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

[Calm]

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.  

Does anyone have official/reliable information that confirms or denies this?  Just repeating what Dehlin claims is not sufficient imo.

[Gray]

"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.

 

Okay. But people were still upset by what was actually in the handbook. A plain reading of it was sufficient to cause a media firestorm.

 

[Gray]

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.

 

You claim the tree is bitter, but the fruits are good.

[Gray]

Dehlin characterized the policy as deeming the children not worthy of baptism.

Considering the fact that there are plenty of commonly known reasons for a child to not be expected to be baptised, claiming it's about worthiness is cynicsl at best but in this case most likely deliberately damaging.

 

Such as?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Then you are, in effect, calling them liars, because that does not reflect what has been posted today on Mormon Newsroom.

 

I disagree that they are liars and reject your implied accusation.

[Gray]

The point is I am rather ticked off at him.  I would be equally ticked off at someone else who had done what he did.   I have family members who were very disturbed by the news and it made for a hellish few days for at least one of them.  Talking to another family member and then me seemed to get her out of the trap.  I didn't like what I saw of the pain and hurt online and so many couldn't be comforted (though I was able to help a few).  Very grateful my daughter avoids controversies and prefers to depend on time proven information.

 

Though there might be a difference in my current antipathy if the person so eager to leak the policy hadn't shown a tendency of caring so much to be first with the news.  

 

Don't think it will change anything, pure venting on my part.  Sometimes even I do it.  

 

Dehlin didn't write the policy that so many found disturbing. Aren't you shooting the messenger?

[CV75]

You claim the tree is bitter, but the fruits are good.

I thought the mods told you to stop posting this sort of reply.

[Calm]

Dehlin didn't write the policy that so many found disturbing. Aren't you shooting the messenger?

No, as it was his remarks and others that were taken for truth about the policy that was actually the problem to begin with.  They had the wrong information.  From what I've heard being discussed, I would not be surprised to hear of a number of families that had problems because they were being given the wrong information and not what was in the policy.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

No, as it was his remarks and others that were taken for truth about the policy that was actually the problem to begin with.  They had the wrong information.  From what I've heard being discussed, I would not be surprised to hear of a number of families that had problems because they were being given the wrong information and not what was in the policy.

I continue to believe that for many the real cause for anger from the beginning was the clear statement that same-sex marriage constitutes apostasy and that all along they were using the alleged impact on children as a red herring.

 

Now, some refuse to draw in their horns because they're still angry about the denouncement of same-sex marriage as apostasy.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

I think that admitting so would be lying to ourselves.

[bluebell]

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.

 

Seriously, i'm going to blame Dehlin for making sure that as many people were hurt as possible.  And i'm going to blame him for misconstruing what the policy means to people who wouldn't know any better.  

 

The Brethren wrote the policy, but they did not write it so that the general public would understand it.

[Gray]

I thought the mods told you to stop posting this sort of reply.

 

I'm not allowed to say that gay families are good? You can ask them about that if you like.

[bluebell]

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

 

He was reckless with information he was never meant to have in the first place.  

[Gray]

No, as it was his remarks and others that were taken for truth about the policy that was actually the problem to begin with.  They had the wrong information.  From what I've heard being discussed, I would not be surprised to hear of a number of families that had problems because they were being given the wrong information and not what was in the policy.

 

No, the media had the right information about the policy (that is to say, the policy itself). That was precisely what caused the problem.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Seriously, i'm going to blame Dehlin for making sure that as many people were hurt as possible.  And i'm going to blame him for misconstruing what the policy means to people who wouldn't know any better.  

 

The Brethren wrote the policy, but they did not write it so that the general public would understand it.

Many more people would have been hurt had the policy gone into effect. Hiding something hurtful won't prevent the hurt

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[Calm]

No, the media had the right information about the policy (that is to say, the policy itself). That was precisely what caused the problem.

No, my family members heard inaccurate claims from chatter online, not the media.  Chatter that came first from Dehlin's site.

[Scott Lloyd]

Many more people would have been hurt had the policy gone into effect. Hiding something hurtful won't prevent the hurt

This is based on your interpretation of the wording. We're not bound by your interpretation.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

If you're really interested then ask him. He has a website and email address.

 

My guess is that he'll say that he is trying to less pain, not increase it. You'll disagree. I probably would to some degree too. But no one is going to leave happy. I think our time is better spent addressing the actual policy and members rather than Dehlin.

 

Great.  Then stop posting about him.  

 

I personally don't think that our time is that well spent talking about him or the policy on this message board.  Even if we only talked about the policy, nothing is going to get resolved.  We can pretty much guarantee that the thread will eventually be locked because of personal insults and general snarkiness.  

 

The only thing we don't know is when it will all fall a part.  I think we probably have a while yet, but if it get's past 30 pages i'll be amazed.  

[Gray]

No, my family members heard inaccurate claims from chatter online, not the media.  Chatter that came first from Dehlin's site.

 

I've heard plenty of innacurate claims from people defending the policy. But again, the policy itself was sufficient to cause the uproar

[Danzo]

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.

 

You think they were cruel and conniving enough to have meant this on purpose and yet spineless enough to change it after one week (exactly after the next meeting?)

 

You seem to have a very low opinion of the members of the quorum of the twelve and the first presidency.

[Calm]

No, the media had the right information about the policy (that is to say, the policy itself). That was precisely what caused the problem.

So why is it that if families relate how they were hurt by the policy itself, that is not an issue for a debate but if I am told by a family member that misinformation that came from Dehlin's site as a result of Dehlin's announcment caused issues, you are denying that it was anything but the policy that caused the problem.

 

I've heard plenty of innacurate claims from people defending the policy. But again, the policy itself was sufficient to cause the uproar

 

So discount my family's pain as irrelevant to be concerned about because of the pain caused by the policy?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Calm

[Gray]

This is based on your interpretation of the wording. We're not bound by your interpretation.

 

Of course not. But I assume the children who would have been denied baptisms this weekend would not have been rejoicing at this. I assume their families would have been upset too.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[Ron]

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?

 

The re-written policy does help the family in my ward and I am glad of that.  

 

But the policy has caused harm and continues to harm families who were already having a difficult time in the first place. 

 

Nothing short of dropping the policy completely will make me feel good about this.

 

Watching the church backpedal in gay tolerance is frustrating.  Many in the church (fringe and core) would rather see us moving towards being more tolerant.

 

I have avoided talking with my TBM children about this because I know it will cause confusion for them

[JLHPROF]

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

 

No, not exactly.  To be breaking the law of chastity they would have to be under a covenant to live that law.

But yes, any endowed church member not married by priesthood authority had a marriage of questionable validity.  Important to remember where the law of chastity covenant is administered - in the temple.

 

I've quoted this before:

 

Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner

 

Pg 42 -

Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsibility for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

 

Pg 46-47 -

quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married."

 

and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;"

 

 

That covenant wording was the one used up until around 1930.  (Personally I think they got rid of it because of the polygamous possibilities, not because legal was now acceptable without priesthood authority).

[Gray]

So why is it that if families relate how they were hurt by the policy itself, that is not an issue for a debate but if I am told by a family member that misinformation that came from Dehlin's site as a result of Dehlin's announcment caused issues, you are denying that it was anything but the policy that caused the problem.

 

So discount my family's pain as irrelevant to be concerned about because of th pain caused by the policy?

 

The original policy said that children of a parent who had EVER lived with a same sex partner would be denied any ordinance of the church until 18. You don't think that's enough? The problem wasn't anyone's hyperbole. The problem was the policy.