Are Gay Apostates Being Forbidden From Church?

[consiglieri]

38 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Another false accusation.

But apostate positions frequently are.

 

Only "frequently" . . .?

[Russell C McGregor]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And I'm dishonest.

You forgot that part.

I see no need to labour the obvious.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Emoticon

[consiglieri]

31 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

I admitted no such thing, Russell.

I have never said Church leaders are lying.

There is a story in the Book of Mormon about somebody putting false words into the mouth of an opponent in order to try to foment public animosity against him.

Who was that guy?

Oh, yeah.

Zeezrom.

[Mystery Meat]

I took a few days off from this thread. I am back and I am here to be as reasonable as I can. I do not think I am going to convince everyone or anyone of anything as people have already made up their minds and have drawn battle lines in an emotional situation. I am going to make some concessions to folks like Rockpond, but at the same time I am also going to disagree with certain things as well. So maybe I will please no one.

1. Let's start with me conceding a point to Rockpond. The policy was not as clear as it should have been. When I first read the policy I personally assumed that it applied to children living with parents or a parent who were cohabitating or married to a member of the same gender. It wasn't until someone here provided a literal interpretation of the policy that I realized that it could be interpreted differently than how I did (and, by the way, how the leaders of the Church originally intended). This is important for people like me to admit, because I think it validates some of the confusion from Rockpond and others. It is justifiable. Whoever drafted the language should have been more clear. People make mistakes, including lawyers (I am not saying this was drafted by lawyers, but it was most likely reviewed by one. For the record, and as an attorney, I also do not think this was drafted to prevent a tort claim. I am not sure a parent would have a chance of winning such a claim).

2. When Elder Christofferson did his interview (prior to the clarification) he stated the policy was meant to be applied to children who are living with a parent or parents in a same sex relationship. He said, "It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

Please not the bold portions. Can you at least see why this context may be a basis for concluding that this was always the original intent? Why else does the home setting or family setting where they (the kids) are living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple even matter? If the original intent was not this, he could have phrased it so much differently and been much more expansive. 

3. Now, there was further clarification that came later. This was necessitated by two things: first, the way the policy is written. When read, it would be possible to come to a conclusion, interpretation and ultimately an enforcement that was not originally intended (and it was not intended). That is not on people like Rockpond. He could not control how the policy was written. Second, however, was the immediate and ugly reaction that was seen to the policy. I understand the confusion, what I don't understand is the vehemence. The Church realized they need to provide clarification to the policy and they did so to ensure that it was applied as intended. This was not a revision.

4. The brethren have called this a clarification. Telling the world this is actually a revision does come across as calling the brethren at the very least disingenuous, maybe worse. I hope you can understand why. 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I see no need to labour the obvious.

Then why do you do it so often? 

 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Where is the evidence that the Church needs to be protected from "potential alienation tort lawsuits?"

That's a CFR, Rockpond. Your turn.

I didn't claim that as a fact.  Just that it makes sense to me.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

It wasn't until someone here provided a literal interpretation of the policy that I realized that it could be interpreted differently than how I did (and, by the way, how the leaders of the Church originally intended). This is important for people like me to admit, because I think it validates some of the confusion

I think it is interesting to note that the drafters of the policy did not seem to employ a literalism, but used language that conveys an empathetic sense of how children actually live in a household.

I would not say that a literalist viewpoint is validated because that is not how Church policy is to be understood and implemented. I do think we need to recognize, acknowledge and understand them so s to provide clarification as needed.

[CV75]

Removed duplicate, edited entry.

Edited December 15, 2015 by CV75

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I took a few days off from this thread. I am back and I am here to be as reasonable as I can. I do not think I am going to convince everyone or anyone of anything as people have already made up their minds and have drawn battle lines in an emotional situation. I am going to make some concessions to folks like Rockpond, but at the same time I am also going to disagree with certain things as well. So maybe I will please no one.

1. Let's start with me conceding a point to Rockpond. The policy was not as clear as it should have been. When I first read the policy I personally assumed that it applied to children living with parents or a parent who were cohabitating or married to a member of the same gender. It wasn't until someone here provided a literal interpretation of the policy that I realized that it could be interpreted differently than how I did (and, by the way, how the leaders of the Church originally intended). This is important for people like me to admit, because I think it validates some of the confusion from Rockpond and others. It is justifiable. Whoever drafted the language should have been more clear. People make mistakes, including lawyers (I am not saying this was drafted by lawyers, but it was most likely reviewed by one. For the record, and as an attorney, I also do not think this was drafted to prevent a tort claim. I am not sure a parent would have a chance of winning such a claim).

2. When Elder Christofferson did his interview (prior to the clarification) he stated the policy was meant to be applied to children who are living with a parent or parents in a same sex relationship. He said, "It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

Please not the bold portions. Can you at least see why this context may be a basis for concluding that this was always the original intent? Why else does the home setting or family setting where they (the kids) are living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple even matter? If the original intent was not this, he could have phrased it so much differently and been much more expansive. 

3. Now, there was further clarification that came later. This was necessitated by two things: first, the way the policy is written. When read, it would be possible to come to a conclusion, interpretation and ultimately an enforcement that was not originally intended (and it was not intended). That is not on people like Rockpond. He could not control how the policy was written. Second, however, was the immediate and ugly reaction that was seen to the policy. I understand the confusion, what I don't understand is the vehemence. The Church realized they need to provide clarification to the policy and they did so to ensure that it was applied as intended. This was not a revision.

4. The brethren have called this a clarification. Telling the world this is actually a revision does come across as calling the brethren at the very least disingenuous, maybe worse. I hope you can understand why. 

Thank you for a very balanced post.  Maybe I should take a few days off if that is the effect.

A couple questions in response...

3.  If the Brethren want to make sure that the policy is applied as intended, then what are your thoughts on why the policy (in the handbook) still hasn't been edited to match the text of the letter?  If the policy was unclear then it is still unclear in the version that is most likely to be read by church leaders in years to come.  Why not fix that?

4.  The only official place I see it having been called a "clarification" is in the headline on an LDS.org page.  Did the Brethren approve that headline?  The letter itself, the one provided to me as a bishopric member and signed by the FP, does not call it a clarification.  Nor a revision (to be fair).  The letter also does not mention what their original intent may or may not have been.  So we don't actually know their original intent.

(5.)  Also interesting is the passive language of the letter that does not make any attempt to claim authorship of the policy.  I'm sure many will conclude that authorship of the policy is a given.  I'm just pointing out what I find interesting in the letter.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by rockpond

[Mystery Meat]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is interesting to note that the drafters of the policy did not seem to employ a literalism, but used language that conveys an empathetic sense of how children actually live in a household.

I would not say that a literalist viewpoint is validated because that is not how Church policy is to be understood and implemented. I do think we need to recognize, acknowledge and understand them so s to provide clarification as needed.

Fair point.

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you for a very balanced post.  Maybe I should take a few days off if that is the effect.

A couple questions in response...

3.  If the Brethren want to make sure that the policy is applied as intended, then what are your thoughts on why the policy (in the handbook) still hasn't been edited to match the text of the letter?  If the policy was unclear then it is still unclear in the version that is most likely to be read by church leaders in years to come.  Why not fix that?

4.  The only official place I see it having been called a "clarification" is in the headline on an LDS.org page.  Did the Brethren approve that headline?  The letter itself, the one provided to me as a bishopric member and signed by the FP, does not call it a clarification.  Nor a revision (to be fair).  The letter also does not mention what their original intent may or may not have been.  So we don't actually know their original intent.  Also interesting is the passive language of the letter that does not make any attempt to claim authorship of the policy.

 

I think answering these questions would be speculation on my part. As far as number three goes I don't really know. Maybe they have a reason or maybe they will eventually. I just don't know. I think the clarification helps to ensure that is in applied a certain way in practice, so maybe they just don't see the need at this point. But your guess is as good as mine.

[Doctor Steuss]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM, mfbukowski said:

Indeed the question IS- why is there a need for the policy at all??  

Who in their right mind would want their kids taught that their parents are living in sin?

·         My apologies for jumping into the thread, and responding to an older comment; but, for what little it's worth, I have a real life anecdote (of sorts).

My wife's mothers raised her devoutly Catholic. Her moms had her attend Catholic school (until high school), attend weekly Mass, and they even had their priest over regularly for dinner (he, incidentally, wrote a booklet about the evils of homosexuality).

Even when the puzzle pieces seem to be a contradictory jumbled mess when looked at from afar, parents generally try to do what they think is best for their kids.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by Doctor Steuss

[Russell C McGregor]

54 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I admitted no such thing, Russell.

I have never said Church leaders are lying.

There is a story in the Book of Mormon about somebody putting false words into the mouth of an opponent in order to try to foment public animosity against him.

Who was that guy?

Oh, yeah.

Zeezrom.

 

Consig,

In this thread:     Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

You wrote:

Quote

Also, I hate to say that I have to take justifications from Church leaders with a grain of salt.

The Church seems to have established something of a track record for giving explanations for Church actions that don't necessarily hold water.

Even as recently as Elder Christofferson's "interview" on the reasons for the new handbook policy.

I'm sure you understand.

 

I'm sure we all understand!

In response to that post, I wrote:

Quote

Of course I understand.

And may I say that, while I rather adamantly disagree with you, I do appreciate that you are up front and honest enough to admit where you are coming from.

Your position does have the virtue of being consistent: given that the brethren are speaking from direct personal knowledge of the process that led to the policy being issued, and the reasoning behind it, their remarks on the topic are first-hand evidence. Therefore, if anyone wants to reject that evidence in favour of their own speculation, that can only proceed from a hermeneutic of mistrust towards the brethren whose statements they are dismissing.

To which you, even Consiglieri, wrote:

Quote

I think that covers it pretty well.

So, did I cover it pretty well, or didn't I?

I guess being up front about where you are coming from didn't last long.

 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you for a very balanced post.  Maybe I should take a few days off if that is the effect.

A couple questions in response...

3.  If the Brethren want to make sure that the policy is applied as intended, then what are your thoughts on why the policy (in the handbook) still hasn't been edited to match the text of the letter?  If the policy was unclear then it is still unclear in the version that is most likely to be read by church leaders in years to come.  Why not fix that?

4.  The only official place I see it having been called a "clarification" is in the headline on an LDS.org page.  Did the Brethren approve that headline?  The letter itself, the one provided to me as a bishopric member and signed by the FP, does not call it a clarification.  Nor a revision (to be fair).  The letter also does not mention what their original intent may or may not have been.  So we don't actually know their original intent.

(5.)  Also interesting is the passive language of the letter that does not make any attempt to claim authorship of the policy.  I'm sure many will conclude that authorship of the policy is a given.  I'm just pointing out what I find interesting in the letter.

 

To me, editing is an administrative and not a ministerial detail, especially if we’re taking in terms of “years to come” and in terms of the spirit of the policy.

Where the overarching “concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment,” editing the policy isn’t nearly as pertinent as leaders moving ahead in faith. I don’t think efficiency and literalism are high priorities when the offer is made, and the ministerial practice encourages that “local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.” This is how inspired councils work, which have proven to be the best approach to the ministry.

The preface of the letter says, “The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1…” I think that is fairly synonymous with “clarification,” especially for a headline. Guidance, as opposed to direction or command, is typically expressed in a passive tense.

[consiglieri]

Dear Russell,

In nothing I have written have I said Church leaders are liars.

Please cease saying I have.

It is not only false to say I have said this, but pernicious.

Thank you in advance.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And I'm dishonest.

You forgot that part.

Of course you are.  You disagree with the almighty Russell who is par excellence at hurling epitaphs and insults and labeling anyone who disagrees with him.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Teancum

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Dear Russell,

In nothing I have written have I said Church leaders are liars.

Please cease saying I have.

It is not only false to say I have said this, but pernicious.

Thank you in advance.

You're right. You haven't explicitly said it.

You've relied upon that assumption. You've very broadly hinted at it. ("I'm sure you understand," wink wink.) But you've never actually come out and said it.

Obviously you weren't being as up front and honest as I thought you were.

I'll grant you your plausible deniability.

Now try to tell me that your arguments are consistent with the assumption that the brethren are being honest.

Go on. Just try.

Because it is obvious that your sly reference to the Zeezrom story was an attempt to smear me by innuendo without actually making an assertion that you might be called upon to support.

Like I said: very sly.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You're right. You haven't explicitly said it.

You've relied upon that assumption. You've very broadly hinted at it. ("I'm sure you understand," wink wink.) But you've never actually come out and said it.

Obviously you weren't being as up front and honest as I thought you were.

I'll grant you your plausible deniability.

Now try to tell me that your arguments are consistent with the assumption that the brethren are being honest.

Go on. Just try.

Because it is obvious that your sly reference to the Zeezrom story was an attempt to smear me by innuendo without actually making an assertion that you might be called upon to support.

Like I said: very sly.

Unlike some, I think it is quite possible for two people to disagree without either of them lying.

I think official Church pronouncements on various issues, including the "essays" and this particular First Presidency clarification of the new policy, have sometimes cut the truth so fine you could read a newspaper through it.

But that doesn't mean they're lying.

Or that you're lying.

Me the jury is still out on.

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Of course you are.  You disagree with the almighty Russell who is par excellence at hurling epitaphs and insults and labeling anyone who disagrees with him.

Or even epithets.

 

[Mystery Meat]

27 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Unlike some, I think it is quite possible for two people to disagree without either of them lying.

I think official Church pronouncements on various issues, including the "essays" and this particular First Presidency clarification of the new policy, have sometimes cut the truth so fine you could read a newspaper through it.

But that doesn't mean they're lying.

Or that you're lying.

Me the jury is still out on.

 

So in other words they aren't lying, but they are "cutting the truth." I am not sure what you mean here as I am unfamiliar with the phrase and google yielded no results, but one would assume you mean they are getting fast and lose with the truth, which in my book is the same as lying or being deceptive. In other words, you have as of yet successfully rebutted Russel's claim.

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

So in other words they aren't lying, but they are "cutting the truth." I am not sure what you mean here as I am unfamiliar with the phrase and google yielded no results, but one would assume you mean they are getting fast and lose with the truth, which in my book is the same as lying or being deceptive. In other words, you have as of yet successfully rebutted Russel's claim.

Oh, yes, they are definitely deceptive.

There is no doubt about that.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say they are lying.

ETA: By "deceptive," I mean saying things that are true in a hyper-technical sense, but said in such a way as to convey a different impression.  (See "clarification" v. "revision.")

By "lying," I mean saying one thing when they know good and well the truth is something else.

Hope that helps.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by consiglieri

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Oh, yes, they are definitely deceptive.

There is no doubt about that.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say they are lying.

ETA: By "deceptive," I mean saying things that are true in a hyper-technical sense, but said in such a way as to convey a different impression.  (See "clarification" v. "revision.")

By "lying," I mean saying one thing when they know good and well the truth is something else.

Hope that helps.

 

It helps. 

As I understand it then, you are calling them dishonest. I see no difference between lying and being deceptive as both are dishonest. I also don't know why you got so offended by Russel saying you accused them of lying which you are. Either way, it is a heavy claim you are laying at their feet with no real evidence apart from your wishful thinking and interpretation. That tells me all I need to know. 

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

·         My apologies for jumping into the thread, and responding to an older comment; but, for what little it's worth, I have a real life anecdote (of sorts).

My wife's mothers raised her devoutly Catholic. Her moms had her attend Catholic school (until high school), attend weekly Mass, and they even had their priest over regularly for dinner (he, incidentally, wrote a booklet about the evils of homosexuality).

Even when the puzzle pieces seem to be a contradictory jumbled mess when looked at from afar, parents generally try to do what they think is best for their kids.

 

I just wanted to say I love you.

Carry on.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

It helps. 

As I understand it then, you are calling them dishonest. I see no difference between lying and being deceptive as both are dishonest. I also don't know why you got so offended by Russel saying you accused them of lying which you are. Either way, it is a heavy claim you are laying at their feet with no real evidence apart from your wishful thinking and interpretation. That tells me all I need to know. 

If you cannot see the distinction I am making, I don't know how to make it any clearer.

As to the "real evidence," there is loads.

And on a variety of fronts.

It goes back to Mormonism's inception.

And continues to this day.

If you want me to go into some specifics, just say the word and I will start a new thread on the subject.

Cheers!

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Or even epithets.

 

Spell check on my IPad is a bugger!