Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the Mormon leadership drew the hostile focus on themselves this time.

And I think this is pure bilgewater.

It's like the husband who beats his wife and then complains that she brought it on herself.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's my understanding that the Church leadership was in the process of notifying local leaders individually at the time, and that it wold be addressed in future training.

I'm not in a bishopric or stake presidency, so I cant say that firsthand.

That was not and still is not consistent with my experience as a counselor.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That is correct.  As soon as I heard about the possiblity of a handbook change, back on Nov 5, I immediately checked my online version of Handbook 1 and the new sections were there.

Well, it makes sense if they were going to tell local leaders there had been a change to the handbook, they would first make the change to the handbook.

Unless your notion is you have some kind of prior veto power.

 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I think this is pure bilgewater.

It's like the husband who beats his wife and then complains that she brought it on herself.

 

 

Or like the straight kids of gay parents who are shunned and then told they are welcome.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That was not and still is not consistent with my experience as a counselor.

I have reason to question your experience as a counselor, after you told us your stake president gave you instruction that later was directly contradicted by the clarification from the Church. I think somewhere along the line, you or your stake president got your wires crossed. Could happen again.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That was not and still is not consistent with my experience as a counselor.

My understanding is that they started notifying local leaders after the leak, not before.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, consiglieri said:

My understanding is that they started notifying local leaders after the leak, not before.

Well, the leaker didn't give them a whole lot of time to do it before, did he/she?

 

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it makes sense if they were going to tell local leaders there had been a change to the handbook, they would first make the change to the handbook.

Unless your notion is you have some kind of prior veto power.

 

What about the idea of doing the training before making the change to the handbook?

Or would that be too practical?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Or like the straight kids of gay parents who are shunned and then told they are welcome.

The misuse of the word shunned by those of your ilk does a disservice to people who actually are shunned.

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That is incorrect.  They actually did insert the paragraphs into the handbook without notifying us first.  No training, examples, or explanation beyond Elder Christofferson's video and the Nov 13 letter were given nor have they been announced.

I'm aware that the paragraphs were inserted. What I'm saying, as you perfectly well know, is that the insertion of the paragraphs is only part of the process, and further information was always going to be coming.

Because, as you perfectly well know, that's how things are done in the Church.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The misuse of the word shunned by those of your ilk does a disservice to people who actually are shunned.

Use whatever word you like, Scott, my analogy holds.

Would you care to address the substance of my remark or argue about semantics?

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Or like the straight kids of gay parents who are shunned and then told they are welcome.

That's utterly incoherent. If you are telling someone they are welcome, you have ipso facto not "shunned" them. In fact, you've done exactly the opposite.

You like your anti-Mormon kool-aid completely undiluted, don't you?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

What about the idea of doing the training before making the change to the handbook?

Or would that be too practical?

Why was it impractical to put in place beforehand? Because it made a lot of people mad? You don't think that would have happened in either case?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This statement requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

The "clarification" (i.e., revision) that came from the First Presidency letter was NEVER going to come if there had been no leak.

If so, the First Presidency letter would not have revised the policy.

If so, the policy manual itself would have been changed.

Or never written that way in the first place.

Or do you think the Q15 just roll these policies out willy-nilly and wait for local leader reaction before they begin to "clarify" them?

 

No, it doesn't require any "suspension of disbelief." It just requires knowledge of the facts.

Your clairvoyant powers are defective. Every policy change that's happened in my adult life has always been accompanied by training to those who are going to be implementing it. The training doesn't usually happen in a three-day window, but it always happens.

I realise that there is a certain clique who feel an emotional need to see the clarification as a "revision," because they like to tell themselves that the brethren are running scared of them. The reality, however, is that the clarification (called that by the only people who have actual first hand knowledge thereof, so that's what all people of good will call it) shows the original intent of the policy.

This is clearly apparent because Elder Christofferson, discussing the policy just one day after it was leaked, explained it in terms of the home life of the children it addresses.

That's the reasoning behind it. That's why it was issued.

And that's what the letter clarifies.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Use whatever word you like, Scott, my analogy holds.

Would you care to address the substance of my remark or argue about semantics?

Your remark is, as Russell just said, utterly incoherent. Why should I address "the substance" of it?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

41 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It was not "in the process of being rolled out."

It had already been surreptitiously codified in the CHI-1.

This was never meant to go public.

My impression is the Church got caught with its pants down on this one.

 

Putting it into the handbook is part of the process. It is never the whole process.

There was nothing "surreptitious" about it. The Church doesn't usually make press releases describing updates to internal documents. Like most of those accusing the brethren of dishonesty, you are clearly projecting.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
No reason in particular

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Not on their radar?  Apparently there were enough gay couples wanting to baptize their children that it warranted its own section of the handbook.

Wanting?  I rather think it never occurred to them that their “new normal” would be questioned, challenged or unable to accommodate their traditional and cultural expectations.

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This was never meant to go public.

That is how all CHI changes are handled.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Putting it into the handbook is part of the process. It is never the whole process.

There was nothing "surreptitious" about it. The Church doesn't usually make press releases describing updates to internal documents. Like most of those accusing the brethren of dishonesty, you are clearly projecting.

 

In fact, although Handbook 2 is publicly accessible, Handbook 1 is not a public document anyway. For those who do not hold a calling that makes them privy to it, acting (through the use of descriptors such as "surreptitious") as though they should be given advance notice of any changes to it strikes me as awfully presumptuous.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Wanting?  I rather think it never occurred to them that their “new normal” would be questioned, challenged or unable to accommodate their traditional and cultural expectations.

What "new normall"? (And why did you put that phrase in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?)

According to a bishop I spoke to, the new wording in the handbook merely codifies what already was standard practice.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, the leaker didn't give them a whole lot of time to do it before, did he/she?

 

That is only because the Church decided to slip the new policy in before holding any training.

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In fact, although Handbook 2 is publicly accessible, Handbook 1 is not a public document anyway. For those who do not hold a calling that makes them privy to it, acting (through the use of descriptors such as "surreptitious") as though they should be given advance notice of any changes to it strikes me as awfully presumptuous.

 

Presumptuous only to those who have grown accustomed to LDS opacity.

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

According to a bishop I spoke to, the new wording in the handbook merely codifies what already was standard practice.

 

You are telling me it was already "standard practice" to deny blessings to babies of children with a gay parent?

Now who is spouting bilge water, Scott?

[consiglieri]

24 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Putting it into the handbook is part of the process. It is never the whole process.

There was nothing "surreptitious" about it. The Church doesn't usually make press releases describing updates to internal documents. Like most of those accusing the brethren of dishonesty, you are clearly projecting.

 

I am not accusing the brethren of "dishonesty," Russell.

Is it possible for you to make your own argument without mischaracterizing mine?

But it was indeed "surreptitious."

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What "new normall"? (And why did you put that phrase in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?)

According to a bishop I spoke to, the new wording in the handbook merely codifies what already was standard practice

SSM is the new normal for those engaged in it, and is becoming the new normal for the much of society. I'm suggesting that they view the world as if it should be the Church's new norm too. But that is not so, according to the Lord's standards. I put the words in quotes because it's only a norm from a certain worldly perspective.

I'm suggesting that such parents may have expected their children to be baptized from a traditional or cultural standpoint (not a serious obedience and covenant standpoint), and while baptism at age eight may be an LDS tradition and cultural expectation, it is much more than that for the faithful, and they didn't expect to be called out on the seriousness consequences of what they were only casually expecting, those consequences being the conflict imposed on the children which led to the situations and questions that called for the new policy (whether the policy was new or a codification as you described it).

Edited December 12, 2015 by CV75