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

[Duncan]

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

 

well, you and yours are loved!!!!!!

[Teancum]

Here's the first pitchfork. Who's next?

 

The bolded claim above is so inaccurate that it calls into question all of the other claims made.

 

 

Why?

[Meadowchik]

You're right here. Again, I'm not defending Dehlin.

 

It's still interesting that in a thread about a letter from the FP, so many would be more interested in talking about misgivings re an ex-member.

 

I was wondering today about the morality of the leak itself, and then learning that Dehlin had a significant hand in sensationalizing it was pretty infuriating.  I just scanned his Facebook page.  Look, I have felt sick about this for a week, and it appears to me that he had a hand in making the heartache, misunderstanding, and pain worse, and deliberately so. 

 

This week internet-goers have been told to abstain from defending the Church so that we can "mourn with those that mourn," to be patient with them in their anger and pain. Well, I am angry, too.  I am angry that mature adults who knew better took a publication intended for a very specific audience and misrepresented it while simultaneously imploring others to mourn with those who are hurting.  They've made the hurting worse!

 

It can be hard enough to communicate in this messy, troubled world.  Yet actions which intentionally misinterpret words to make them appear more harsh than they are should be repudiated.

[Duncan]

So what? If Dehlin were in the military in WWI and leaked the existence of the japanese internment, he possibly could have faced discipline, but the public's anger would be (rightly) directed mostly at the actual facts rather than the bona fides of the whistleblower.

 

WW2

[Darren10]

Good point.  As Christians, we should strive after souls, even if it is just one.  We shouldn't say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out."  I imagine such words (or thoughts) might come back to haunt us at  judgement day:  "Then He shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me."

 

Good point but I think it depends. I don't want anyone to leave the Church but frankly, I've no desire to coddle or pamper people who would go through the trouble and request their own resignation from membership of the Church. They may follow their conscience, however shallow I find their conscience to be. They're always welcome to stay or return and I'll be more than happy to see that choice made.

 

By the way, I do not find "tens of tens" in anyway a significant endorsement of a "see ya', chumps" attitude.

[hoo rider]

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."

 

CFR.

 

I didn't see it anywhere here http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson.  I assume you meant November 6, not October 6.  Is there some other interview you can point me to?

[JLHPROF]

From LDS.org:

 

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

 

If only we hadn't already changed it once or twice already.

It used to state that

 

Men will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except their lawful wife or wives who are given by the holy priesthood.

and that

Women will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex save their lawful husband, given by the holy priesthood.

 

 

By dropping the "holy priesthood" clause and leaving it as lawful only it has prioritized society over God.

[hoo rider]

I'm not sure what to think about this misunderstanding and the resulting clarification that was issued today.  For a church that considers itself under attack, you'd think they'd be a little more careful with controversial policies.  I don't know if the brethren flubbed this one or some church employee did.  Either way, this whole episode makes those at church HQ look like a bunch of amateurs.   

[bluebell]

If only we hadn't already changed it once or twice already.

It used to state that

 

Men will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except their lawful wife or wives who are given by the holy priesthood.

and that

Women will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex save their lawful husband, given by the holy priesthood.

 

 

By dropping the "holy priesthood" clause and leaving it as lawful only it has prioritized society over God.

 

So, the church used to teach that anyone who was married and not a member of the church was breaking the law of chastity?

[Darren10]

So what? If Dehlin were in the military in WWI and leaked the existence of the japanese internment, he possibly could have faced discipline, but the public's anger would be (rightly) directed mostly at the actual facts rather than the bona fides of the whistleblower.

 

Again the internment in WWII (Thanks Duncan, WWI would be racial segregation under Wilson) creates disharmony. Opposing disharmony is not the same as leaking classified information which may create disharmony.

[bluebell]

CFR.

 

I didn't see it anywhere here http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson.  I assume you meant November 6, not October 6.  Is there some other interview you can point me to?

 

She meant November 6.  It was a typo.

[rockpond]

I was wondering today about the morality of the leak itself, and then learning that Dehlin had a significant hand in sensationalizing it was pretty infuriating.  I just scanned his Facebook page.  Look, I have felt sick about this for a week, and it appears to me that he had a hand in making the heartache, misunderstanding, and pain worse, and deliberately so. 

 

This week internet-goers have been told to abstain from defending the Church so that we can "mourn with those that mourn," to be patient with them in their anger and pain. Well, I am angry, too.  I am angry that mature adults who knew better took a publication intended for a very specific audience and misrepresented it while simultaneously imploring others to mourn with those who are hurting.  They've made the hurting worse!

 

It can be hard enough to communicate in this messy, troubled world.  Yet actions which intentionally misinterpret words to make them appear more harsh than they are should be repudiated.

 

Dehlin did not misrepresent the policy.  Assuming his post was the original public leak (and I believe it was) he only published the text of the change.

 

The text was clear and was not misunderstood.  Elder Christofferson made no attempt to communicate this new "clarification" last Friday which suggests that they felt it was being correctly understood in the first day after its release.

 

As I mentioned earlier, my stake president was very clear in how we, as bishoprics, were to interpret and implement that policy.  

 

It seems quite obvious that the Brethren listened to the loud and passionate feedback of members.  And they adjusted the policy.

[bluebell]

So what? If Dehlin were in the military in WWI and leaked the existence of the japanese internment, he possibly could have faced discipline, but the public's anger would be (rightly) directed mostly at the actual facts rather than the bona fides of the whistleblower.

 

 

Internment camps weren't a secret.  I come from a community that had one 12 miles or so outside of the town limits.  

[MiserereNobis]

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.

 

 

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.

 

See what I wrote above. For me it depends on who the person is and what sort of track record he/she has.

 

True, this makes sense to me as well.  There are posters here I trust because of past experience and then others that I am neutral about.  I guess Mystery Meat falls in the latter for me so his claim of a source doesn't persuade me at all.

 

Not that I care much about the actual topic -- I was more interested in the use of anonymous sources

 

Thanks for weighing in.

 

[Okrahomer]

It'd be sad if all they did was meet once a week. Luckily, its likely they get together and discuss many things throughout the week informally.

 

The body that sets policy for the Church is called the "Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles"--they only meet once a week (Thursday morning at 10 AM in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple).​  Please see here and here.

 

 "Each week the two presiding quorums of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meet jointly as the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Meeting in a room in the Salt Lake Temple, this council discusses and decides all major Church appointments and policy matters...N. Eldon Tanner, counselor to four Church Presidents, said, "It is in this body [the Council] that any change in administration or policy is considered and approved, and it then becomes the official policy of the Church" (Tanner, 1979, p. 47).

Edited November 13, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

 

If one makes a habit of it, I think that would be a problem.  A rare usage though...I am okay with that.  People can judge it the same they would the person's opinion, based on what they know about the person.

My hunch is that this is pretty much how the mods would view the matter.

 

I don't know anybody who habitually uses confidential sources on here.

[Meadowchik]

Dehlin did not misrepresent the policy.  Assuming his post was the original public leak (and I believe it was) he only published the text of the change.

 

The text was clear and was not misunderstood.  Elder Christofferson made no attempt to communicate this new "clarification" last Friday which suggests that they felt it was being correctly understood in the first day after its release.

 

As I mentioned earlier, my stake president was very clear in how we, as bishoprics, were to interpret and implement that policy.  

 

It seems quite obvious that the Brethren listened to the loud and passionate feedback of members.  And they adjusted the policy.

 

In this thread I've posted an article quoting Dehlin who characterizes the policy as deeming children unworthy. 

[Buckeye]

Dehlin did not misrepresent the policy.  Assuming his post was the original public leak (and I believe it was) he only published the text of the change.

 

The text was clear and was not misunderstood.  Elder Christofferson made no attempt to communicate this new "clarification" last Friday which suggests that they felt it was being correctly understood in the first day after its release.

 

As I mentioned earlier, my stake president was very clear in how we, as bishoprics, were to interpret and implement that policy.  

 

It seems quite obvious that the Brethren listened to the loud and passionate feedback of members.  And they adjusted the policy.

 

Now we're back on track. I've been wondering about the intel you got from your stake that conflicts with the new clarification. If your stake was told previously that the clarification would be (my paraphrase) "the policy is correct" then I assume the new clarification means something happened between then and now?

[Buckeye]

Internment camps weren't a secret.  I come from a community that had one 12 miles or so outside of the town limits.  

 

You're missing the point. This is a hypothetical. Suppose no one knew about the camps. Suppose Dehlin revealed the camps. Could he face discipline? Sure, maybe? But the public's anger would result from the camp itself. Blaming Dehlin is just a side show.

[Scott Lloyd]

Now you're just misleading. I never said you publicized anything. I said that you did not raise any objections when others publicized the laborious hit piece without seeking Dehlin's comment. You're drawing a double-standard. That's it. There's no defense and that's why you're losing interest. 

I categorically deny that I'm drawing a double-standard. I deny it for reasons I have already explained that you have steadfastly chosen to ignore.

 

Nothing in the Greg Smith piece was covertly obtained. His was a commentary on material that was widely available.

 

Smith's piece was in the nature of a book review, although it was a commentary on Internet material, not print. Academics and journalists routinely review books, movies, theatrical productions, other things. And rarely if ever do they contact the author for comment before doing so; the very notion is silly.

 

And that's not what we're talking about with Dehlin. He obtained in-house information without authorization and publicized it without providing opportunity for clarification from the Church leaders. That's not OK. A reputable journalist would not do that. Anyone with a reasonable sense of decency and fairness would not do that.

 

Again, I'm mystified that you don't see (or don't admit to seeing) the difference.

[rockpond]

In this thread I've posted an article quoting Dehlin who characterizes the policy as deeming children unworthy. 

 

That is factually accurate and not a misrepresentation.  You can't just claim that something is a misrepresentation because you don't like the way it makes the church look.

[Bobbieaware]

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

So that the members who rashly condemned the leaders of the Church before things had time to settle out could come to realize that they are just that -- RASH! And being rash is never a good thing. Let's hope the lesson has been learned and that these same folks won't rashly jump off the deep end the next time something like this happens.

[rockpond]

Now we're back on track. I've been wondering about the intel you got from your stake that conflicts with the new clarification. If your stake was told previously that the clarification would be (my paraphrase) "the policy is correct" then I assume the new clarification means something happened between then and now?

 

We were not told that there would be a clarification.  We were told that the policy applied to all children with a gay parent (in a cohabit/marriage relationship) regardless of who the child lived with.  And that we could not make exceptions.  And it was indicated that this direction was coming from the area authority.

[Buckeye]

I categorically deny that I'm drawing a double-standard. I deny it for reasons I have already explained that you have steadfastly chosen to ignore.

 

Nothing in the Greg Smith piece was covertly obtained. His was a commentary on material that was widely available.

 

Smith's piece was in the nature of a book review, although it was a commentary on Internet material, not print. Academics and journalists routinely review books, movies, theatrical productions, other things. And rarely if ever do they contact the author for comment before doing so; the very notion is silly.

 

And that's not what we're talking about with Dehlin. He obtained in-house information without authorization and publicized it without providing opportunity for clarification from the Church leaders. That's not OK. A reputable journalist would not do that. Anyone with a reasonable sense of decency and fairness would not do that.

 

Again, I'm mystified that you don't see (or don't admit to seeing) the difference.

 

We'll just have to disagree. The evidence that the Smith piece was "not OK" seems pretty clear considering the rejection of the piece by the Review and the subsequent fallout. I'll remain mystified that you can criticize Dehlin here (who I'm not defending) and standby Smith's actions as being perfectly copacetic. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

We were not told that there would be a clarification.  We were told that the policy applied to all children with a gay parent (in a cohabit/marriage relationship) regardless of who the child lived with.  And that we could not make exceptions.  And it was indicated that this direction was coming from the area authority.

 

Got it. Thanks.