Russell C McGregor Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 12 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think you need to go back and re-read the First Presidency clarification (i.e., revision). To which part of the clarification, which the terminally spiteful dishonestly call a revision, do you refer?
Bob Crockett Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) Snip Edited December 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett Dumb
Meadowchik Posted December 13, 2015 Author Posted December 13, 2015 20 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think you eloquently demonstrate how this new policy is actually harmful to the very children the Church says it will protect. Only if you ignore my post and create a polarity unnecessarily. 1
rockpond Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Only if you ignore my post and create a polarity unnecessarily. Actually, what you wrote could have been written (with almost no changes) to argue against this policy.
busybee Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) On 12/10/2015 at 11:08 PM, Zakuska said: God breaks his own laws all the time... D&C 64. 10 I, the Lord, will aforgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to bforgive all men. ... Never mind. Edited December 13, 2015 by busybee
CV75 Posted December 13, 2015 Posted December 13, 2015 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Actually, what you wrote could have been written (with almost no changes) to argue against this policy. "Almost?" The devil's in the details LOL
Meadowchik Posted December 13, 2015 Author Posted December 13, 2015 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Actually, what you wrote could have been written (with almost no changes) to argue against this policy. Only if you make the policy polarizing when it doesn't have to be. 1
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 On 12/13/2015 at 8:58 PM, Russell C McGregor said: To which part of the clarification, which the terminally spiteful dishonestly call a revision, do you refer? Spiteful? Dishonest? It is a common tactic when one realizes one is losing the argument to start calling names. I think there may even be a term for it. What is it now . . .?
Popular Post Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 15, 2015 47 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Spiteful? Dishonest? It is a common tactic when one realizes one is losing the argument to start calling names. I think there may even be a term for it. What is it now . . .? Here's the deal, Consig: Given (and it is a given) that all the actual evidence regarding the clarification letter shows that it is a clarification and not a revision; and Given (and it is a given) that the only support for the accusation that it is a "revision" is found in the evidence-free speculation of people who invariably assume the worst of the Lord's anointed servants; and Given that there is still a small (if dwindling) number of actual, observant, leader-sustaining Latter-day Saints in this forum, who find your nasty insinuations to be annoying if not outright offensive: If you will refrain from making those nasty insinuations, I will refrain from pointing out what they say about the person who is making them. 5
Storm Rider Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 So, getting back to the topic of the thread....how many of those gay apostates have we banned from setting foot in the Church? Have we burned any witches yet? That's what we need to start doing; banning the apostates that have twinkling toes, stone the adulterers, and burn the witches. If we could just do that, at the very least, I will be happier. You know, faithlessness is a tiresome trait when so often seen. Whining is another distasteful trait seen all too often. What ever happened to trying to live by the concepts of the 13th Article of Faith? Has that just become too passe for modernists? Or is it just too hard to stretch to that degree of pleasantness in the world at large and behind closed doors when typing on a computer? 2
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Spiteful? Dishonest? It is a common tactic when one realizes one is losing the argument to start calling names. I think there may even be a term for it. What is it now . . .? BTW, I notice you haven't referred me to the part of the clarification letter that talks about children other than those in the day-to-day custody of a couple in a same sex relationship. Are you sure that going on the attack, as you did is, to coin a phrase, a "common tactic" when one is winning the argument? Or perhaps not? Did you perhaps realise that "day-to-day custody" is in fact a rather fair paraphrase of "primary residence?" If so, was it too hard to just admit it? Edited December 15, 2015 by Russell C McGregor Clarification... 2
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: Here's the deal, Consig: Given (and it is a given) that all the actual evidence regarding the clarification letter shows that it is a clarification and not a revision; CFR for the "evidence" that the Nov 13 letter was a "clarification".
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: CFR for the "evidence" that the Nov 13 letter was a "clarification". Glad to oblige. https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng It's right at the top in big print. You can't miss it.
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 8 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Glad to oblige. https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng It's right at the top in big print. You can't miss it. The headline? That's not evidence. That's a claim and one that you have not substantiated. CFR stands. Here's my evidence that it was a revision rather than a clarification: From CHI 1, Section 16.13: "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not..." From the Nov 13 Letter: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." The letter changes the provision from applying to any child with a gay parent living in a same-gender relationship to only children who primary residence is with that parent. That's a revision not a clarification. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: The headline? That's not evidence. That's a claim and one that you have not substantiated. CFR stands. Here's my evidence that it was a revision rather than a clarification: From CHI 1, Section 16.13: "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not..." From the Nov 13 Letter: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." The letter changes the provision from applying to any child with a gay parent living in a same-gender relationship to only children who primary residence is with that parent. That's a revision not a clarification. You asked me for a reference. I gave you one. Important though you think you are, you don't get to decree that a reference isn't a reference. The position of the Church is that the letter is a clarification. The text of the letter states that it is "guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1." It also says: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." It's not changing the provisions. It's advising how to apply them. That's clarification. Now you can call the First Presidency and the Twelve liars if you like, but I don't agree. Your opinion, being only your opinion, does not rise to the level of evidence. I have supplied evidence. You have supplied none. The CFR is satisfied. That you are not, is a matter of complete unconcern to me. 2
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said: Important though you think you are... Shoot, now I'm going to have to start a thread to explain to you why I actually am as important as I think I am.
Storm Rider Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 55 minutes ago, rockpond said: The headline? That's not evidence. That's a claim and one that you have not substantiated. CFR stands. Here's my evidence that it was a revision rather than a clarification: From CHI 1, Section 16.13: "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not..." From the Nov 13 Letter: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." The letter changes the provision from applying to any child with a gay parent living in a same-gender relationship to only children who primary residence is with that parent. That's a revision not a clarification. When I read that the first time I assumed it was about children living with gay parents rather than both those children living primarily with a gay couple and those living primarily with a mom and dad. Your example is more of your interpretation of what was stated rather than evidence that it is a revision. My opinion is that your example is a clarification. What's next? It is a matter of perspective - take two steps to the right and you will see it in a whole new light. Counsel - stop walking in the dark and your perspective will be much better. 3
stemelbow Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 On 12/11/2015 at 9:29 PM, Calm said: I think if I saw children being recorded without their knowledge or their parents and there was no discernable reason it was happening, it would hardly be petty to do something about it, including pursuing legal avenues if it didn't stop when requested or if church leaders did nothing about it. I am uncomfortable with adults being recorded without their knowledge as well. I would like to hear an explanation of why before judging it was okay. I have a high standard of privacy from what I've seen, at least in comparision to many of those younger than me. Maybe being a woman (I would be interested to hear other women's opinion on the appropriateness) or perhaps having a friend's child kidnapped and sexually abused in my third year at university as well as several kidnappings occuring while I was pregnant with my first leads me to be more cautious than you are, 20-somethings being very impressionable those experiences have certainly coloured how I view the world. Calm, I understand your defensiveness but this incident had nothing to do with recording children in some creepy way. In truth there was no recordings at all. This was about the Bishop worrying about some guy recording the sacrament meeting, not children, and then putting the recording on his Facebook. The problem is, there was no recording. There was no reason to assume there was. It was all just some weird, out of control worked up presumption that arose in a ward leadership meeting. It was really stupid. I suppose you can believe me or not, at this point. I doubt it matters anymore. I too do not appreciate the notion of people being recorded without their knowledge and permission. It happens these days, for sure. But if someone happened to record me doing mundane every day life, type of stuff, and put it on the internet, I'd have no desire to pursue legal action. I can't imagine such a recording would mean anything to anyone.
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 10 hours ago, Storm Rider said: When I read that the first time I assumed it was about children living with gay parents rather than both those children living primarily with a gay couple and those living primarily with a mom and dad. Your example is more of your interpretation of what was stated rather than evidence that it is a revision. My opinion is that your example is a clarification. What's next? It is a matter of perspective - take two steps to the right and you will see it in a whole new light. Counsel - stop walking in the dark and your perspective will be much better. You're mistaken if you think I'm walking in the dark.
stemelbow Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 I don't see why it matters if you term it a revision or a clarification. Either way it's a bad counter-productive policy. The Church would have been better off not creating the policy at all, of course. And some day it'll have to revise/change/excise the policy anywho. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 11 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: You asked me for a reference. I gave you one. Important though you think you are, you don't get to decree that a reference isn't a reference. The position of the Church is that the letter is a clarification. The text of the letter states that it is "guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1." It also says: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." It's not changing the provisions. It's advising how to apply them. That's clarification. Now you can call the First Presidency and the Twelve liars if you like, but I don't agree. Your opinion, being only your opinion, does not rise to the level of evidence. I have supplied evidence. You have supplied none. The CFR is satisfied. That you are not, is a matter of complete unconcern to me. Actually, he asked for "evidence" not a "reference" like you claim. When you compare the "evidence" Rockpond gave you can see that what is written in the policy is different than what is written in the church's "clarification". There was a change. Now if someone assumed that what was originally written wasn't correct and not what the church really meant they could view it as a clarification. The clarification is telling us to ignore what was originally written and act on what they are telling us was their original intent. Rockpond is right on about this. 2
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) Merriam-Webster defines clarify as to free of confusion, to make understandable. Section 16.13 still refers to the "child of a parent living in a same gender relationship". While the Nov 13 FP letter reads: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." Nothing has been clarified by the letter. What we now have is two documents that say different things. And one of those documents, the FP letter, will become increasingly difficult to access by future leaders as the years pass by. If the intent was to clarify the policy, why has the actual policy not been edited to reflect the language of the Nov 13 FP letter? Section 16.3, the section on Baptism & Confirmation, refers to custodial parents in two different subsections. If the original intent of the policy was to target only children with primary custody by gay parents, why not use the word "custody" or "custodial" as they had earlier in Section 16? Also, neither the Elder Christofferson interview nor the Nov 13 FP letter refers to "original intent". If anyone is aware of a statement by the Brethren telling us what the original intent was, please share. Otherwise, stating that the Nov 13 letter "clarifies their original intent" is complete speculation. Edited December 15, 2015 by rockpond Added final paragraph. 2
CV75 Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 12 hours ago, rockpond said: From CHI 1, Section 16.13: "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not..." From the Nov 13 Letter: "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship." It seems to me that the presumption, which was clarified, is that a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship is living with said parent, consistent with the revelation that “children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age,” which typically includes a consistent, or in cases of divorce or other custody-defining circumstances, a primary, residence under parental protection.
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 14 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Here's the deal, Consig: Given (and it is a given) that all the actual evidence regarding the clarification letter shows that it is a clarification and not a revision; and Given (and it is a given) that the only support for the accusation that it is a "revision" is found in the evidence-free speculation of people who invariably assume the worst of the Lord's anointed servants; and Given that there is still a small (if dwindling) number of actual, observant, leader-sustaining Latter-day Saints in this forum, who find your nasty insinuations to be annoying if not outright offensive: If you will refrain from making those nasty insinuations, I will refrain from pointing out what they say about the person who is making them. None of what you say is "given" is given. All of what you say is "given" is actually demonstrably untrue. This is simply argument from assertion in contravention of the facts. In addition to your ad hominem arguments, you are racking up quite a variety of logical fallacies. Nice work!
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: BTW, I notice you haven't referred me to the part of the clarification letter that talks about children other than those in the day-to-day custody of a couple in a same sex relationship. Are you sure that going on the attack, as you did is, to coin a phrase, a "common tactic" when one is winning the argument? Or perhaps not? Did you perhaps realise that "day-to-day custody" is in fact a rather fair paraphrase of "primary residence?" If so, was it too hard to just admit it? The revision in the First Presidency letter makes it apply only to children of parents currently in a same-marriage relationship, as opposed to the policy which applies to children of parents who are now, or have been, in such a relationship. We have been over this before, Russell. Why do you need me to keep explaining this to you?
Recommended Posts