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

[Russell C McGregor]

As someone who would know (trust me, I do), this was the original intent. Was it poorly written, probably, but this was its intent. To claim otherwise you are basically calling the brethren liars. I am not okay with that.

There's a reason why they do that.

In the words of Gandalf, "The treacherous are ever mistrustful."

Edited November 14, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Gray]

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

 

So much for tolerance and acceptance.

 

I'm not sure who you think is doing that.

[Gray]

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

 

-"No,they would not have been."

 

A lot of children of faithful members would have been arbitrarily denied baptism. I think that would hurt. You don't think so?

[Calm]

I'm not sure who you think is doing that.

You.  Clear enough?

[Gray]

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 

 

Compare the original policy of a week ago with the new updates:

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

This clarification is a huge step towards the church being more internally consistent.  I have to say, though, it is transparently disingenuous to call it clarifying the original policy rather than relaxing it.

You're projecting. As usual.

[Gray]

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?

 

Presumably if today's update had been what was intended all along, the original wording of the policy would have reflected that, not to mention the original clarification of the policy by Elder Christofferson

[Gray]

You.  Clear enough?

 

I didn't deny anyone's experience. I just don't think your sample size of the handful of people you were referring to reflects the larger experience of the problem. Dehlin didn't need to say anything for people to be hurt by this policy. I didn't read his summary of it, I just read the actual policy, and believe me, it hurt plenty.

 

The media by and large got the information right. And there was plenty of uproar based on that correct information.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[Russell C McGregor]

I've heard you and others arguing over the last week that the policy is not harmful.  Then a re-written policy was released to prevent the obvious harm that would have been caused by the original policy.  Can you see why your statement that it is not harmful does not resonate?

Only fifty words, and "harm" and "harmful" are three of them.

And your confident assertion that the clarification is not the original policy is clearly false. Furthermore, it demonstrates that, in imputing bad faith to the leaders of the Church, you are bringing your own bad faith to this discussion.

Please stop it.

[bluebell]

A lot of children of faithful members would have been arbitrarily denied baptism. I think that would hurt. You don't think so?

I don't think that would have happened.

[Russell C McGregor]

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?

The answer, of course, is that they are not.

However, habitually dishonest people do tend to suspect others of being just as dishonest as themselves. Perhaps that applies in this case.

[Ron]

Only fifty words, and "harm" and "harmful" are three of them.

And your confident assertion that the clarification is not the original policy is clearly false. Furthermore, it demonstrates that, in imputing bad faith to the leaders of the Church, you are bringing your own bad faith to this discussion.

Please stop it.

 

I'll stop if you admit that the unclarified version of the policy had potential to hurt families.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ron

[Russell C McGregor]

One does wonder why it was not part of the original and why the lag in clarification.

That wonder makes sense, if we all assume that the apostles sit around in the office all of every day, meeting together and discussing what they read on the internet.

Given that that's not at all how they really work, I find the one week to be very timely. In fact, it looks as if the clarfication was put into the works virtually as soon as anyone realised there was a question to be answered.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You need to read your own scriptures before you mock the number of people that are resigning.

 

D&C 18:15-16

 

Matthew 18:11-13

In case you have forgotten, I am not actually LDS, I am an extremely Unorthodox Hebrew Roots Book of Mormon Believer currently fellowshipping with RLDS Restoration Branches- I was an Apostate before it was cool - so my D&C 18:15-16 reads thus:

 

"   "

But when they do something right, I will support and applaud it. And they nailed this one, though I would apply it to more circumstances.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Off-topic, irrelevant, spiteful, and a personal attack.

[Ginger Snaps]

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).

Yes.  I know people would probably have preferred this clarification to come sooner, but IMO the way it came down is more in keeping with how the Q15 operates.  To me it makes sense that it would have landed on the agenda for yesterday's meeting and they would have individually fasted/prayed on the issue and then come together as a quorum to discuss. 

 

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.

Yep

 

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.

I agree.  I think a big part of the outcry was the shattering of the hope that the church might eventually "retrofit" the gospel to include gay marriage--though I certainly don't mean to downplay the anger and concern over how this policy will affect children. 

 

t he original policy is still in place.

Yes, it's still exactly the same in CHB1 as it was last week.  My husband has access to it through his calling.  I looked at it online today.  The wording of the policy has not changed.  We simply have more information about how to interpret it. 

 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ginger Snaps

[jwhitlock]

This is a real laugh riot.

 

Here we have critics of the church telling us, as fact, that here's what the Brethren intended, how they actually thought, how they realized they've messed up, how we are required to interpret the policies they make, how it was all driven by the lawyers, how they are living in fear of what they've done, how the vast majority of church members are totally offended by the policy, how people have been hurt, how people might have been hurt, how people will still be hurt, how the world is so much more in tune with what is right than the leaders of the church are, etc., etc., etc.

 

The level of absurd rationalization against the church has really brought people's true allegiances out of the woodwork and into plain view for all to see.

 

If nothing else, it has been instructive. I think critics have made Keely Mullen's rationalizations for how to pay for free college tuition look reasonable by comparison.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BTW, I can't believe I am whole-heartedly agreeing with ScottLloyd the TheNehor

[Calm]

I just don't think your sample size of the handful of people you were referring to reflects the larger experience of the problem. 

So what.  Is the hurt of one family when it could have been avoided and unnecessary not as important in your view as the hurt of another, no matter what the source of the hurt is?  Should not people who are culpable for hurting others be held responsible or only when it hits a certain number of families or hits a certain variety of family?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Calm

[Gray]

I don't think that would have happened.

 

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/11/10/mormon-boy-denied-priesthood-ordination-because-his-mom-is-living-with-a-woman/

[Russell C McGregor]

That [the claim that the policy makes children unworthy] 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.

No, it is not factually accurate. It's charitable to call it a "misrepresentation" because it's an outright falsehood.

You can't just deny that something is a misrepresentation because you do like the way it makes the church look.

The policy does not make the children of a parent in a same sex marriage "unworthy." No competent, honest person has ever claimed that it does.

[sunstoned]

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

Because the original intention was in the original policy release.  What we have now is their reaction to the public outcry.  Even with the most recent "clarification" there is still the issue of many children who will be restricted from membership until the age of 18, and only after they disavow their parents.  This policy still will damage families. 

[Gray]

So what.  Is the hurt of one family when it could have been avoided and unnecessary not as important in your view as the hurt of another, no matter what the source of the hurt is?  Should not people who are culpable for hurting others be held responsible or only when it hits a certain number of families or hits a certain variety of family?

 

You make a great point. I guess I was focused on the main issue rather than the details you were sharing. One instance is always one too many.

 

What misrepresentation hurt the people you refer to?

[sunstoned]

The original policy is still in place.

And children will be penalized for the "sins" of their parents.  This "policy" is very far from Christ's teachings.

[Darren10]

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!

 

Well, if it's *for medical reasons*, not just so you can have sex with people you should not have sex with.