Sammy Jankins wrote:I would like comfirmation on this.
That said, there is nothing they can do at point to completely save face. They can't call it clarification because we have Christofferson on video defending it. And as IHAQ pointed out, the language is clear and explicit. And if this was all simply a misunderstanding they've had six days to clarify. If this was simply a misunderstanding, they wouldn't need to announce that the clarification was days away.
It's too late to call it a mistake because Christofferson already defended it as an apostle. Tons of members already defended it.
We will see I guess.
Christofferson already provided the clarification.
SALT LAKE CITY —
In a video interview Friday in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed the Church’s position on marriage and outlined handbook changes in Church policy affecting same-sex couples and their children. The interview will help Church members, the media and the public better understand the context and purpose of the changes, which have been discussed extensively in the news media, on social media and elsewhere.
The changes were made this week in the Church’s Handbook 1 (a policy and instruction guide for local Church leaders) and were approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The revisions were outlined in a letter that was sent to local Church leaders throughout the world (see the video and read the transcript of the interview below).
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/h ... stoffersonChristofferson was similarly explicit and unequivocal in his prepared language:
It’s a statement to remove any question or doubt that may exist. We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.
As for the children part:
Michael Otterson: Why are the children of these same-sex partners an issue here?
Elder Christofferson: Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. 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. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.
Do they really need to clarify that clarification? I think Christofferson did his bit, clarified and removed doubt about the new policy. It's not being unclear about the policy that is the problem. The problem is that the policy is abundantly clear and people don't agree with it. At all. And they are expressing themselves by voting with their feet.
I imagine that the Q12 and FP still think the biggest issue with all of this is that it became public to everyone all at once immediately upon its implementation. They had strategised its release as covertly through the leaderships secret operating manual so that only people directly affected would ever get to see it. They could deal with such cases on an individual basis and it's existence would gradually dribble out over a long period of time, there'd be no mass PR disaster or member backlash. It is abundantly clear that no press statements or member communication plan had been prepared, and that they are now trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. As I said, good luck with that. They were caught red handed doing something they didn't want the members to know they were doing (what else have they done without member knowledge?). They should own it.
