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

[Calm]

Again denying the experience of my family because it disagrees with your playbook.

 

So much for tolerance and acceptance.

[bluebell]

Many more people would have been hurt had the policy gone into effect. 

 

This is pure speculation.  I'll answer it with an answer equal to the standards it set.

 

-"No,they would not have been."

[bluebell]

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

 

So, it sounds like for you, this is not so much about families and children.  You're upset that the church isn't embracing SSM like you thought they were eventually going to and nothing short of that is going to make you feel better?

[Ron]

So, it sounds like for you, this is not so much about families and children.  You're upset that the church isn't embracing SSM like you thought they were eventually going to and nothing short of that is going to make you feel better?

 

Its everything, children, families, and the fact that the church that my family is so embedded has moved to being much less tolerant.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ron

[Ron]

So, it sounds like for you, this is not so much about families and children.  You're upset that the church isn't embracing SSM like you thought they were eventually going to and nothing short of that is going to make you feel better?

 

I was actually doing ok without embracing SSM.  But rejecting them?  Yes, thats a big deal for me.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

So if the policy meant what you thought it meant, the Church would be at fault, and if it doesn't mean what you thought it meant, the Church is still at fault.

 

At least you're consistent.

[Russell C McGregor]

Actually, here the headlines got the gist right (at least the DN and other church-friendly sources). It was the actual wording of the policy that lead to confusion.

 

No, it was the determination of a notorious media whore to get attention, and the eagerness of others to jump the gun before they had all the facts, that caused all the trouble.

[Avatar4321]

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?

Nor do I. Indeed this is precisely what I said the policy meant and was rebuked by the chronic complainers that I was wrong.

[Ron]

It seems some believers on this board think that "everything is good" now that the revisions to the policy have been released.

 

I doubt the media attention or backlash from members(fringe and core) will diminish by much.

 

I believe you have underestimated how much hurt and confusion has been caused by this policy (original and/or re-writtten).

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ron

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

Has the policy actually changed wording? because if so, it's still the original policy, the only thing that's changed is that we have clear understanding of who it actually applies to....an implication several assumed from the get-go. and one that the assumption can be seen in Christoffersen's interview (that was my initial thought....was oh, this applies to same-sex pairs with primary custody). Such an implication that was kinda pushed to the side because hyperbole, the rumor mill, and fears won out.

 

It's not saying there wouldn't still be pain and shock. There would have been. I was hurt and confused a little when I thought it applied only to kids of SS couples (not all SS persons who have kids in joint-custody situations). But the amount of pain and shock I personally do believe would have been far less if the amount of hyperbole accepted as truth/reality, hadn't had the space to grow out of hand.

 

This thread is like being in a twilight zone of converging and contradictory realities about the same events....just seen from very different lenses.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Russell C McGregor]

Of course it's a legal document. It's a written corporate policy. 

 

A remarkable assertion, given that you(!) subsequently told someone else(!!) to "turn the snark off."

 

Your snarky remark is false. It's not a "corporate policy," it's an ecclesiastical policy.

[Russell C McGregor]

Though I seriously doubt this was the original intention of the policy and not a backpedal in the face of the reaction,

And do you have any evidence to support that accusation, or is this just a case of you projecting your own level of honesty onto others?

even this clarification still does not address many of the main concerns people are having.

Yes, complainers will still complain.

This is still not about protecting the kids

Yes it is.

and the policy is still wrong.

If I had any doubts about the policy, I would find your disapproval most reassuring.

[Russell C McGregor]

I agree it helps, but it has already caused harm and will continue to cause harm to families :-(

Still the same one-note symphony, I see.

[Ron]

Still the same one-note symphony, I see.

 

Yes, its still the same.  Everyone except a subset of LDS believers can see that this policy is harmful.

[rockpond]

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.”

My understanding of the intent and interpretation of the policy came from our stake president operating under the direction of the area authority, not from social media.

So this was a change and, it seems likely due to feedback from membership and leaders.

I thank for Brethren for listening/responding although I'll still go on record as objecting to what's left of the policy.

[Russell C McGregor]

I am glad the policy has been clarified but to believe that this is what was meant all along insults my intelligence.

So, no insult then.

[omni]

If it was in fact it was all just a big misunderstanding, can someone please explain to me how such a confusing and poorly worded policy was able to be approved by 15 incredibly bright and inspired men, not to mention the Church's very competent legal and correlation departments?  

 

Apologies if this has already been asked.

[sunstoned]

Everything's opinion. In this case, the fact that the FP needed to issue a clarifying letter - a letter specifically addressing the issues of joint custody and children who are already baptized but not yet ordained - shows definitively that the policy was not clearly written in the first instance. If it had been clear, there would have been no need for clarification. 

I disagree.  The original policy was clear with their intent.  The public backlash caused them to retreat and soften their hard line.  

[Russell C McGregor]

If they did, they sure sucked at providing clarification. If they really understood the problem and waited an entire week to release a correction then they clearly weren't concerned about the level of damage and hurt amongst the members over the past week.

 

IF it was all a misunderstanding it wouldn't take them a week to provide clarification. (NO- Elder Christoffersons video didn't clarify much of anything).

 

More likely, the policy was intended the way it was written. They underestimated the backlash. They became concerned by the level of angst and decided to walk it back in a way that they could save most face.

Speculation is free.

Even when it contradicts facts.

[bluebell]

I disagree. The original policy was clear with their intent. The public backlash caused them to retreat and soften their hard line.

So we're making stuff up now and presenting it as fact?

[sunstoned]

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

I fully believe that if people had not reacted and voice their concerns the original policy would still be in place.

[Russell C McGregor]

This is a clarification that significantly alters the original policy. That should be obvious no matter how you felt about the original version, yes?

No.

Nothing in the handbook is actually operative until bishops and stake presidents receive training on how to implement it.

Five days ago, I was with my SP, and I mentioned this new policy to him. He said he knew about it. I asked him how it would apply to children whose non-custodial parent was the one in an SSM situation. He told me that that point was still to be clarified.

And now it has been.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[bluebell]

I fully believe that if people had not reacted and voice their concerns the original policy would still be in place.

The original policy is still in place.

[Russell C McGregor]

I'd rather see it stricken completely, re-write and all. Everyone is better off without any such policy change regarding homosexuals. Of course one day we'll see the Church going back on their idea of homosexual relations being a sin anyway.

No.

We won't.

[rockpond]

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.

Apparently they also didn't write it to be understood by area authorities, stake presidents, and bishops. Which of course is ironic since those brethren are the intended audience.

Or, more plausibly, we just accept that they meant what they said... Since according to most here it was an inspired change. And since it was like checked, double-checked, and vetted by legal.

Then they realized it was a mistake.

They are capable of making mistakes and still being prophets, seers, and revelators, right?