Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, rockpond said: From Elder Oaks, Oct 2012: "When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism." What does that have to do with the policy under discussion?
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I don't know... It seems that Elder Oaks is making a connection between psychological abuse and ostracizing young people. Fast forward three years and now it is God revealing to the Prophet that the Church should ostracize* children based on the relationship status of their parents. *Defintion of ostracize: to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc. You guys must do things differently in your neck of the woods, if that is the case, no wonder you are upset. In my neck of the woods, however, we do not exclude youth from our activities.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: So I hope you and the GLBT etc. folks for whom you are a collaborator an ally will refrain from bullying or ostracising LDS children. Because the LDS Church already beat you to it with the new policy revelation. 1
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Are implying that the LDS Church's position amounts to "psychological abuse?" Thanks, -Smac I will state flat out that it does. No implication necessary.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I will state flat out that it does. No implication necessary. No it doesn't You really enjoy being wrong, don't you. I can answer you unsubstantiated accusing with my unsubstantiated denial, see how easy it is? Edited January 12, 2016 by Danzo
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, rongo said: It can originate from a desire to protect children and originate in God's mind and will being revealed to the prophet. It isn't "either/or." It is just 11/6/15 versus1/10/16.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Unknown date: Policy is published in Handbook 1. Church membership is still not informed. One possible clarification: it is my understanding that emails announcing these changes were sent to all stake presidents, bishops, etc. Quote Nov 5: Policy is leaked creating concern and questions among church membership. Another suggested clarification: 'creating concern and questions among some church membership'. If I'm completely honest, I rejoiced to see this clear defence of the Lord's standards and of the great plan of happiness.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I took the message, he definitely implied it. Are you going to make him an offender for a word (or lack of a word)? Why should Elder Nelson get better treatment from you than I?
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 58 minutes ago, rockpond said: Of course not. But the lack of references to this policy being the "revealed mind and will of God" (via Elder Christofferson, Elder Otterson, and the Nov 13 letter) prior to Sunday evening is making many, including myself, question the accuracy of Elder Nelson's recollection of events. Not to mention how similar they sound to the "official" version of the priesthood ban lifting revelation . . .
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't like sacrilegious mockery under any circumstances. At least it's a move up from bloviations.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: No it doesn't You really enjoy being wrong, don't you. I can answer you unsubstantiated accusing with my unsubstantiated denial, see how easy it is? You must be hiding under some rock if you haven't already encountered all the psychological abuse this new policy has created among faithful Mormons since it was leaked two months ago. Or are they all just lying about it?
rockpond Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I will state flat out that it does. No implication necessary. I don't know the clinical definition of psychological abuse. But the policy certainly fits Elder Oaks' Oct 2012 definition of psychological abuse.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: If I'm completely honest, I rejoiced to see this clear defence of the Lord's standards and of the great plan of happiness. Since when did the "great plan of happiness" become equated with the psychological abuse of children? That's the part I'm having a tough time figuring out.
rockpond Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: One possible clarification: it is my understanding that emails announcing these changes were sent to all stake presidents, bishops, etc. Another suggested clarification: 'creating concern and questions among some church membership'. If I'm completely honest, I rejoiced to see this clear defence of the Lord's standards and of the great plan of happiness. You are incorrect, emails announcing the handbook changes were not sent to all stake presidents, bishops, etc. I am a first counselor to a bishop and he was completely caught off guard by the Nov 5-6 publications. He had no prior knowledge.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I don't know the clinical definition of psychological abuse. But the policy certainly fits Elder Oaks' Oct 2012 definition of psychological abuse. Then I cite Elder Oaks as my authority! Beware all who would contradict me.
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: You must be hiding under some rock if you haven't already encountered all the psychological abuse this new policy has created among faithful Mormons since it was leaked two months ago. Or are they all just lying about it? Still no substance to your responses who are "they"? and what is the "abuse"?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Since when did the "great plan of happiness" become equated with the psychological abuse of children? Since, I believe, you engaged in the false equating.
Jeanne Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Now this I agree with. A fair balance.. I agree with that.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: You are incorrect, emails announcing the handbook changes were not sent to all stake presidents, bishops, etc. I am a first counselor to a bishop and he was completely caught off guard by the Nov 5-6 publications. He had no prior knowledge. Interesting. I'll double-check, but I felt reasonably certain that I'd talked to leaders who'd already got the email. I wonder if they were being sent out in batches. Thanks for your clarification.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Danzo said: Still no substance to your responses who are "they"? and what is the "abuse"? What Elder Oaks said!
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't know the clinical definition of psychological abuse. But the policy certainly fits Elder Oaks' Oct 2012 definition of psychological abuse. No, it doesn't. when you accuse someone of abuse you need to show something a bit more concrete than a naked accusation. If, however, you are implementing the new policy by abusing children, then might I suggest a different approach? Edited January 12, 2016 by Danzo 1
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What Elder Oaks said! What did he say?
Calm Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Interesting. I'll double-check, but I felt reasonably certain that I'd talked to leaders who'd already got the email. I wonder if they were being sent out in batches. Thanks for your clarification. I have heard from some who had received it and others who hadn't. It is possible that they were intending on waiting for feedback or setting up informing and training in waves for proper coverage before the leak. It would be interesting to compare to past releases of change of polices, preferably major ones and at least some since the handbook online updates started.
consiglieri Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Danzo said: What did he say? It has already been quoted several times in this thread. In fact, you responded to it at the top of this very page. Did you read it before responding to it above?
Danzo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: It has already been quoted several times in this thread. In fact, you responded to it at the top of this very page. Did you read it before responding to it above? I read the quote above. Why don't you show me the connection between his quote and the policy of this thread. I don't see any.
Recommended Posts