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

[sjdawg]

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.

 

 

So why didn't they clarify the intent during the first media "clarification"?  It seems they had ample opportunity.  After all the Church wrote both the questions and the answers for the first interview

[sjdawg]

How about this:

 

I can give you a 100% guarantee that this was the original intent. Full stop.

Well, if Mystery Meat says it then it is good enough for me.

[jwhitlock]

This has been a weird week of argument

Faithful member: This policy applies to the children living with same sex couples and local leaders can be inspired by the Spirit as necessary

Critic: no it doesn't! It extends to all children with a parent in a same sex couple even if they don't live with the parent and the strict language has to be followed with no allowance from the Spirit.

Church clarifying: This policy applies to the children living with same sex couples and local leaders can be inspired by the Spirit as necessary

Critics: Look how awesome we are! All our activism forced the Church to change the policy!

Faithful member: what the...?

 

Yep.

 

And then there are the members of the church who think that prophets should only make popular and politically correct pronouncements. Otherwise, they were obviously mistaken.

[The Nehor]

Yeah, we better just repeal it. I am sure it really just doesn't matter.

[JAHS]

If this is what they had intended all alone the church could have clarified in their initial "interview" with E. Christofferson

 

I'm still not a fan of the policy but this is certainly better than the previous interpretations.

 

But there could be a very long list of situations where the policy will need clarifications as Bishops put it into practice. The purpose of his interview was to simply explain the basic reasons for the existance of the policy. It is important for Bishops to get clarifications as needed for each individual situation. I think the following week made it clear to them what a few of the most needed clarifications were and therefore the recent statement.

[Zakuska]

So why didn't they clarify the intent during the first media "clarification"?  It seems they had ample opportunity.  After all the Church wrote both the questions and the answers for the first interview

I said it on the previous page. It seems the bretheren have been reading MD&D message board because many of the things addressed in the current letter were arguments made right here. (Eg. Muslim children and polygamy)

[sjdawg]

This clarification is a HUGE and VERY welcome relief.

Kudos to church leadership for acting quickly in responding to the concerns that have been voiced and in providing further clarification.

I agree.  the clarification is very welcome and helps resolve the situation a great deal.  

 

Personally I don't expect or anticipate the LDS Church will ever accept gay marriage so I think this policy is the best that can be hoped for.    I never planned to officially resign from the church (I haven't been to church in several years and really don't see the point of jumping through the hoops of resignation) but I can see some people changing their minds over this.   I hate the idea of the public resignation events anyway.   Seems if you are going to resign then just resign quietly and get on with life.   the only people I knew who were planning to resign were people who had considered themselves out of the church for many years anyway.

Edited November 14, 2015 by sjdawg

[mfbukowski]

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 the pain caused by the policy?

I missed all this Dehlin stuff.  It is not clear to me how he "leaked" anything, but of course I got a pdf of the handbook page released from the church at the time the church sent it out so I was out of the loop on how most people heard about it.

 

Would you mind just sending me a link or two about Dehlin's involvement in the alleged "leak"?  Was the Interpreter involved somehow?  I am totally confused.

 

I mean the policy is the policy- I am not understanding what difference it makes who publicized it first or how they spinned it.  It was poorly written and badly needed clarification- that was clear, and now we have it.  Is that part of the issue?  The leak caused its release before it was fully formulated?  I tried to follow some of these posts backwards looking for the place it first appeared but could not find it.

[sjdawg]

if this was a military organization Dehlin could very well face a court martial for creating mass hysteria and unrest in the military itself. likewise, the Kingdom of God is not one to seek disharmony and this policy change is actually an attempt to alleviate disharmony.

Well, it isn't a military organization so I don't really see your point.   If it had been Saudi Arabia Dehlin could have been be-headed for criticizing leadership however that isn't relevant either.

[Deborah]

So why didn't they clarify the intent during the first media "clarification"?  It seems they had ample opportunity.  After all the Church wrote both the questions and the answers for the first interview

 

How many times does this have to be asked and answered before it gets through! They did and the quote from Elder Christofferson has been cited more than once. 

[sjdawg]

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.

If they do rush policies that need immediate revision then even more concerns should be raised about the quality of their work.   Regardless of what anyone says I continue to believe this is a "change" in policy and not a clarification of intent.  To me the intent of the initial draft was clear and other posters have confirmed the instructions they were given.

 

On a side note I find it odd to see so much criticism of Dehlin.  I'm not a fan of Dehlin and find him to be a bit of an attention seeker but I can't find much fault with him on this one.   Don't blame the messenger for delivering a bad message.

Edited November 14, 2015 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

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.

 

I have no reason to accept everything they say as 100% truth.   The corporate church is just as susceptible to PR spin as other international corporations.

[sjdawg]

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 saw very few (off the top of my head I can't recall any - but I assume they did exist) complaints that SSM was now classified as apostasy.  It may have been a red herring but most posters were focused entirely on children.   I think gay adults have known for a long, long time how the mormon church felt about them.  It has been made abundantly clear.

Edited November 14, 2015 by sjdawg

[rockpond]

Who can really tell? We all developed an intent and understanding prior to your hearing anything from your stake president, and then again prior to your area authority receiving today’s guidance and now with today's guidance.

The reference to social media in the newsroom article has to do with the inaccurate portrayals accepted by some members and contributing to some members’ conclusions and confusion, and not to do the instructions given by your stake president.

I don't see how clarification and guidance that gives rise to a change in one's understanding and perspective translates into a change in the actual policy.

You sound like you're receiving an award LOL. How will the Brethren document this objection in the record? Or are you referring to an imaginary record of an imaginary, "unofficial common consent"?

"Who can really tell?"

Anyone who read the policy. It wasn't a mystery that we've been trying to solve all week. It was plain, simple text.

The "clarification" changed the policy.

As for my objection, I don't expect the Brethren to care. In fact, it seems that those who were behind this policy would probably rather have me out of the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no reason to accept everything they say as 100% truth. The corporate church is just as susceptible to PR spin as other international corporations.

And I have no use for or any reason to accept your toxic cynicism. See the quote in my sig line from President Uchtdorf.

[sjdawg]

And I have no use for or any reason to accept your toxic cynicism. See the quote in my sig line from President Uchtdorf.

Excellent news.   something we can agree on

[Scott Lloyd]

I saw very few (off the top of my head I can't recall any - but I assume they did exist) complaints that SSM was now classified as apostasy.  It may have been a red herring but most posters were focused entirely on children.   I think gay adults have known for a long, long time how the mormon church felt about them.  It has been made abundantly clear.

They're not thrilled with the direction on dealing with gay marriage either but they know they can score more rhetorical points by focusing on children. I very recently saw a quote attributed to Elder Maxwell to the effect that Satan knows better than anyone how to work a crowd.

[rockpond]

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.

Unworthy: ineligible, unqualified

Dehlin's statement that the policy made children unworthy (ineligible, unqualified) for baptism was accurate.

The damage, confusion, and pain was caused by the policy itself. Sorry, you can't make Dehlin your scapegoat.

[carbon dioxide]

A lot of people have already resigned over this with a mass resignation event in Salt Lake tomorrow. Thousands have been reported as having had left and about 1000 are expected to show up tomorrow. That's a lot of lost membership numbers. Luckily there's still 15 million on the records.

I would predict the majority are inactive in the wards they are assigned to.  If anything this makes the jobs of some bishops easier.

[JAHS]

I missed all this Dehlin stuff.  It is not clear to me how he "leaked" anything, but of course I got a pdf of the handbook page released from the church at the time the church sent it out so I was out of the loop on how most people heard about it.

 

Would you mind just sending me a link or two about Dehlin's involvement in the alleged "leak"?  Was the Interpreter involved somehow?  I am totally confused.

 

I mean the policy is the policy- I am not understanding what difference it makes who publicized it first or how they spinned it.  It was poorly written and badly needed clarification- that was clear, and now we have it.  Is that part of the issue?  The leak caused its release before it was fully formulated?  I tried to follow some of these posts backwards looking for the place it first appeared but could not find it.

 

I listened to a podcast Dehlin made today and he states that he has no clue who leaked it to the media. 

[rockpond]

I do believe that they are very capable of mistakes, but i don't believe they are capable of the motivations that many have placed upon them. Nor do i think they are capable of being as stupid as many have implied they are, or as duplicitous.

They are still saying exactly what they said before--the policy has not been changed, and absolutely nothing in the clarification contradicts what Elder Christofferson said during his interview the first day the policy came out--they have just clarified how it is meant to be applied.

I agree, the Brethren certainly aren't stupid nor duplicitous. That's why I trust that the policy they published was an accurate representation of what they wanted.

But they are not saying what they said before. The "clarification" has changed the meaning of the policy.

I'm curious, for those on here who supported the original policy... For those who said it was inspired and compassionate to withhold ordinances from children who had at least one parent in a homosexual relationship. Isn't it a negative to have the policy changed now? Less compassionate? Less inspired?

[BlueDreams]

Unworthy: ineligible, unqualified

Dehlin's statement that the policy made children unworthy (ineligible, unqualified) for baptism was accurate.

The damage, confusion, and pain was caused by the policy itself. Sorry, you can't make Dehlin your scapegoat.

 

That feels like a mighty stretch there on the definition. Those are 2 possible synonyms but 2 others found on the google definition included undeserving and unfit. And each definition entailed a value-laden and negative connotation. One that fits fairly well in LDS vernacular and use of that term. The LDS use wouldn't find them "unworthy...." so yeah, I'd consider it an inaccurate statement. Not as inaccurate as the one blog I read that said this policy made the children lower than the sons of perdition....but still inaccurate.

 

With luv,

BD 

[rockpond]

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

Yes. Today's "clarification" shows that they knew how to say what they actually meant.

So, the fact that they didn't say it that way originally, tells us that the original interpretation of the policy was correct. And they realized they had made a mistake. It would be nice if they would just admit that rather than place the blame on church members.

[BlueDreams]

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

 

That's why I'd call it the twilight zone....strange things be happening here.

 

Honestly this thread makes me feel strangely crazy. I keep looking at the same material expecting myself to suddenly see the things that others were seeing. Or maybe my memory from a week ago was seriously failing.

 

Mostly it reminds me me of the random quote in my tag line feels like basically a summary to this thread. 

[rockpond]

That feels like a mighty stretch there on the definition. Those are 2 possible synonyms but 2 others found on the google definition included undeserving and unfit. And each definition entailed a value-laden and negative connotation. One that fits fairly well in LDS vernacular and use of that term. The LDS use wouldn't find them "unworthy...." so yeah, I'd consider it an inaccurate statement. Not as inaccurate as the one blog I read that said this policy made the children lower than the sons of perdition....but still inaccurate.

With luv,

BD

Yes, they are possible definitions. If someone is going to accuse Dehlin of misrepresenting the policy -- it is on them to prove that he was using a different definition. Until then, you can't state that he misrepresented it.

It's so disappointing (though not surprising) to see so many scramble to blame others for "misinterpreting" a clear policy rather than looking to the actual authors of the policy for the pain and confusion they caused (and continue to cause).