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

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I'm really not defending Dehlin here.

Whether or not you're defending Dehlin is not the issue. Your flawed premise is.

 

 

But you're trying to hold him to a standard you don't meet.

 

This is absolute nonsense.

 

 

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).

 

 

For at least the third time now, I repeat that there is a fundamental difference between quoting something that has already been generally published and obtaining and publicizing information or documents that were not intended for the general public. In the latter case, giving the entity a chance to respond or comment is the fair and decent thing to do.

 

You seem steadfastly determined to ignore this distinction, even though I have repeatedly explained it. I am mystified as to why.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

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.

I agree. It's funny you say they responded quickly, when others say "they waited too long"; that "the damage has already been done."  

Not enough time had passed where any Bishop would have acted on how they might have understood the policy. Even if they thought they had a sitution that had to be acted upon they would have called and asked for clarification on their specific case. The only damage done was in the minds of those who reacted to quickly to something that most of the world should not have even known about yet. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by JAHS

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Those who entered into homosexual relations ought to have known what they were doing was out of harmony with Church doctrine. Ergo, the wounds are self-inflicted. Sometimes the curative process entails a period of pain.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

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.

Yep. I agree that this clarification alters the initial intention of the policy, and it wouldn't have come this swiftly or definitively if it wasn't for the scrutiny and public outcry.

Even so, and despite the damage that has aleady been done to some families (not to mention the damage done to the chuch's image and PR), I'm still glad and relieved for the clarification.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

Whether or not you're defending Dehlin is not the issue. Your flawed premise is.

 

This is absolute nonsense.

 

 

For at least the third time now, I repeat that there is a fundamental difference between quoting something that has already been generally published and obtaining and publicizing information or documents that were not intended for the general public. In the latter case, giving the entity a chance to respond or comment is the fair and decent thing to do.

 

You seem steadfastly determined to ignore this distinction, even though I have repeatedly explained it. I am mystified as to why.

 

Seeing as you decline to respond the my questions about the FARMS hit piece, I can only assume you concede the hypocrisy. Pot, meet kettle. You're simply upset with a leak and lashing out using standards you would never apply to your friends. 

[Teancum]

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 blame Dehlin?  How about the leaders who did not include this in the initial policy and who set the policy anyway.  Wow.

[CV75]

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.

Yes, the church certainly does baptize children from sub-optimal families, as well it should.

 

Same-gender marriages are worse than sub-optimal; they are, covenant-speaking, an abomination, placing the requisite Church-parent, Church-child, Church-family, parent-child covenant relationships into such imbalance and conflict that the child is better off simply having her parenting needs fulfilled on a secular basis and receive with the Light of Christ throughout her life until she can reasonably and independently “handle the truth.” In the meantime she is constrained in the actual exercise of her conscience by circumstances imposed upon her by the couple.

 

This takes nothing away from arguments that a same-gender couple can meet every other need, but they can never hope to satisfy any of the covenant needs as long as they live, at the most fundamental level, in an ungodly form of the marriage institution.

[Scott Lloyd]

Seeing as you decline to respond the my questions about the FARMS hit piece, I can only assume you concede the hypocrisy. Pot, meet kettle. You're simply upset with a leak and lashing out using standards you would never apply to your friends. 

What in the world are you talking about? FARMS no longer exists, it never produced a "hit piece," and I've never been a member of FARMS.

 

Never mind. This is getting weird, and I don't have time for it.

[Calm]

 

 

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. 

I understood him to be a psychotherapist, even specializing in helping LGBT and their families feel better about life, have improved coping skills, etc....in other words, he has chosen a job where his intent is to help people have less pain and suffering in their life if possible, not to create more, especially unnecessary pain and confusion.

[Buckeye]

What in the world are you talking about? FARMS no longer exists, it never produced a "hit piece," and I've never been a member of FARMS.

 

Never mind. This is getting weird, and I don't have time for it.

 

Of course you don't have time. You know exactly what I'm referring to and how it shows the hypocrisy of your "seek a comment" standard.

[Calm]

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.

Oops, was cleaning up the formatting and forgot to do that, thanks.

 

Wonder if that is why I got so many points, lol.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep. I agree that this clarification alters the initial intention of the policy, and it wouldn't have come this swiftly or definitively if it wasn't for the scrutiny and public outcry.

Even so, and despite the damage that has aleady been done to some families (not to mention the damage done to the chuch's image and PR), I'm still glad and relieved for the clarification.

I'm quoting JAHS's post two posts above yours, because it applies so well as a response to this.

 

It's funny you say they responded quickly, when others say "they waited too long"; that "the damage has already been done."  

Not enough time had passed where any Bishop would have acted on how they might have understood the policy. Even if they thought they had a sitution that had to be acted upon they would have called and asked for clarification on their specific case. The only damage done was in the minds of those who reacted to quickly to something that most of the world should not have even known about yet.

 

[Buckeye]

 

I understood him to be a psychotherapist, even specializing in helping LGBT and their families feel better about life, have improved coping skills, etc....in other words, he has chosen a job where his intent is to help people have less pain and suffering in their life if possible, not to create more, especially unnecessary pain and confusion.

 

Fair enough. How does revealing the existence of the policy cause more pain and confusion? For the record, I think John was motivated somewhat by self-interest (i.e., staying the limelight) but also by a desire to make public something he sincerely thinks is harmful to the LGBT community. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course you don't have time. You know exactly what I'm referring to and how it shows the hypocrisy of your "seek a comment" standard.

You're talking gibberish.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mars]

Your talking gibberish.

 

you're

[Calm]

 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.

Do we know for sure that was the timeline?

 

I have heard it from pretty reliable sources (if I understood them correctly, they were bishops who hadn't received it) that the policy was sent out to Area Authorities and Stake Presidents only.  Then Dehlin got a hold of it and started asking around.  Then it was uploaded to the CHI.  

Edited November 13, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

you're

Already fixed. Unfortunately, I didn't get to it before you caught me one minute after I posted and within the same minute that I made the fix.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

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.

 

Seriously?  You are going to blame Dehlin?  He didn't write the policy.  The Brethren wrote the policy.  The clarification only came after they realized that they were taking a crushing blow for their error.  If it was just a matter of needing clarification, Elder Christofferson would have done that a week ago in his interview.

[Darren10]

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.

 

I have not dropped by here for a while so, umm, who's Daniel2 and what will his children be fine from?

[stemelbow]

I was thinking of a story about a lady who was now married but had lived in a or multiple same gender relationship. She was worried her child could not receive the ordinances because the way the original policy had it worded.

In speaking about the restriction of missionary service the original had it that: "2.The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage".

So does this only apply to missionary service? It seems so. The "clarification" as we call it doesn't address this piece. It just tells us "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."

So it seems a child who, at any time has lived or lives with a parent who any time, perhaps even before the child was born, was involved in a same sex relationship in which they lived together, can't go on a mission unless that child is granted approval as a special case from the First Presidency.

okee dokes.

[Calm]

 

 

 

Fair enough. How does revealing the existence of the policy cause more pain and confusion? For the record, I think John was motivated somewhat by self-interest (i.e., staying the limelight) but also by a desire to make public something he sincerely thinks is harmful to the LGBT community. 

 

The commentary that he added was rather inflammatory imo.

 

He did not give the Church the opportunity to clarify or rewrite before releasing material he was telling everyone would cause tremendous pain and suffering....so people were coming to it with that expectation and thus would be less likely to stop reconsider their reaction, which might have diffused some emotion.  

 

He knew it would cause pain and didn't give those who could a chance to edit it or provide the clarification that would at least limit the fear that massive amounts of families would be impacted.

 

If he wanted the policy changed or removed so it wouldn't hurt people, why didn't he at least try to get that to happen before issuing it even if he was pretty sure it wouldn't be done?  What harm would it have done him or the families or the public not to know for even a few days longer?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Calm

[Darren10]

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.

 

His general authority friend would be proud I'm sure.

[Buckeye]

You're talking gibberish.

 

Here you go. My memory was off a little. The article was originally set for the Mormon Studies Review before the shakeup.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

 

And here's a previous thread where you had quite a lot to say about the episode: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60134-greg-smiths-review-of-dehlins-mormon-stories-is-now-available/page-3  Oddly though, he never criticized Greg Smith for failing to seek a comment from Dehlin before publication.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Buckeye

[Steve-o]

What some of us were saying all along. People tend to react too quickly to headlines, which are often misleading.

I don't know anyone who was reacting to headlines. I read the policy multiple times, hoping I was misunderstanding but it was written clearly. I'm glad the church leaders changed the way this will be implemented. That's a very good thing.

[Teancum]

I agree that this was the most likely clarification that was going to come. It is, after all, consistent with the church's overall teaching on children.

 

 

Why didn't the prophets, seers and revelators anticipate this?  Why did they draft a policy that left this out then have to tale a week to make this clarification?