why me Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Of course it seems that john wanted some sensationalism and some publicity. It is only human to crave such attention, if so. He also knows that he has a following and his sensational interruption of the facts.would gain media attention and a following. Of course, he could have told his source from the very beginning...but..... Such is life. Edited November 16, 2015 by why me 1
CV75 Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I chopped up your post soi I could concetrate better on your questions: The question is, have we gotten to the point where we really don't want to know how the other side feels about the questions that come up? As questions come up, certainly not. As the same questions and answers keep coming up, people typically want a fresher perspective. And when the same questions and answers are given in repeated and predictable rhetoric and negative feeling has been made clear, challenging can take precedence over accepting it as just an alternative point of view. Do we only want to defend our own position? Typically not initially, but depending on the dynamic and the exchange, it can come to that. I think anyone always wants his position to be accurately and fairly portrayed and understood. Would this board be better off without posters like me who point out the view of the other side of the question?Of course not. Is that view always considered just an attack on the church and it's leaders?It depends on how it is framed. Do you always see an opposing view of church policies and doctrine as an attack on the church and your beliefs that you hold so dearly?No, and whether the opposing view is seen as an attack typically depends on how it is framed. Also, people presenting opposing views may not like their view being challenged or corrected. Or are you interested in trying to understand how others view those policies and doctrines.Yes, and the understanding of the view and the tenor of the response typically depends on how the view is framed.
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 If you think the Church will ever be accepting of living a homosexual lifestyle you have absolutely no understanding of the doctrine.Well thank you. I have absolutely no understanding, then. That's cool. 1
Analytics Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Don't be so melodramatic. The Church doesn't just issue excommunication letters and pop them in the mail. Any Church sanction is done through a thorough process that includes an invitation for the person to defend themselves. During that process it is pretty easy to determine the nature of the relationship. There are no active witch hunts going on in the Church currently that I'm aware of. I'm not being melodramatic--I'm sincerely trying to understand the Church's position. If a same-sex couple were to say, "We have a close, emotional, supportive partnership. Because we are so committed to each other, we chose to get married in order celebrate our partnership and avail ourselves of the legal rights that are available. We hold hands and cuddle, but we never have sex--it really doesn't interest us." If a couple says that, could they be members of the Church in good standing? We are told, "God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife." Based on this "clear" law, the couple isn't doing anything wrong since they aren't having sex. However, such a couple would be required to have a disciplinary council. The council could do whatever it wants of course, but I wouldn't expect very many high councils to say, "Oh! You don't have sex and your marriage is simply a plutonic close, emotional, and supportive partnership? No problem then--you are members in good standing! Provided your tithing is up to date, would you like the stake president to sign your temple recommend while he's here?"
Appleseed Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Don't be so melodramatic. The Church doesn't just issue excommunication letters and pop them in the mail. Any Church sanction is done through a thorough process that includes an invitation for the person to defend themselves. During that process it is pretty easy to determine the nature of the relationship. There are no active witch hunts going on in the Church currently that I'm aware of. Are you sure you are aware of everything the Church does? Were you aware of the new policy, for example, before the Handbook was distributed? There is a former Bishop in the news that was excommunicated without him ever going to a court. He didn't find out until much later.You weren't aware of that, I guess?
Popular Post Meadowchik Posted November 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted November 16, 2015 Of course it seems that john wanted some sensationalism and some publicity. It is only human to crave such attention, if so. He also knows that he has a following and his sensational interruption of the facts.would gain media attention and a following. Of course, he could have told his source from the very beginning...but.....Such is life.Yet his craving for attention meant he mischaracterized the policy and thus created more pain. All unnecessarily.There is a difference between genuine disagreement between two parties both acting in good faith, and actually seeking to sew contention. 7
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Not sure that's true. But a minor point in my mind. Don't call other posters liars. - Ares To be clear the "not sure that's true" was not in response to Kevin being ex'ed from other boards, only his opinion that many "here have much more latitude than a faithful defender would get on boards critical to the church". My mistake. But witht he clarification I hope it's obvious I did not and would not call Kevin a liar. 2
Mystery Meat Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Murder seems black and white. But in some cases, like Nephi murdering laban for instance, it seems to be ok. The bestest black and white I can think of is sexually abusing children. Of course then we have a prophet marrying young teenagers. It's much easier to think Joseph never consummated with his teenage brides because of that, even if we'll never know.it just feels like with every strict rule there are exceptions and that's how God tends to like it. Yuck. This is a terrible comment. I am sorry, but it is repulsive. Murder is always wrong. Black and White. Following the Lord is always right. Black and White. Sexually abusing children is always wrong. Black and White. But hey, way to paint Joseph Smith as a child abuser in trying (and failing) to make a terrible point. 2
T-Shirt Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Interesting. The actual wording of the new policy is about people who are, "living in a same-gender relationship, whether married or cohabiting." So you are saying that "a same-gender relationship" is a code word for sex, and that two people of the same gender who live together in a committed, close, emotional, supportive partnership aren't in a so-called "same-gender relationship" as long as they don't have sex? Would holding hands and cuddling put them over the edge? You might want to look up the definition of "cohabiting"
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Yuck. This is a terrible comment. I am sorry, but it is repulsive. Murder is always wrong. Black and White. Following the Lord is always right. Black and White. Sexually abusing children is always wrong. Black and White. But hey, way to paint Joseph Smith as a child abuser in trying (and failing) to make a terrible point. If I may, was Nephi wrong to murder Laban? I didn't try to paint Joseph as a child abuser. I told the facts--he married very young teenage girls. I also indicated it's easy for us to think Joseph and the teenage girls he married did not consummate their marriage because if they did consummate it'd be sad, in a sense.
Steve-o Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Dehlin described the policy as deeming children of same-sex parents to be unworthy of baptism, which is absolutely not the position of the Church. Anyone who has matured in the Church or has the comparable experience knows that there can be many other reasons besides worthiness which can prevent baptism temporarily or make it unnecessary. To assume it is about worthiness is a caustic, derogatory presumption.I agree. Saying children are unworthy doesn't seem right. What would a better word be? Unauthorized or unqualified? Each has it's own connotation but all correctly mark the child's baptism as unacceptable. 1
ksfisher Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 There is a former Bishop in the news that was excommunicated without him ever going to a court. He didn't find out until much later.You weren't aware of that, I guess? CFR on this please. 2
Ahab Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) If I may, was Nephi wrong to murder Laban? Are we going to have to define what murder is for you, bro? Why don't use try using the word kill to avoid asking a loaded question?I didn't try to paint Joseph as a child abuser. I told the facts--he married very young teenage girls. I also indicated it's easy for us to think Joseph and the teenage girls he married did not consummate their marriage because if they did consummate it'd be sad, in a sense.Yeah, you did. Marriage in itself is not abuse. Edited November 16, 2015 by Ahab
Steve-o Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 It's hard to imagine a protest having much of an influence with the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There must be a better way for people to be heard but I'm not sure what that would be. I guess for now it's Facebook.
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I don't think there's any chance people will stop wanting to trash John Dehlin, right? I mean, things like, "he craves attention" are said each time someone brings him up around here. Why does anyone care so much to point out what they don't like about him? He seems like another person who surely gets all worked up about this stuff like most of us. Does it matter if he craves attention? We all do to some extent or another. I don't get all the hostility, I guess. Anyone want to explain it to me?
Ares Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Murder seems black and white. But in some cases, like Nephi murdering laban for instance, it seems to be ok. The bestest black and white I can think of is sexually abusing children. Of course then we have a prophet marrying young teenagers. It's much easier to think Joseph never consummated with his teenage brides because of that, even if we'll never know.it just feels like with every strict rule there are exceptions and that's how God tends to like it. This just got you put on limited.
Buckeye Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I don't think there's any chance people will stop wanting to trash John Dehlin, right? I mean, things like, "he craves attention" are said each time someone brings him up around here. Why does anyone care so much to point out what they don't like about him?He seems like another person who surely gets all worked up about this stuff like most of us. Does it matter if he craves attention? We all do to some extent or another. I don't get all the hostility, I guess. Anyone want to explain it to me? It's human nature. On this board we publicize everything Dehlin does and complain that he is an attention-seeking. On the other board, they publicize everything Dan Peterson does and complain that he is an attention-seeker. By the way, it's been a little while since someone started a Kate Kelly thread. What's the problem, people ?!? Edited November 16, 2015 by Buckeye 1
Mystery Meat Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Are we going to have to define what murder is for you, bro? Why don't use try using the word kill to avoid asking a loaded question?Yeah, you did. Marriage in itself is not abuse. I am glad I am not the only one who thought this crossed about fifty lines.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 In another thread, a member on this board accused me of calling members of the church and it's leaders bigots and haters against gays. I have never said anything remotely like that nor have I ever thought that.. Here. You will know in your heart that EVERY TIME you use the term SSA, you are using a term that is offensive to the gay population. Now if you continue to use that word, that is your choice. You are free to be as offensive to the gay population as you want to be. But just know that when you type SSA, you are using s slur similar to "slant eyes" or "wet back" or "Negro". Yeah you are one of those guys. End of discussion as far as I am concerned. The next move is entirely up to you.
Analytics Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 You might want to look up the definition of "cohabiting" Cohabit [koh-hab-it] verb1. to live together as if married, usually without legal or religious sanction. 2. to live together in an intimate relationship. 3. to dwell with another or share the same place, as different species of animals. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cohabit?s=t What's your point?
Mars Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 "Mormon Church Asks Children of Gays to Delay Baptism" "Mormons Wait Until 18 to Baptize Children of Gays"
Mystery Meat Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Or perhaps they see scriptures a little differently and think church Doctrine and Policy actually goes against the Gospel and might be mistaken.Riddle me this. What was the sin of Sodom and Gamorah according to scripture?Hint: it wasn't homosexuality.Ezekiel 16:49 You keep saying that, and it may right. I will even concede that there was no homosexuality in Sodom or Gomorrah. However, we have countless other versus of scripture where the Lord condemned the practice as sinful (and not a single scriptural example of SSA/SSM being okay). So we don't need to rely on lowly old Sodom and poor Gomorrah.
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 "Mormon Church Asks Children of Gays to Delay Baptism" "Mormons Wait Until 18 to Baptize Children of Gays" Even that doesn't go far enough. "Mormons delay baptism of children of those who enter into gay marriages until 18"
Jeanne Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I just wanted to point out that he did check sources, He was not the first to get this out...and should not be blamed in my opinion for the hurt that started from those who wrote this policy. How anyone feels about John Dehlin doesn't even matter. 3
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 You keep saying that, and it may right. I will even concede that there was no homosexuality in Sodom or Gomorrah. However, we have countless other versus of scripture where the Lord condemned the practice as sinful (and not a single scriptural example of SSA/SSM being okay). So we don't need to rely on lowly old Sodom and poor Gomorrah. Well.... there was this. Genesis 19:4 ¶But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. There was homosexuality... although the scriptures say the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for: Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. The abomination in question was not defined, but may or may not include homosexuality which we know was referred to as an abomination here (along with adultery and a few other no-nos): Leviticus 18: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Recommended Posts