More Holland -- this time at Harvard fibbing about Prop. 8

[_maklelan]

so what you are saying is, that as a Defender of the LDS Church, it is quite appropriate for you to sexualize a conversation so long as your sexualization of the conversation does not exceed the level you accuse your opponents of?

No, what I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and quite asinine of you to suggest that my metaphorical use of "masturbation" is at all comparable to Schryver's rhetoric, all the while ignoring that the space between us is chuck full of the rhetoric you and yours employ regularly. Additionally, this attempt to try to rhetorically shame me by suggesting I have "sexualized" the conversation is quite juvenile.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I was only pointing out the absurdity of Holland's statement, as well as my belief that his error was due to his conflation of the concepts of freedom of speech and right to vote.

And I was only pointing out your misunderstanding of his statement. You unquestionably misunderstood, and even you aren't wasting your time trying to suggest otherwise, so grow the hell up.

My, that was substantive. Getting a bit testy, aren't you?

Of course you don't. That's what is preventing you from seeing the obvious.

That's a bit tautologous.

Such a big word.

No -- "cowardice" is still the best word to describe Holland's omission of the Brethren's involvement in passing Prop. 8.

I see. What's the best way to describe your bitching about the fact that you misunderstood the subject of his comment about voting?

More substance ... not! Holland's the one who conflated freedom of speech and the right to vote. So you appear to be the one "bitching" on his behalf. How quaint.

We've all heard the many instances of local "meddling" (your word) -- have you heard of one instance in which that meddling was condemned or reversed by the "central leadership"? I haven't. So don't bring up claims that have no basis in fact.

I could just about fill the Grand Canyon with things that the church has done that you don't know about ....

Then, by all means, enlighten us with "the things the church has done." More tripe.

... but your ignorance hardly counts as evidence that they didn't happen.

Then give us facts of what did happen, my dear boy. Otherwise, you expose your own ignorance.

You don't know whether or not the central administration of the church was involved, and you don't know if they stepped in in any way, so stop appealing to those events as evidence of something.

That's right, I don't know, and apparently you don't, either, so stop making up stuff for which you have no evidence. In other words, put up or shut up.

If you don't see the Brethren's directing the Prop. 8 fight in CA as a "material fact," then I can't help you.

You said "material adverse facts," not "material fact." The fact of their participation in the Prop. 8 discussion is not necessarily adverse to anything he said. If his use of "institutional formalization" was intended to convey the sense you have read into it, then yes, that would count as a "material adverse fact," but since you cannot show that sense was intended, and since the far more likely sense does not produce "material adverse facts," I suggest you stop trying to prop up your argument with these rhetorical slights of hand.

I consider the Brethren's involvement in Prop. 8 a VERY material fact (whether it's "adverse" depends on what side one is on) intentionally ignored by Holland. That it was "adverse" to Holland's smokescreen of no "institutional" involvement in Prop. 8 is why certain of his words were lies, the very point of the OP.

Color me an idealist, but I hold an apostle of Christ to a higher standard.

What an utter waste of my time.

Agreed.

[_maklelan]

Anytime the Brethren get personally involved the way they did, I see it as "institutional formalization."

That doesn't mean Holland does, and that's really the crux of your point.

Church authorities took a major lead in this fight. They did not do this as individuals but in their formal, institutional capacity as general authorities of the LDS Church. This is why their involvement carried so much weight and their pronouncements so successful in "motivating" LDS leaders and members in CA to contribute enormous amounts of money and time to the fight to pass Prop. 8. I'm surprised anyone with a straight face could claim that there was not an LDS "institutional formalization" in light of what we now know.

No, you're not surprised. You know this is quite a semantic grey area, and as convinced as you may have yourself regarding what the term should mean, you know the only thing that matters is whether or not Jeffrey R. Holland was using it that way. I don't believe he was, and not least of which because his first defense of the church's informal involvement related to money directly given to the campaign.

[_zeezrom]

I’m not dodging the fact that there was . . . a fairly heavy price to pay – people being fired from their jobs, and people being blackballed in services that they had rendered and were no longer asked to render, and so forth, but that’s ok, that’s the price you pay for a lively democracy.

Easy for him to say. It's only "o.k." because it wasn't HIM who was fired or blackballed.

This was my thought as well. This guy sounds like a real asshole.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Anytime the Brethren get personally involved the way they did, I see it as "institutional formalization."

That doesn't mean Holland does, and that's really the crux of your point.

You're trying to make Holland out as a dodo; he's already told us he is not (in the BBC special), so he knew he was lying ... or at least misleading (which would be consistent with the "lyin' for the Lord" tactic other Church leaders have used in the past).

I'm surprised anyone with a straight face could claim that there was not an LDS "institutional formalization" in light of what we now know.

No, you're not surprised. You know this is quite a semantic grey area ....

It absolutely is NOT a "semantic grey area." Again, any objective observer with a basic knowledge of the facts would concede that Holland was misleading at best and lying at worst about the Church's involvement in passing Prop. 8.

... and as convinced as you may have yourself regarding what the term should mean, you know the only thing that matters is whether or not Jeffrey R. Holland was using it that way. I don't believe he was, and not least of which because his first defense of the church's informal involvement related to money directly given to the campaign.

Actually, his first defense was that the Church has the right to vote (which it doesn't -- see Kish's comments above for the clarification I'm sure you need).

[_maklelan]

My, that was substantive. Getting a bit testy, aren't you?

I admit it. I find it irritating when people make demonstrably false assertions about things and then evade the facts in the interest of their egos and their rhetorical posturing, especially when they repeatedly assert their moral and intellectual acuity. I'm not a perfect person, and I admit that. This comment of yours is still just ad hominem meant to avoid acknowledging that you completely misread Holland and cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Such a big word.

This is what I'm talking about. You made an unthinking point just so you could have some kind of rebuttal to the comment and feel like you were actually responding to my argument, and then when I point out it's an unthinking point, you continue the evasion. I'm done trying to reason with you.

[_3sheets2thewind]

so what you are saying is, that as a Defender of the LDS Church, it is quite appropriate for you to sexualize a conversation so long as your sexualization of the conversation does not exceed the level you accuse your opponents of?

No, what I'm saying is that it's hypocritical and quite asinine of you to suggest that my metaphorical use of "masturbation" is at all comparable to Schryver's rhetoric, all the while ignoring that the space between us is chuck full of the rhetoric you and yours employ regularly. Additionally, this attempt to try to rhetorically shame me by suggesting I have "sexualized" the conversation is quite juvenile.

you did sexualize the conversation, and just like william schryver, you are attempting to weasel your way out of it.

[_3sheets2thewind]

My, that was substantive. Getting a bit testy, aren't you?

I admit it. I find it irritating when people make demonstrably false assertions about things and then evade the facts in the interest of their egos and their rhetorical posturing, especially when they repeatedly assert their moral and intellectual acuity. I'm not a perfect person, and I admit that. This comment of yours is still just ad hominem meant to avoid acknowledging that you completely misread Holland and cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Such a big word.

This is what I'm talking about. You made an unthinking point just so you could have some kind of rebuttal to the comment and feel like you were actually responding to my argument, and then when I point out it's an unthinking point, you continue the evasion. I'm done trying to reason with you.

said the kettle...

[_maklelan]

I don't know, Mak. Institutional formalization to me means formal involvement by the institution. I would certainly consider letters being sent out on Church letterhead and Church leaders publicly speaking out on the issue formal involvement. Simply because they used a different means of publicity (canvassing though lists and letters rather than commercials) doesn't lessen what occurred, at least in my eyes.

They were speaking directly to their own members, though, not to the public or to the campaign. They didn't step foot into the ring, they just coached their guy from the sidelines. I see that as the main point of Holland's entire comment. You don't have the church's name on any literature being distributed or in any commercials. They were not formally involved as an institution in the campaign.

Now Bob, who was personally involved in the canvassing, states that there were other churches involved. Again, I don't see how that lessens OUR Church's involvement.

Those other churches often got directly involved with the campaigning.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I admit it. I find it irritating when people make demonstrably false assertions about things and then evade the facts in the interest of their egos and their rhetorical posturing, especially when they repeatedly assert their moral and intellectual acuity.

You were looking in the mirror when you wrote that, right?

I'm not a perfect person, and I admit that. This comment of yours is still just ad hominem meant to avoid acknowledging that you completely misread Holland and cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Stop staring into the mirror ....

This is what I'm talking about. You made an unthinking point just so you could have some kind of rebuttal to the comment and feel like you were actually responding to my argument, and then when I point out it's an unthinking point, you continue the evasion. I'm done trying to reason with you.

Now you're emotionally masturbating, right?