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

[CV75]

So what will those who've announced their resignations do? Say "never mind"?

Or maybe, "Just wait until next time!"

[Buckeye]

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.

 

I'm not excusing Dehlin. I just don't see the point in bashing him. If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else.

 

The purpose of this thread is the policy and its clarification. I don't think the church leaders are idiots, much less mean spirited, but they should have expected some blowback from this and prepared accordingly. I'm sure they better the next time and I continue to sustain them. 

[Deborah]

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

 

He did. On Oct 6 he said "A new section to Handbook 1 states that children whose primary residence is with a couple that are living in a same-gender relationship cannot receive priesthood ordinances (until they are 18 years of age), which is similar to a policy already in effect regarding children of polygamist families."

[volgadon]

So you agree that SSM is contrary to the gospel, and as such is not an appropriate environment for children to be raised in?

Yes, though I would hasten to add that this does not mean that gay couples cannot provide a loving environment, or that if there is a choice between a child not being adopted or being adopted by a gay couple that I wouldn't opt for the latter. The church baptises children from sub-optimal family situations all the time.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

All of the same considerations which applied to Edward Snowden's leaks, apply in this case as well.  And there will always be pain.  That is what life is all about.  Get over it people!!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

The point is that I did not seek a comment.

The point is you do not need to seek comment merely for quoting what has already been published, whether it be in newspapers, magazines, broadcast, or the Internet. You ought to do so if you are making public an in-house document that has, in effect, been obtained without authorization.

 

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.

 

 

And I say the decent, fair thing to do is to give the entity a chance to comment/clarify simultaneously if you are going to do that.

 

I already said this. I get the impression you are doing the written equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming when I respond.

 

Again, being an "activist"  does not give you a pass on being decent and fair.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

Yes, let's absolutely absolve Dehlin of having done anything wrong or created a lot of worry for ....nothing.  Yup, let any pip-squeak mouth desperate for attention to bang a drum of fear in hopes of causing his flnoyck of hyper-sensitive, knee-jerk reactionaries that carry a chip on their shoulder, but they cannot be at fault.  Why?  Oh, I remember, because he uses the world love in every sentence.  Yup, real compassion here. 

 

And no, I don't really get annoyed with individuals that fly off the handle at the drop of a hat.  It is perfectly understandable and is the very epitome of rational thought.  Nor do I have a problem with those charitable, kind-hearted people who instigate, cry wolf, etc.  

Edited November 13, 2015 by Storm Rider

[JAHS]

Can someone explaiin to me why they think this is a change from the original policy a week ago and not just an explanation that clarifies the original policy regarding special circumstances? I have compared the two and don't see any contradiction between them. How are they contradictory?

[Buckeye]

All of the same considerations which applied to Edward Snowden's leaks, apply in this case as well.  And there will always be pain.  That is what life is all about.  Get over it people!!

 

 

Not really, no. Snowden had confidentiality obligations. Dehlin does not. And the bishops who sent the policy to Dehlin also do not. The church handbooks are not secret. 

[Daniel2]

In short, the policy was written poorly. It will apply in many fewer instances than if it were literally applied. It does not apply to children who live with a gay parent unless that arrangement is over 50% of their time. And it does not stop the church progression of children who have already been baptized.

So Daniel2, looks like your kids will be fine after all. Thank God.

This clarification is a HUGE and VERY welcome relief.

Kudos to church leadership for acting quickly in responding to the concerns that have been voiced and in providing further clarification.

[Scott Lloyd]

All of the same considerations which applied to Edward Snowden's leaks, apply in this case as well.  And there will always be pain.  That is what life is all about.  Get over it people!!

 

So I'm supposed to take Snowden as a model for respectable behavior?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

I think it is hilarious that anyone would a) equate the clarification with changing the policy, and b) attribute their last week of hysteria to effectuating the change.

 

I think it equally hilarious that a bishop or stake president would have leaked the document last week whether a) the idea is coming out of the same brain as the character above, or b) they are one of the characters indicated above!

 

Regarding poorly written policy, let’s take a lesson from William E. McLellin!

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-22-the-latter-day-revelations-are-published?lang=eng

“William E. McLellin Tries to Write a Revelation

 

“The revelations recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 67–70 were given during a series of conferences held in Ohio in November 1831. One of the important things discussed at these conferences was the publication of the revelations already received by the Prophet Joseph Smith. They were to be published as the Book of Commandments. (A few years later, more revelations were added to the book and its name was changed to the Doctrine and Covenants.)

 

“During one of these conferences, some of the Church leaders at the conference complained about the language of some of the revelations that Joseph Smith had received. They thought they could write better revelations. In response the Lord gave the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 67, testifying that the revelations Joseph Smith had received were true (see D&C 67:4) and challenging anyone who would like to try to write a revelation to do so (see D&C 67:5–. William E. McLellin took this challenge and tried to write a revelation. Joseph Smith recorded that Brother McLellin thought he was smart enough to write a revelation, but he could not do it. The Prophet said that it is “an awful [great and important] responsibility to write in the name of the Lord” (History of the Church, 1:226). All those present who saw Brother McLellin’s failure were strengthened in their testimony that the revelations Joseph Smith had received were true and had come from the Lord.

 

“William E. McLellin later left the Church. Joseph Smith said that people who criticize the Church and its leaders will eventually apostatize if they do not repent (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156–57).”

[stemelbow]

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.

Good point, As is Bishop's who don't know of the clarification might still be quick to apply it to those the clarification says need not have this policy apply.

They really need a rewrite to fix this mess they created.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, let's absolutely absolve Dehlin of having done anything wrong or created a lot of worry for ....nothing.  Yup, let any pip-squeak mouth desperate for attention to bang a drum of fear in hopes of causing his flock of hyper-sensitive, knee-jerk reactionaries that carry a chip on their shoulder, but they cannot be at fault.  Why?  Oh, I remember, because he uses the world love in every sentence.  Yup, real compassion here. 

And don't forget, he is an "activist." That makes most anything he does excusable.

[bluebell]

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. 

 

1)  I said 'self sifting', which means that i said that the tares sifted themselves.  

 

I honestly have no idea what you are talking in the bolded part.  I can't see how it's relevant to what i said.

 

2) They are allowed to grow up together because forcibly removing tares before the wheat was mature would harm the wheat.  I don't think that applies if the tares decide to get up and leave on their own.

[Meadowchik]

I don't know that Dehlin misrepresented the policy. People were upset by what was actually written in the handbook. 

 

"Speaking exclusively to News 3 from his home in Logan, Utah, John Dehlin confirms the Mormon policy naming gay couples as "Apostates" and barring their children from baptism, was not meant to be public knowledge. 

The policy was quietly inserted in leadership manuals for high ranking men who lead the church. Sources inside the church saw the documents ended up in Dehlin's hands.

"They reached out to Bishops that they knew and requested screen shots or pdfs of the changes," said Dehlin. "People are scared. Members of the church have a lot to lose by actions the church would take on them…they want someone like me to do it."

What he did was release the policy, which the church later confirmed to be true.

“I made sure I had credible sources. It turned out to be 100 percent accurate and worse than anyone could have ever expected,” said Dehlin.

Dehlin, who is not gay, says children of gay people will now have a 'Scarlett Letter' of sorts. Their friends will be able to be baptized and participate in ordinances, while the children of gay couples will not be allowed to do the same.

"It almost feels abusive. I have children, its devastating to even have a pimple. Not even viewed as worthy to be baptized," said Dehlin.

Children of gay people and reportedly polygamists will not be allowed to be baptized. Dehlin says children of all other types of parents are not excluded.

"The children of rapists and murderers can still get baptized," said Dehlin."   http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-Dehlin/Z3urFHf5OEal0CVa5uabCw.cspx

 

 

 

 

Nothing in the policy addresses the worthiness being affected by children of same-sex parents.  This is not a difficult concept in the Church, even only those young men who are worthy and able are called to go on missions, for example.  Not all children are expected to be baptized and there are numerous different reasons having nothing to do with worthiness.  Dehlin, if he is anywhere near as intelligent as his vocabulary and media skills apparently demonstrate, was being disingenuous.  As doing so, he was simultaneously sorrowing for the children who suffer for this. 

 

I've heard people compare the Church to an abusive spouse or parent.  Do you know what Dehlin did, there? He's like the divorced spouse that manipulates his children against their mother, knowing that it will hurt the mother but that it will ultimately hurt his own children.  This is the garbage that occurs when someone engages in a campaign of villification. It's not the same as mistakes made in good-faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

This clarification is a HUGE and VERY welcome relief.

Kudos to church leadership for acting quickly in responding to the concerns that have been voiced and in providing further clarification.

Gotta say this is a far more respectable response than what I've seen from the carping critics here on this thread. You earned a rep point from me.

[jwhitlock]

Yes, though I would hasten to add that this does not mean that gay couples cannot provide a loving environment, or that if there is a choice between a child not being adopted or being adopted by a gay couple that I wouldn't opt for the latter. The church baptises children from sub-optimal family situations all the time.

 

So as members of the church, we need to figure out what makes SSM relationships unique in how they need to be approached.

[Buckeye]

The point is you do not need to seek comment merely for quoting what has already been published, whether it be in newspapers, magazines, broadcast, or the Internet. You ought to do so if you are making public an in-house source that has, in effect, been obtained without authorization.

 

And I say the decent, fair thing to do is to give the entity a chance to comment/clarify simultaneously if you are going to do that.

 

I already said this. I get the impression you are doing written equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming when I respond.

 

Again, being an "activist"  does not give you a pass on being decent and fair.

 

Scott, I'm really not defending Dehlin here. But you're trying to hold him to a standard you don't meet. How many times do you quote something Dehlin (or others) say in another venue without first reaching out them "for comment." We all do it all the time. Because we're not journalists (at least here).

 

Another example. A few years ago FARMS prepared an expose on Dehlin - basically a wolf in sheep's clothing piece. The article contained lots of statements of Dehlin gathered from the four corners of the internet. Are you seriously saying that FARMS was obligated to seek a comment from Dehlin about the article prior to publishing it? If it had gone to press without seeking comment, would you have been critical of the authors? I'm really doubtful.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

One does wonder why it was not part of the original and why the lag in clarification.

[Rivers]

Those that are hurt by this policy are already hurt by the fact that homosexual relations are out of harmony with church doctrine. The church is reaffirming that stance in a strong manner. This is pouring salt in wounds that already exist.

[jwhitlock]

So I'm supposed to take Snowden as a model for respectable behavior?

 

How people view Snowden is a classic study in how foundational perspectives affect our views of situations. Whether he is respectable or not depends on how you're viewing what he did.

 

Unfortunately, I can't think of a good reason to start another thread on Snowden instead of tangenting here...

[Daniel2]

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

I agree with this.

[bluebell]

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?

 

For my part, the reason that i argued the policy wasn't harmful was because i always assumed it would be enforced just as the clarification says it will be enforced.

 

I know one of your main reason was the family in your ward.  Does this clarification change your beliefs about the harmfulness of the policy, or was the family in your ward not actually what you were worried about?

[Daniel2]

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

Well said. I agree.