the harm being caused. Your arguments that the policy is not harmful is not credible to me.I usually eat lunch at 12:30. I later clarify that sometimes I eat lunch at 11:30 when my friends do. By your logic I am implicitly confessing that always eating lunch at 12:30 is harmful.If that is the way your mind works I am kind of glad I am not credible to you. It is even reassuring. Poster has been removed from thread because of serial insults.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Which is what I was saying to begin with but no you guys want to read in lots that's not.I hope those that are rushing to resign and protest will think things through next time.Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Recommended Posts