Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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."

Of course you're not; "surreptitious" is a synonym for "honest."

Or is it?

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Or would that be too practical?

I'm not sure that would fit in an authoritarian, top-down organizational structure. Such organizations usually lead the policy, then follow up with training on how they want it followed.  The problem in this case is that it was leaked rather quickly.  Which hints to the leak coming from a BP/Sp.

[sunstoned]

On 12/7/2015 at 8:57 AM, california boy said:

I think all can attend church services whether they have been excommunicated or called apostates.  Whether they are welcome or not probably depends on the people of the ward.

I believe that excommunicated people cannot participate in the services in any way, which includes active participation in SS lessons. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

You've heard of people telling others that they should feel rejected?  I guess I haven't really seen that.

You don't think it is at least implied when people state as a fact the Church is unwelcoming?

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This was never meant to go public.

Are you suggesting that the Church is not aware that Handbook 1 is available online, that any new version is put online almost as soon as it appears and that there are many who keep an eye out for changes to the handbook (and other church materials for that matter)?

If you are not, could you please explain how the Church leadership would expect this part of the Handbook not to be shortly available to anyone in the public who were willing to use these nonLDS online sources?

(serious question, I don't understand the reasoning you are using or perhaps I am defining what it means to "go public" differently)

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours 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.

Are you saying that there have never been policy changes to the manual that have been shortly followed by letters of announcement and clarification before?

I think it is likely that having the Handbook online might have changed the timing of the process somewhat in that policy changes would not appear in the Handbook until a new edition was printed up, so policy announcements and more indepth clarification of specifics such as adaptation to local circumstances might be combined with the release of the policy itself.  It would be useful if possible to look at past policy changes and see if letters announcing them only contain what was said in the later version of the Handbook or include additional commentary.

I think it is possible that in the future due to what happened this time around, that any additional commentary that is intended to accompany a policy change will be issued at the same time as the online version is changed...though ensuring that everything gets emailed out at the same time might be more complicated than I am thinking it is.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Or would that be too practical?

The problem there imo is that one would have two different versions of policy coexisting, the new version of the training and the older version left in the Handbook until the training was done.

[Calm]

I think a significant part of my difficulty with seeing this as a surreptitious (defined as "kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of" by google) endeavour is that as I understand it they had notified a number of bishops and stake presidents (this is why it is believed by some that it was a stake president or bishop that leaked it, right?) of the new policy, though it had not yet been sent out as a general announcement to all bishops, stake presidents and branch presidents.

Is there any reason to believe that having informed a number of church leaders, they would have not informed the rest?  It seems to me logical and realistic that they would have continued as they had started and inform more leaders over time until all were notified just as they have done in the past in my understanding (perhaps someone can correct if they have never sent out announcements of policy changes, but I believe I have seen a number of them in the past when I was a ward librarian as well as coming across copies in my husband's files which I clean up from time to time).

And given that there are almost 30,000 congregations, I don't see how any leadership of any significant intelligence would expect that 30,000 individuals would keep quiet about receiving any type of announcement, even the most tedious and boring one.  Add on to that all those who had official access to the Handbook as well as all those who do not...if there is anything that is actually secret in the Church that is done on a global level, I would really like to know, though that might be inherently contradictory as then it might not be secret; though I promise I don't need specifics, just an acknowledgement that likely 120,000+ (bishops and bps have 2 counselors, add in stake presidencies, general authorities and all those between) individuals are all keeping mum about something.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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?

You are.

It's not "children with a gay parent," it's children in the day-to-day custody of a couple in a same sex relationship.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I believe that excommunicated people cannot participate in the services in any way, which includes active participation in SS lessons. 

We've recently discussed this. You are mistaken.

[Stargazer]

9 hours 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.

My impression is that the usual gang of self-appointed muckrakers got exercised over something they thought (rightly) would cause a hue and cry, and then publicized it in order to get the reaction that occurred.

Heck, consiglieri, *I* have access to Handbook 1 via my calling as finance clerk!  How many finance clerks are there in the world?  Count the number of wards, then multiply by everyone who has access to Handbook 1.  Let's see... (Bishopric = 3) + (ExecSec + Clerks = 3) + (RSPresidency = 3) + (HPGL = 3) + (EQP = 3) == 15.  30,000 wards and branches X 15 = 450,000 members have access to Handbook 1.  Golly, there's a select group if there ever was one.  How could the secret EVER get out!?!?!

The way to keep a secret is to restrict access.  Access to Handbook 1 is only slightly restricted, even if not exactly shouted from every rooftop.  Everything in Handbook 1 is subject to inspection by anyone who wants badly enough to see. The Church even facilitates that by publishing a number of Handbook 1 items in Handbook 2, which every member of the Church with an LDS account can access.   You can find the previous version on WikiLeaks, too, and I have not looked, but I bet someone has published the current Handbook 1 on WikiLeaks by now. 

Yep, it's all so cloak and dagger secret.  Not.

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I am just trying to figure out who is on the side of straight kids with gay parents.

People of various and even diametrically-opposed convictions are "on the side" of every kind of person you can think of in some way. 

Making it partisan, though, when it doesn't have to be, does make it more difficult for kids.  Many times in same-sex marriage fight partisans have tried to paint "the other side" one way.  This is a very powerful campaign strategy, it effectively invites supporters of one side to become a part of its community, the one with the admirable people. Yet, to make this partisan-warm-and-fuzzy effect happen, the opponents and anyone who supports them are put in the unadmired camp, and they are painted as the enemy who is hostile to the admired and all on their side.

Thus, these big social culture war strategies do end up individually pitting anonymous children against entire legions of hostile forces. Those who frame issues in such ways, even those who call themselves allies to those children, are creating a hostile, polarised environment for them. 

So, indeed, let's ask...who is on the side of the child? I don't think the answer is as simple as most would like to think.

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

I imagine that you question my experience as a counselor because it doesn't fit the narrative that you seem to believe.

After the policy was leaked, my SP went to the Area Authority who had no guidance/clarification for him.  With no information from above and no training coming our way, my SP then called together all of the Bishops on Sunday, Nov 8. They carefully read and re-read the policy.  They also reviewed Elder Christofferson's interview.  They discussed it together, in depth, and jointly arrived at the conclusion, warranted by the text of the policy, that no child with a gay parent in a relationship, regardless of custody, could be blessed/baptized/ordained.  Our bishop came and reported this to us in the bishopric stating that this was now policy that we were to follow.  He had been instructed to share the same with our Ward Council (scheduled for the following Sunday).  As we know, the Nov 13 letter was released prior to that following Sunday. So that is what we discussed in Ward Council on the 15th.

That was my experience.  It is what happened.  I have no way of proving it, so you'll have to take me at my word.  Or don't and hold to the narrative you believe.

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

 

15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

 

Again, I am not aware of any notification coming from above regarding the policy.  All we (at the Bishopric level) have ever received is the Nov 13 letter (in the same manner everyone else received it).

Russell, along with many others, seems to think that there is some kind of training coming.  None has been announced or indicated at this point and the policy has been in place for over a month.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I think a significant part of my difficulty with seeing this as a surreptitious (defined as "kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of" by google) endeavour is that as I understand it they had notified a number of bishops and stake presidents (this is why it is believed by some that it was a stake president or bishop that leaked it, right?) of the new policy, though it had not yet been sent out as a general announcement to all bishops, stake presidents and branch presidents.

Is there any reason to believe that having informed a number of church leaders, they would have not informed the rest?  It seems to me logical and realistic that they would have continued as they had started and inform more leaders over time until all were notified just as they have done in the past in my understanding (perhaps someone can correct if they have never sent out announcements of policy changes, but I believe I have seen a number of them in the past when I was a ward librarian as well as coming across copies in my husband's files which I clean up from time to time).

And given that there are almost 30,000 congregations, I don't see how any leadership of any significant intelligence would expect that 30,000 individuals would keep quiet about receiving any type of announcement, even the most tedious and boring one.  Add on to that all those who had official access to the Handbook as well as all those who do not...if there is anything that is actually secret in the Church that is done on a global level, I would really like to know, though that might be inherently contradictory as then it might not be secret; though I promise I don't need specifics, just an acknowledgement that likely 120,000+ (bishops and bps have 2 counselors, add in stake presidencies, general authorities and all those between) individuals are all keeping mum about something.

As a bishopric we are informed of many things via letters from the FP and other authorities in SL.  We receive the letters often and review them in our Bishopric meetings.  It seems odd to me that they would inform some bishops and stake presidents while not informing others.  Why not follow the process of sending out a letter to all?

[consiglieri]

9 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You are.

It's not "children with a gay parent," it's children in the day-to-day custody of a couple in a same sex relationship.

 

I think you need to go back and re-read the First Presidency clarification (i.e., revision).

[consiglieri]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 Yep, it's all so cloak and dagger secret.  Not.

Just because the Church's surreptitious roll-out of this new policy was leaked does not mean it wasn't intended to be kept secret.

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

People of various and even diametrically-opposed convictions are "on the side" of every kind of person you can think of in some way. 

Making it partisan, though, when it doesn't have to be, does make it more difficult for kids.  Many times in same-sex marriage fight partisans have tried to paint "the other side" one way.  This is a very powerful campaign strategy, it effectively invites supporters of one side to become a part of its community, the one with the admirable people. Yet, to make this partisan-warm-and-fuzzy effect happen, the opponents and anyone who supports them are put in the unadmired camp, and they are painted as the enemy who is hostile to the admired and all on their side.

Thus, these big social culture war strategies do end up individually pitting anonymous children against entire legions of hostile forces. Those who frame issues in such ways, even those who call themselves allies to those children, are creating a hostile, polarised environment for them. 

So, indeed, let's ask...who is on the side of the child? I don't think the answer is as simple as most would like to think.

I think you eloquently demonstrate how this new policy is actually harmful to the very children the Church says it will protect.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I imagine that you question my experience as a counselor because it doesn't fit the narrative that you seem to believe.

After the policy was leaked, my SP went to the Area Authority who had no guidance/clarification for him.  With no information from above and no training coming our way, my SP then called together all of the Bishops on Sunday, Nov 8. They carefully read and re-read the policy.  They also reviewed Elder Christofferson's interview.  They discussed it together, in depth, and jointly arrived at the conclusion, warranted by the text of the policy, that no child with a gay parent in a relationship, regardless of custody, could be blessed/baptized/ordained.  Our bishop came and reported this to us in the bishopric stating that this was now policy that we were to follow.  He had been instructed to share the same with our Ward Council (scheduled for the following Sunday).  As we know, the Nov 13 letter was released prior to that following Sunday. So that is what we discussed in Ward Council on the 15th.

That was my experience.  It is what happened.  I have no way of proving it, so you'll have to take me at my word.  Or don't and hold to the narrative you believe.

I take you at your word.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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?

Are you saying it was "standard practice" in the Church to bless, baptize and ordain children who were being reared in households headed by two practicing homosexual adults? That's news to me. 

The bishop I spoke with indicated the contrary, and I think he's in a better position to know than you. 

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you saying it was "standard practice" in the Church to bless, baptize and ordain children who were being reared in households headed by two practicing homosexual adults? That's news to me. 

The bishop I spoke with indicated the contrary, and I think he's in a better position to know than you. 

Standard practice for who? For the ward he presided over, for that particular Stake? There is no evidence that there was a Church wide practice of denying baptism to a Child of Record who lived with a biological parent whose was living a gay lifestyle.

The absence of statement from the Church regarding it as codifying what was standard practice informs well on the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, provoman said:

Standard practice for who? For the ward he presided over, for that particular Stake? There is no evidence that there was a Church wide practice of denying baptism to a Child of Record who lived with a biological parent whose was living a gay lifestyle.

The absence of statement from the Church regarding it as codifying what was standard practice informs well on the matter.

There's no real evidence that the question ever came up before with any real degree of frequency to speak of. It's  been less than half a year since the redefinition of marriage was legalized. It may come up more often now, hence the guideline for dealing with. 

The bishop I speak of is no maverick, and if he tells me the new policy doesn't really change anything, I'm inclined to believe him. 

How many practicing homosexual couples do you know about who were seeking to have children in the household blessed/baptized prior to a month ago?

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I imagine that you question my experience as a counselor because it doesn't fit the narrative that you seem to believe.

After the policy was leaked, my SP went to the Area Authority who had no guidance/clarification for him.  With no information from above and no training coming our way, my SP then called together all of the Bishops on Sunday, Nov 8. They carefully read and re-read the policy.  They also reviewed Elder Christofferson's interview.  They discussed it together, in depth, and jointly arrived at the conclusion, warranted by the text of the policy, that no child with a gay parent in a relationship, regardless of custody, could be blessed/baptized/ordained.  Our bishop came and reported this to us in the bishopric stating that this was now policy that we were to follow.  He had been instructed to share the same with our Ward Council (scheduled for the following Sunday).  As we know, the Nov 13 letter was released prior to that following Sunday. So that is what we discussed in Ward Council on the 15th.

That was my experience.  It is what happened.  I have no way of proving it, so you'll have to take me at my word.  Or don't and hold to the narrative you believe.

So far you are the only bishopric member I've encountered who has reported being this badly misled. 

And be it remembered that you have a narrative yourself. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/12/2015 at 0:12 AM, Calm said:

I think a significant part of my difficulty with seeing this as a surreptitious (defined as "kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of" by google) endeavour is that as I understand it they had notified a number of bishops and stake presidents (this is why it is believed by some that it was a stake president or bishop that leaked it, right?) of the new policy, though it had not yet been sent out as a general announcement to all bishops, stake presidents and branch presidents.

Is there any reason to believe that having informed a number of church leaders, they would have not informed the rest?  It seems to me logical and realistic that they would have continued as they had started and inform more leaders over time until all were notified just as they have done in the past in my understanding (perhaps someone can correct if they have never sent out announcements of policy changes, but I believe I have seen a number of them in the past when I was a ward librarian as well as coming across copies in my husband's files which I clean up from time to time).

And given that there are almost 30,000 congregations, I don't see how any leadership of any significant intelligence would expect that 30,000 individuals would keep quiet about receiving any type of announcement, even the most tedious and boring one.  Add on to that all those who had official access to the Handbook as well as all those who do not...if there is anything that is actually secret in the Church that is done on a global level, I would really like to know, though that might be inherently contradictory as then it might not be secret; though I promise I don't need specifics, just an acknowledgement that likely 120,000+ (bishops and bps have 2 counselors, add in stake presidencies, general authorities and all those between) individuals are all keeping mum about something.

Calm, I think you are forgetting about the shadowy star chamber that supposedly tells everyone in the hierarchy what to do up to and including the First Presidency. 

The only ones who seem to know about that panel are the chronic fault finders and conspiracy theorists. 

Edited December 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Just because the Church's surreptitious roll-out of this new policy was leaked does not mean it wasn't intended to be kept secret.

Just because malicious individuals accuse the Church of doing something "surreptitious," that doesn't mean it is so.

The notion that anything known by thousands of people could be "kept secret" is mirth-inducing. And the joke's on you.