The Nehor Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 11 minutes ago, Teancum said: Dull and boring like the pablum you offer that you likely think is funny and witty. But guess what? It's not. Awwwwwww, did I hurt your widdle feelings?
CV75 Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Just now, consiglieri said: Perhaps. But another way to read the New Testament is the story of an angry Son of God who railed against the Church which had already become apostate. Which He did again (but only verbally, when He first spoke to Joseph Smith) generations after the members of the one He established in the flesh took no heed to the call for protection. It's OK to read both, and both are true! 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I can't understand why the church wouldn't want to immediately change the wording to say what they mean. It's baffling and leaves me with only cynical interpretations. It's quite a leap to go from not understanding strategy to having baffled, distrustful and disparaging interpretations of the strategists' motives. I think it would good for you to take a closer look at that!
Teancum Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Awwwwwww, did I hurt your widdle feelings? Hardly. You that word you used.....I think it was idiot....that comes to my mind and what I think about you when I read many of your posts. I imagine the feeling is mutual. But no you don't hurt my feelings whatsoever. You really give yourself more credit than you deserve. Edited December 19, 2015 by Teancum
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 1 hour ago, CV75 said: It's quite a leap to go from not understanding strategy to having baffled, distrustful and disparaging interpretations of the strategists' motives. I think it would good for you to take a closer look at that! So you think this was a "strategy"? 1
CV75 Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Why is it so hard to update the electronic wording of the policy? Which is more important? A First Presidency Letter? Or a handbook policy? It seems we may have the answer to that question . . . Both the letter and the handbook policy are important for their respective purposes and contexts, just as documentation is important only in its proper purpose and context. The purpose (the spirit) of the letter and handbook is more important than their letter, and each document’s purpose is more important than its letter in any media. The ministry is more important than the administration; the letter and the handbook help with the ministry more than does focusing on a strict regimen of document updates (I don’t think the degree of difficulty has anything to do with it). The ministry is also broader than this one subject, and no subject is any more important than another except as warranted by the immediate circumstance and context of the individuals in need being served. 1
CV75 Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: So you think this was a "strategy"? I'm entertaining Happy’s preference for the Church to “immediately change the wording” as his preferred strategy for the Church. Where the Church isn't doing that, it either hasn't a strategy or has a strategy not to do it. In either case, or in carrying our Happy's desires, those responsible would become the strategists of their own actions.
The Nehor Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Hardly. You that word you used.....I think it was idiot....that comes to my mind and what I think about you when I read many of your posts. I imagine the feeling is mutual. But no you don't hurt my feelings whatsoever. You really give yourself more credit than you deserve. As a son of a God who will one day rule the Universe I think I don't give myself enough credit.
Avatar4321 Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: If the church chooses to go through the trouble to create a policy that is so offensive to so many people and then "clarify" it within a week, it seems like they could go through the trouble of making those "clarifications" permanent in a readable policy that reflects their original intentions. I can't understand why the church wouldn't want to immediately change the wording to say what they mean. It's baffling and leaves me with only cynical interpretations. . Maybe because there wasn't anything wrong with how it was written to begin with. Why is it the faithful saints had no problem understsnding it? 1
Rivers Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) The policy doesn't make any sense unless it applies solely to children in households with same-sex parents. Especially with how Elder Christopherson discussed it. I always assumed this before the church came out with the clarification but after re-reading the wording in the handbook, I can understand the confusion. Either the church changed the policy after the backlash or it was just very sloppily written in the handbook. Edited December 19, 2015 by Rivers
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: As a son of a God who will one day rule the Universe I think I don't give myself enough credit. Is it okay to opt out of your universe early?
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 2 hours ago, Rivers said: The policy doesn't make any sense unless it applies solely to children in households with same-sex parents. Especially with how Elder Christopherson discussed it. I always assumed this before the church came out with the clarification but after re-reading the wording in the handbook, I can understand the confusion. Either the church changed the policy after the backlash or it was just very sloppily written in the handbook. Well, the policy was very clear in the handbook when it put in the clause "or have been." Clauses like that don't just pop into existence without a lot of thought, as a general proposition. And I believe the new policy was very carefully vetted before being sent out from SLC; probably more so than most because of its sensitive nature. This is why I think the policy was not sloppily written, but very carefully written. And then walked back by the FP after the proverbial ca ca hit the fan. But walked back in such a way that it doesn't change the language of the policy at all. I imagine Church leadership is having quite the laugh over this. That is the strategy. And it appears to be working for lots of people . . .
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Maybe because there wasn't anything wrong with how it was written to begin with. Why is it the faithful saints had no problem understsnding it? Apparently because the faithful saints can't understsnd plain English.
The Nehor Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Is it okay to opt out of your universe early? Only if you filled out the opt out paperwork in triplicate and filed it by September 23, 2346 BC at any of our comvenient locations (branches on Kolob, Titan, Alpha Centauri, Betelgeuse, or with an Emperor Penguin notary in Antarctica.
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Only if you filled out the opt out paperwork in triplicate and filed it by September 23, 2346 BC at any of our comvenient locations (branches on Kolob, Titan, Alpha Centauri, Betelgeuse, or with an Emperor Penguin notary in Antarctica. My notary was named Moksha. Will that do?
HappyJackWagon Posted December 19, 2015 Posted December 19, 2015 7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Maybe because there wasn't anything wrong with how it was written to begin with. Why is it the faithful saints had no problem understsnding it? If there was nothing wrong with it they wouldn't have offered their "clarification". "Faithful Saints" hoped it meant something different than what it said. When the church realized the magnitude of their miscalculation they "clarified" the policy to mean what others assumed it must mean. I totally understand people not wanting to believe the church intended the policy to be as absolutely terrible and polarizing as it was. I personally think the church intended the policy to be as harsh and broad as it was originally written but had to back off without looking like they were backing off. If this weren't the case they would change the wording.
consiglieri Posted December 19, 2015 Author Posted December 19, 2015 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If there was nothing wrong with it they wouldn't have offered their "clarification". "Faithful Saints" hoped it meant something different than what it said. When the church realized the magnitude of their miscalculation they "clarified" the policy to mean what others assumed it must mean. I totally understand people not wanting to believe the church intended the policy to be as absolutely terrible and polarizing as it was. I personally think the church intended the policy to be as harsh and broad as it was originally written but had to back off without looking like they were backing off. If this weren't the case they would change the wording. And in this case, I think the strategy was looking like they were backing off without really backing off. By which I mean the policy language remains unchanged and unconnected to the First Presidency clarification letter. 1
Recommended Posts