- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Joni wrote:LookingHard wrote:
A bit of a tangent here, but just saw a comment on
http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
Saw that too. I laughed out loud.
It’s also funny how the Lord didn’t see fit to reveal this doctrine until SSM became legal
in the United States.Where all of the Q12 live. God wasn’t at all concerned about cognitive dissonance harming the young minds of children in SSM families in countries where SSM was legalized years ago. And even more specifically when it became legal in Utah – it has been legal for 5 years in my state.
LookingHard wrote:A bit of a tangent here, but just saw a comment on
http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
Oh my gosh. That really puts this whole thing into perspective.
Seriously, wouldn’t the General Authorities say every decision they make is guided by “revelation”? Where does “inspiration” leave off and “revelation” kick in. I’m sure that Brigham Young thought his policy on withholding the priesthood from Black men came as a result of “revelation.” The term is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless.
Katzpur wrote:LookingHard wrote:A bit of a tangent here, but just saw a comment on
http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
Oh my gosh. That really puts this whole thing into perspective.
Seriously, wouldn’t the General Authorities say every decision they make is guided by “revelation”? Where does “inspiration” leave off and “revelation” kick in. I’m sure that Brigham Young thought his policy on withholding the priesthood from Black men came as a result of “revelation.” The term is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless.
It is obvious that they didn’t receive the inspiration on HOW to go about rolling this change out.LookingHard wrote:It is obvious that they didn’t receive the inspiration on HOW to go about rolling this change out.
Darn! I wish this forum had a “like” or “rep” function.I’m confused about something… Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
I was first made aware of the new policy when it was “explained by Christofferson.” Could someone provide me with the details of it being “published by an apostate,” “leaked by an anonymous source,” and “published in a document most members can’t see.” Obviously the document most members can’t see is the Bishops’ Handbook. I figured it hadn’t actually been published when it was announced, but that it would be a part of the next handbook that was printed. Did the Church’s bishops know about it before Christofferson explained it? And who leaked it? Who was the apostate?Katz, I know I first heard about it through Facebook a couple days before the Christofferson explanation. There was an online article that wrote about it. It’s my understanding that someone in the meeting where they discuss the new handbooks leaked the info and that’s how the apostate got ahold of it and they wrote an article on it so it blew up on the internet for a day or two before Christofferson was able to talk about it. That’s my understanding, someone correct me if that’s wrong. LookingHard wrote:A bit of a tangent here, but just saw a comment on
http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://rationalfaiths.com/the-exclusion-policy-is-the-church-being-led-astray/#comments Quote:I find it interesting that we now find out this was a revelation received by Monson, which was declared by Nelson, after being “clarified” by Church PR, after explained by Christofferson, after published by an apostate, after leaked by an anonymous source, after published in a document most members can’t see.
God’s work is mysterious indeed.
😆 lolKatzpur, the so-called “leak” was 3-4 individuals who had access to the handbook (due to being in leadership callings or in the law firm that helped draft the changes) and stumbled across the new policy by accident. They alerted John Dehlin who broke the news. The reference to an “apostate” is to John because he was excommunicated. They can say it was leaked, but make no mistake, those changes were live and visible to every bishopric in the church, and once it was leaked, bishops began checking their online access to the handbook, and there it was, in all its horrifying glory. So it’s a distraction tactic to say it was leaked by an apostate. It was hiding in plain sight. It wasn’t well thought out and rather than rolling it out and intentionally informing those who would be directly affected and those who had to enforce it, it was snuck into the handbook with no notification. Of course it was “leaked.” Bishops and others with access to the handbook were rightly horrified. What on earth did anyone expect?? Quote:It’s also funny how the Lord didn’t see fit to reveal this doctrine until SSM became legal in the United States. Where all of the Q12 live. God wasn’t at all concerned about cognitive dissonance harming the young minds of children in SSM families in countries where SSM was legalized years ago.
I think I might know why. The brethren generally believe that the Book of Mormon prophesied about the United States government falling or “hanging by a thread”. Something like that. They probably believe legalizing gay marriage will bring on that downfall.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Katzpur, the so-called “leak” was 3-4 individuals who had access to the handbook (due to being in leadership callings or in the law firm that helped draft the changes) and stumbled across the new policy by accident. They alerted John Dehlin who broke the news. The reference to an “apostate” is to John because he was excommunicated. They can say it was leaked, but make no mistake, those changes were live and visible to every bishopric in the church, and once it was leaked, bishops began checking their online access to the handbook, and there it was, in all its horrifying glory. So it’s a distraction tactic to say it was leaked by an apostate. It was hiding in plain sight. It wasn’t well thought out and rather than rolling it out and intentionally informing those who would be directly affected and those who had to enforce it, it was snuck into the handbook with no notification. Of course it was “leaked.” Bishops and others with access to the handbook were rightly horrified. What on earth did anyone expect??
Holy crap.I would have to say I am not so sure of Nelson’s take on this. It seems a bit revisionist. I think it was driven more out of some forward-thinking legalistic issues (make it impossible for a gay person to sue to be married in the temple, BYU housing issues, etc.) and there may be some real issues it could combat. Given it is rather buried in a big thick online book, I think they assumed nobody would hardly notice and over time they might mention it in face to face training meetings over the next few years. I think it shows how out of touch they are with at least a portion of the church – one portion that they may very well see as needing to be gently nudged out. I am not saying Nelson didn’t feel something and maybe I am in the wrong. But I hear Nelson’s statement as the equivalent of, “I am not doing it for the money” – which usually means they are doing it for the money.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Katzpur, the so-called “leak” was 3-4 individuals who had access to the handbook (due to being in leadership callings or in the law firm that helped draft the changes) and stumbled across the new policy by accident. They alerted John Dehlin who broke the news. The reference to an “apostate” is to John because he was excommunicated. They can say it was leaked, but make no mistake, those changes were live and visible to every bishopric in the church, and once it was leaked, bishops began checking their online access to the handbook, and there it was, in all its horrifying glory. So it’s a distraction tactic to say it was leaked by an apostate. It was hiding in plain sight. It wasn’t well thought out and rather than rolling it out and intentionally informing those who would be directly affected and those who had to enforce it, it was snuck into the handbook with no notification. Of course it was “leaked.” Bishops and others with access to the handbook were rightly horrified. What on earth did anyone expect??
I really, really want to get the facts straight on this. To expound upon my response of “Holy crap!” last night, I have some questions. It’s important to me that the answers be factual and not just supposition.1. Why would lawyers be required to draft change to the bishop’s handbook?
2. Doesn’t the church have full-time lawyers on its staff? Do they actually use an independent law firm?
3. Does anybody know the names of these individuals?
4. I would assume they were LDS. Am I right about that? I can’t imagine the Church engaging non-LDS lawyers on writing a “classified” document.
5. Does anybody know how long the new policy was in the handbook before it was “leaked” that this was the case? I can understand bishops who’d been serving for three or four years being unaware of it, but I would think that every new bishop would have read the handbook from beginning to end immediately after being sustained. There are enough new bishops sustained in the church every week that if the policy had been part of the handbook for more than a couple of weeks, John Dehlin’s services in breaking the news would hardly have been needed.
I don’t know much about how lawyers were involved, I simply assume they were and I assume they were church employed lawyer. I do know the addition to the handbook had only been there a few days (at most) when it was leaked, and I don’t think the church expected such a leak. That’s why it seems like there was a bit of a scramble – the leak didn’t only catch the attention of members, it made national news. I remember the days when the handbook was a loose leaf thing and we got regular updates via the “Priesthood Bulletin.” The beauty of modern technology is that updates are much more efficient now, and changes can occur much more quickly. Unlike the old bulletin, I am not aware that changes to the handbooks are regularly announced. But I do know stake presidents do get emails advising them of at least some changes. This particular change applies to a very small segment of the population, and it is my understanding part of the reason for the addition to the handbook had to do with questions that were coming in from local leaders about the issue.
There have been some fairly extensive discussions about the policy on the board.
Katzpur wrote:1. Why would lawyers be required to draft change to the bishop’s handbook?
If you read the CHI (I have read both the “red” public one and the “blue” bishops/SP’s) it ALL reads like it was written by lawyers. Very specific and deliberate word choices.
Katzpur wrote:2. Doesn’t the church have full-time lawyers on its staff? Do they actually use an independent law firm?
Kirton McConkie law firmhttp://www.kmclaw.com/http://www.kmclaw.com/” class=”bbcode_url”>
Katzpur wrote:3. Does anybody know the names of these individuals?
Which individuals? Not sure if I understand.
Katzpur wrote:4. I would assume they were LDS. Am I right about that? I can’t imagine the Church engaging non-LDS lawyers on writing a “classified” document.
I assume they are LDS and for anything like this Kirton McConkie would generally guide it to their LDS employees.
Katzpur wrote:5. Does anybody know how long the new policy was in the handbook before it was “leaked” that this was the case?
The feeling I got was that it was <24 hours from the time they changed the online version of CHI 1 (bishop's/SP's book). But I could be wrong.If you want to learn a bit more about this, I found one of the best podcasts was “Church Policy Changes and their Legal Contexts: James Ord”
http://athoughtfulfaith.org/church-policy-changes-and-their-legal-contexts-james-ord/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://athoughtfulfaith.org/church-policy-changes-and-their-legal-contexts-james-ord/ Thank you DarkJedi and LookingHard! LookingHard, the “individuals” I was referring to were the lawyers or whoever leaked the information to John Dehlin.
I appreciate the information. The more I think about this, the more Elder Nelson’s comments sound like a poorly thought-out attempt at damage control. This is all just so sad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.