consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 13 hours ago, Storm Rider said: What ever happened to trying to live by the concepts of the 13th Article of Faith? Well, since the 2nd Article of Faith went out the window with the new policy, I guess it was just a matter of time before the 13th fell. 1
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Now you can call the First Presidency and the Twelve liars if you like, but I don't agree. This tactic is getting threadbare, Russell. But at least you are establishing your street cred as master of the logical fallacy. 1
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Well, since the 2nd Article of Faith went out the window with the new policy, I guess it was just a matter of time before the 13th fell. Don't forget... the 11th was jettisoned back in 2008.
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: 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. Way to cut to the chase, stemelbow. 2
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Don't forget... the 11th was jettisoned back in 2008. And the 9th in 1918.
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. Yes, Rockpond is right. What is interesting to me is that Russell, et al, see this as a hill worth dying on. 3
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 32 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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? That is the question of the hour. It is almost as if the First Presidency wanted to give the appearance of "clarifying" (i.e., revising) the policy without changing the policy at all. Why would they do such a thing, one wonders . . . Edited December 15, 2015 by consiglieri 2
HappyJackWagon Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 53 minutes ago, CV75 said: 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. We must presume the church meant something other than what they wrote.
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 44 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And the 9th in 1918. 1918?
stemelbow Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 37 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That is the question of the hour. It is almost as if the First Presidency wanted to give the appearance of "clarifying" (i.e., revising) the policy without changing the policy at all. Why would they do such a thing, one wonders . . . Easy. They think the policy as revised or clarified or whatever, is going to effect so few people it won't even register. If that's the case, then why the policy? Well the policy was going to effect far more people, until they realized, as written, it was going to cause too big of a negative reaction. With the change it get's even most LDS on board because of course kids who live with gay parents don't want to go to Church. Those who gloat by saying, after the clarifying statements, "see it was an over-reaction the Church isn't so mean after all" are being silly. They don't realize the difficulty the policy is going to continue to cause many people--pushing more people away. This really is not the Church's finest moment, for sure. 1
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 27 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Easy. They think the policy as revised or clarified or whatever, is going to effect so few people it won't even register. If that's the case, then why the policy? Well the policy was going to effect far more people, until they realized, as written, it was going to cause too big of a negative reaction. With the change it get's even most LDS on board because of course kids who live with gay parents don't want to go to Church. Those who gloat by saying, after the clarifying statements, "see it was an over-reaction the Church isn't so mean after all" are being silly. They don't realize the difficulty the policy is going to continue to cause many people--pushing more people away. This really is not the Church's finest moment, for sure. I agree. And I'll add that I think the reason why the handbook is not being changed is because they need that language to stay in there to help protect the Church from potential alienation tort lawsuits. 2
stemelbow Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: I agree. And I'll add that I think the reason why the handbook is not being changed is because they need that language to stay in there to help protect the Church from potential alienation tort lawsuits. Interesting thought. Why not change the original language? It apparently wouldn't be a problem if a local leader followed the policy in the handbook and neglected the policy clarification. The clarification can't be considered as written in stone as the policy itself.
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Interesting thought. Why not change the original language? It apparently wouldn't be a problem if a local leader followed the policy in the handbook and neglected the policy clarification. The clarification can't be considered as written in stone as the policy itself. I've been in a bishopric for four years and not once have we thought to go back and search through old FP letters to make sure that a particular handbook section hadn't been updated. In terms of alienation tort, the handbook language is important because blessing/baptizing could be seen as establishing a special relationship between the Church and the child of a gay parent. 2
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 1 hour ago, rockpond said: 1918? Section 138.
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Section 138. Ah. Got it.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: Well, since the 2nd Article of Faith went out the window with the new policy, I guess it was just a matter of time before the 13th fell. Your assertion is patently, obviously and clearly untrue. Edited December 15, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Don't forget... the 11th was jettisoned back in 2008. Another false accusation. But apostate positions frequently are.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Actually, he asked for "evidence" not a "reference" like you claim. The letters "CFR" stand for "Call for references." You're welcome. Quote 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". That is not the case. The clarification (no scare quotes necessary) explains the circumstances where the policy applies. That's it. Quote 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. Thank you for admitting that that is their original intent. I don't agree that the original insertion is incorrect. Quote Rockpond is right on about this. As expected, all the fault-finders are in agreement.
rockpond Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 8 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Another false accusation. You know... you're right. The 11th A of F was only temporarily set aside. The Church seems to be resurrecting its importance lately, seeing as how we are now in the minority position again.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: This tactic is getting threadbare, Russell. But at least you are establishing your street cred as master of the logical fallacy. What "tactic?" YOU ADMITTED that your criticism relied upon the assumption that the leaders of the Church were lying. Of course, you can afford to do that, because you're not trying to pass yourself off as an active, faithful, leader-sustaining Latter-day Saint.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 3 hours ago, rockpond said: 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. Nothing has been clarified? It's entirely clear to me. I'm sorry you can't see it. When the policy was first leaked, it seemed likely to me that it was only going to apply to children who were in the custody of the gay parent, and not merely having intermittent contact or access. The letter makes that intention -- clear. Hence, it has clarified something. Quote 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? Umm, Rocks? If the intent was to revise the policy, why has the actual policy not been edited to reflect the language of the Nov 13 FP letter? Well? You see, that's how text gets revised. Didn't you know that? Quote 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. No it's not. Elder Christofferson's interview was done just one day after the leak. Anyone who wants to assert that the brethren changed their minds over that one day shoulders the burden of proving their assertion.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I agree. And I'll add that I think the reason why the handbook is not being changed is because they need that language to stay in there to help protect the Church from potential alienation tort lawsuits. Where is the evidence that the Church needs to be protected from "potential alienation tort lawsuits?" That's a CFR, Rockpond. Your turn.
CV75 Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: We must presume the church meant something other than what they wrote. It depends. I don’t think we must presume anything, which is why I prefaced my remarks with “It seems to me …” I think it is perfectly reasonable that those creating the policy presumed that a child would typically be residing with a parent; the home base where children typically receive their parenting (and particularly religious parenting from an LDS standpoint). It stands to reason that the clarification would be for those who do not share that presumption. I’m sure someone will need clarification that “primary residence” can refer to portable nomadic, hobo and carnival camps as well.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 26 minutes ago, rockpond said: You know... you're right. The 11th A of F was only temporarily set aside. The Church seems to be resurrecting its importance lately, seeing as how we are now in the minority position again. Your clarification is welcome but whether clarified or revised, your new position is still false. Prop 8 did not set aside the 11th, or any of the Articles of Faith. The claim that it did, is malicious anti-Mormon propaganda. And you wield it with such practiced ease.
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 39 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Your assertion is patently, obviously and clearly untrue. And I'm dishonest. You forgot that part.
Recommended Posts