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

[rockpond]

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.

 

If members had not reacted the way they did, I doubt that the policy would have been "clarified" (changed).  It was clearly written.  Do you believe the Brethren would rashly publish a policy without clearly understanding what it meant?

 

This is a great example of the Brethren listening to the members.  An unofficial common consent was successful in rejecting the original policy.

[Calm]

WRT to the week-long delay before clarification:  Don't the Q15 only meet once a week?  I wonder if it just took that long for them all to convene and discuss. 

Good question.  Many are traveling. 

[Teancum]

And I seriously doubt this isn't you projecting your own weaselly ways onto Church leaders.

 

What is it the mods say...

 

Do not insult those who disagree with you.

[mfbukowski]

No doubt clarification may still be in order but I don't find these concerns quite so troubling. Well, transgender is really easy. If one is born male and has w=sexual relations with another born male than it's a homosexual relation. If for medical reasons, a gender was legally altered, I do not see a conflict with this policy so far as the gender is clear and consistent. Polygamy is not homosexuality. Everyone in our country has a primary residence. It's how schools, who teach many children in 50/50 custody operate. No agency is curtailed. Rules are set and people can follow them if they choose to.

So there's your solution right there.

 

Transgender operations are prescribed for people who identify with being the other sex as a cure for sexual identity disorders as a medical problem.  It works all the time to have insurance companies foot the bill.

 

If you are a gay male, just marry a transgender woman who is now a man and everything is hunky dory!  Problem solved!

[Calm]

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.

But quite possibly not as a full quorum since there are those who go on worldwide assignments frequently.

[Rivers]

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.

I feel the same. I hate contention. All the negativity caused me some anxiety. Edited November 13, 2015 by Rivers

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Well now you're just plain misstating facts.

 

The piece was rejected by one who had never even seen it. Dehlin had never seen it. Those he contacted about it had never seen it. Others who raised concerns about it with the Maxwell Institute had never seen it.

 

The "fall-out" you're talking about had more to do with intra-departmental politics and a resulting chain of events than Greg Smith's review.

 

Did you bother to review the thread you linked to, or did you only link to it?

 

Furthermore, the piece eventually was published -- by the Interpreter Foundation -- and by any objective or fair measure, it was not a "hit piece," but rather, what it purported to be: an academic review of a body of published work.

 

I'll remain mystified that you can criticize Dehlin here (who I'm not defending) and standby Smith's actions as being perfectly copacetic.

 

I do it because they are not at all the same thing, and it is distortion on your part to say that they are.

 

Again, commenting on published material is not the same thing as covertly obtaining and publishing inside material without giving the possessor of that material a chance to comment or clarify.

 

Edited to add:

 

Maybe I should make that last sentence part of my sig line so I could quickly reference it, as you seem so determined to ignore it.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

 

 

 

Are you ticked that he released the info, that he did so without consulting the church first, that he mischaracterized some things, or something else? 

 

It's been a rough week for a lot of people. Dehlin may have been the spark, but I can't blame 99% of the anger on him. Most all of the anger is a result of the policy itself (and confusion about its meaning and intent). After the initial spark, Dehlin hasn't really been a factor.

 

The combination that resulted in the firestorm.  I don't see others might be adding brands to the pile changing the fact of who lit the bonfire first.  It didn't have to happen that way.  He chose to promote anger, hostility and fear which resulted in a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.

[Calm]

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).

Thanks for the information.

[Scott Lloyd]

The combination that resulted in the firestorm.  I don't see others might be adding brands to the pile changing the fact of who lit the bonfire first.  It didn't have to happen that way.  He chose to promote anger, hostility and fear which resulted in a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.

Including some who rushed to abandon their membership in the Church and who now may never find their way back.

[CV75]

If members had not reacted the way they did, I doubt that the policy would have been "clarified" (changed).  It was clearly written.  Do you believe the Brethren would rashly publish a policy without clearly understanding what it meant?

 

This is a great example of the Brethren listening to the members.  An unofficial common consent was successful in rejecting the original policy.

This is a great example of giving credit where none is due.

 

Your doubt and your assertion that clarification equates to change is a great example of “the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information.”

 

I think it is a great example of giving clarification (Elder Cristofferson) and guidance (the recent letter) to those who asked while acknowledging 1) “questions from many Church members, who were mostly reading media headlines portraying the instructions as a rejection of children and refusal to name babies…” 2)“…specific questions about how the announced change might affect their loved ones” and 3) “the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete news reports, tweets and Facebook posts without necessary context and accurate information.”

[Calm]

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 

That would depend on why it was rejected.  It wasn't even read by those who were rejected it for publication so I see assuming it was because it was "not OK" is problematic.

 

add-on:  what Scott said

Edited November 13, 2015 by Calm

[jwhitlock]

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?

 

I'm sure they did, actually. As is usual with difficult policies (and SSM is a can of worms), clarifications and adjustments are going to be needed over time.

 

For those of us who have tried to understand the intent of the policy in the first place, this whole thing is not a problem.

[Tsuzuki]

I prefer this definition of chastity, anyway.

http://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/chastity.html

[HappyJackWagon]

But quite possibly not as a full quorum since there are those who go on worldwide assignments frequently.

But they've heard of a phone, right? Skype, email, google hangouts? I'm certain after last week they have all heard of social media. They could instant message through Facebook.

 

The idea that they had to wait a week because they didn't have an opportunity to discuss it is a bit absurd.

[carbon dioxide]

From LDS.org:

 

 

It appears to me that the only possible resolution to the same-sex attraction and marriage problems is to repeal the law of chastity.

 

A few questions: 

 

1. In our church, homosexual relations are considered sinful - serious violations of the law of chastity. Present and past church teachings about this are unequivocal. The same standard applies to heterosexual relations outside of marriage. Given current trends and changing attitudes, should homosexual relations be removed from the list of violations of the law of chastity?

 

2. Outside the church, there appears to be almost universal approval of people living together or having multiple partners before marriage. Should the law of chastity be done away with completely or in part, since it is no longer the standard of almost all modern society, including many religions that at one time upheld it?

 

3. Now that same-sex marriage is legal, should the wording of the church marriage covenants and promises be changed to include same-sex partners?

 

4. If you are upset with the church's policies on same-sex marriage, what would satisfy your disaffection? What specific laws, policies, practices should the church change? Do you seek incremental changes? If so, where do you hope this will lead?

1.  No.  God does not take a public poll on what is a sin.  Homosexual acts are a sin to God even if every single person on earth thinks they are ok.

 

2.  Same answer as 1

 

3.  The wording of the Law of Chastity does not need to be changed.  It is clear what is acceptable and what is not.  They are developing robots that one possibly could have sex with.  Even though the law does not specify robots, I think we all should know it includes that as well.  The only time sexual relations can occur in between man and woman in marriage.  No other situation that man can conceive in his mind can be added to that. 

 

4.  I don't like the church policy because I don't think it is needed.  The number of examples of same sex married kids will be extremely small.  The Church can work with each individual case on its own merits.  It should treat married gay people the same way is it treats unmarried gays and unmarried heterosexual.  The policy should simply state that even though the law recognizes gay marriages, the Church does not and will treat such unions as the same it has always done before the Supreme Court made its decision. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure they did, actually. As is usual with difficult policies (and SSM is a can of worms), clarifications and adjustments are going to be needed over time.

 

For those of us who have tried to understand the intent of the policy in the first place, this whole thing is not a problem.

Moral: If you rush to assume the worst, you quite often create problems for yourself and others.

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm sure they did, actually. As is usual with difficult policies (and SSM is a can of worms), clarifications and adjustments are going to be needed over time.

 

For those of us who have tried to understand the intent of the policy in the first place, this whole thing is not a problem.

Yes, it's totally normal to need to "clarify" and make "adjustments" after a policy is in place for an entire week. This was clearly part of their master plan. Pure silliness.

 

The policy was a mistake. They're admitting that without actually admitting it so they can save face. That's fine. But let's not pretend this wasn't a massive screw up. One way or the other, the leadership messed up. Let's admit that and move on.

Edited November 13, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

But they've heard of a phone, right? Skype, email, google hangouts? I'm certain after last week they have all heard of social media. They could instant message through Facebook.

 

The idea that they had to wait a week because they didn't have an opportunity to discuss it is a bit absurd.

If what you have done -- not to be published to the world but to be used in house -- has been so widely misconstrued, doesn't it make sense to take some time and effort in drafting a clarification before publishing it?

 

The above post is yet another example of assuming the worse in motives and intent. When will the lesson be learned?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, it's totally normal to need to "clarify" and make "adjustments" after a policy is in place for an entire week. This was clearly part of their master plan. Pure silliness.

 

The policy was a mistake. They're admitting that without actually admitting it so they can save face. That's fine. But let's not pretend this wasn't a massive screw up. One way or the other, the leadership messed up. Let's admit that and move on.

They are not admitting the policy is a mistake. They are standing by it with the clarifications that have been published today. Do not distort. It is not cool.

[carbon dioxide]

"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.

 

I wonder how Mr Dehlin would expect the Church to enforce the policy without anyone knowing?  Especially in the days of the internet.  Perhaps there were some did not intend the issue to go widespread as it did but if that is the case, those people need to get a reality check. In the day of the internet, almost everything is public.  The moment one publishes something on the internet or in print and it leaves the custody of the person who made it, it is in the public domain and it can go "viral" as they say at any moment.

[The Nehor]

I prefer this definition of chastity, anyway.

http://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/chastity.html

Who wouldn't? If my preferences were taken into account the first law of the gospel would be something like: "At the end of every day it shall be truthfully said that a good time was had by all."

[HappyJackWagon]

If what you have done -- not to be published to the world but to be used in house -- has been so widely misconstrued, doesn't it make sense to take some time and effort in drafting a clarification before publishing it?

 

The above post is yet another example of assuming the worse in motives and intent. When will the lesson be learned?

I don't think it was misconstrued. I think the original stated what they intended.

 

I don't believe the brethren would rush a policy without careful review and consideration. Is that what you're suggesting they did? Did they write a handbook policy that was so unclear (only if you tried to make it mean something it didn't actually say) they had to make changes after a week. No. I think the push back caused them to reconsider and make some changes and I'm glad they did.

[Gray]

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.

 

If it wasn't harmful, why reverse so much of it now?

 

By emotional delicate flowers, do you mean little kids?

[Calm]

But they've heard of a phone, right? Skype, email, google hangouts? I'm certain after last week they have all heard of social media. They could instant message through Facebook.

 

The idea that they had to wait a week because they didn't have an opportunity to discuss it is a bit absurd.

I don't think that was what was being suggested.

 

I understood Ginger Snaps (iirc) as suggesting the 15 have a very scheduled life and they did not make an exception to it...probably in the view that it could be given the same due consideration in the same way that other issues are done.

 

I am not saying they were right for making this decision if this was what was made.  I am not making any decision about it until I know the facts, which will likely be never.

 

Ginger Snaps can clarify if needed.