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

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Church using the pulpit to weigh in on issues of public morality.

And that's why I said this was a freedom of speech issue, rather than how Holland couched it as a right to vote. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with a church advising its members however it wants to, but I thought Holland was being intentionally deceitful in omitting the significant role played by the Church institution in getting LDS members to help pass Prop. 8.

[_Fence Sitter]

I think you're reading too much into Elder Holland's comments, but it is undeniable that the Brethren were very instrumental in mobilizing California Saints into action. I would have never lectured at UCLA Law on the Proposition, or canvassed or worked the phones on election night if I hadn't been asked to do so. I would have voted against the Proposition otherwise.

But my political beliefs on the subject were influenced by my church, much as the Catholics have quite often tried to influence politics through their members. I look to my Church as the arbiter of truth and morality and am willing to align my politics with it when that alignment seems needed.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Church using the pulpit to weigh in on issues of public morality.

Why then, does it seem, like they are trying to distance the Church institution from have done exactly that?
Shouldn't every talk by leadership be extolling Church involvement in every way allowed by the law?

[_3sheets2thewind]

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

No, I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything, and I think it's quite ridiculous of you to compare my metaphor to the things Schryver said. In light of your proclivity for fallacious rhetoric and evasion of my real concerns, however, you're obviously in no mood to listen to reason.

First and foremost, I am comparing your "emotional masturbation" to williams "circle jerk".

william made the essentially the same claims as you are now. You used a sexual statement to insult an opponent. You also claim the sexual statement was not sexual but rather a metaphor, which is what william also did. Your arrogance prohibits you from accepting what you have done.

And to top it off, once you have been cornered, you continue to deny your actions and assert that your opponent is unwilling to listen, which is what william would do....

face it, your "emotional masturbation", is williamesque.

Do you use term "emotional masturbation" in speaking with your wife, mother, prayer, sacrament talks, church, will you use the "emotional masturbation" in your dissertation....etc.

Like the other FAIRisees, you operate on the condition that your conduct is contingent on those around you; that you must only be a Saint and example of Christ when you are sitting in a pew.

[_Carton]

It's fascinating that maklelan cannot see that his vulgarity is exactly the same as Schryver's. Instead, he is trying to excuse himself by suggesting that his potty mouth isn't as bad as Schryver's potty mouth. That is what I call "childish".

[_Yahoo Bot]

william made the essentially the same claims as you are now. You used a sexual statement to insult an opponent. You also claim the sexual statement was not sexual but rather a metaphor, which is what william also did. Your arrogance prohibits you from accepting what you have done.

And to top it off, once you have been cornered, you continue to deny your actions and assert that your opponent is unwilling to listen, which is what william would do....

face it, your "emotional masturbation", is williamesque.

Do you use term "emotional masturbation" in speaking with your wife, mother, prayer, sacrament talks, church, will you use the "emotional masturbation" in your dissertation....etc.

Like the other FAIRisees, you operate on the condition that your conduct is contingent on those around you; that you must only be a Saint and example of Christ when you are sitting in a pew.

I don't think it a very admirable argument to poke Mak or any other God-fearing Mormon in the eye about how good a Christian they might be in their posts when you, yourself, aren't bothered by some limitations.

[Guest]

I think you're reading too much into Elder Holland's comments, but it is undeniable that the Brethren were very instrumental in mobilizing California Saints into action. I would have never lectured at UCLA Law on the Proposition, or canvassed or worked the phones on election night if I hadn't been asked to do so. I would have voted against the Proposition otherwise.

But my political beliefs on the subject were influenced by my church, much as the Catholics have quite often tried to influence politics through their members. I look to my Church as the arbiter of truth and morality and am willing to align my politics with it when that alignment seems needed.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Church using the pulpit to weigh in on issues of public morality.

Everything that's true is not useful. Not all facts are relevant. Not all facts are operative. So why did Elder Holland, and others who take the church's side on this, so frequently mention that the church spent none of its own money (something that is not true)?

Why is that (un)true fact useful or operative?

[_Yahoo Bot]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a Church using the pulpit to weigh in on issues of public morality.

And that's why I said this was a freedom of speech issue, rather than how Holland couched it as a right to vote. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with a church advising its members however it wants to, but I thought Holland was being intentionally deceitful in omitting the significant role played by the Church institution in getting LDS members to help pass Prop. 8.

Nobody has hidden the fact that the Church was part of the coalition. I mean, they appeared that way in court briefing. It would be fruitless to lie about something that was completely a matter of public knowledge.

Its like you needling Dan Peterson over gossiping with Mike Quinn's Stake Presidency over Quinn's homosexuality and me observing that Quinn had already come out voluntarily before that action. Why would Peterson being doing anything wrong mentioning what Quinn wanted to be public?

Similarly, here, Holland's comments were obviously directed to financial matters, and with that the Church has always been consistent.

And, I think you like, as you have in the past, to stretch Mormons on the rack with disingenuous arguments, like arguing that, Gee, if same sex marriage is legalized, then the Church has no choice but to permit temple sealings. Whether Holland was using "we" to denote the Mormon people or "we" to denote the Church is a rather petty point upon which to draw a distinction.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Everything that's true is not useful. Not all facts are operative. So why did Elder Holland, and others who take the church's side on this, so frequently mention that the church spent none of its own money (something that is not true)?

Why is that (un)true fact useful or operative?[/color]

When it comes to "spending money," in area of campaign finance, that has a particular meaning. It means contributing to the campaign with dollars or donations in kind. It does mean spending money on General Authorities to sit around and debate things.

And, so, the Church did not spend a dime on the campaign. I do point out that the election commission found that airline tickets spent on general authorities flying to California should have been declared as a DIK. I frankly don't see it. So, you might have the upper hand in the argument with $2500 in airline tickets.

Members of the church spending money on the campaign is not the church spending money on the campaign, at least as campaign finance would hold. If my firm supports Diane Feinstein and holds events for her, my contributions to the campaign are not counted against my firm, even though I own part of the firm. Even though I may be arm twisted to contribute.

There comes a time when arm twisting, under campaign law, makes the corporation liable for the contributions of the shareholders or owners. For instance, if my employment is conditioned upon my contributions, my employer can get into campaign finance trouble.

But, when it comes to religion, the relationship between church and member is a protected First Amendment relationship, and no amount of priesthood arm-twisting will be attributed to the church. A member is free to say no. And thus the church is completely accurate under the law in saying that it had not contributed a dime.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Nobody has hidden the fact that the Church was part of the coalition. I mean, they appeared that way in court briefing. It would be fruitless to lie about something that was completely a matter of public knowledge.

Appearing in an appellate brief as 'a friend of the court' is a bit different than leading the charge in raising money and effort to pass Prop. 8. It was that institutional effort that Holland concealed in his statement.

Its like you needling Dan Peterson over gossiping with Mike Quinn's Stake Presidency over Quinn's homosexuality and me observing that Quinn had already come out voluntarily before that action. Why would Peterson being doing anything wrong mentioning what Quinn wanted to be public?

I'm amazed you're pulling out that old chestnut. DCP was "needled" for gossiping and sticking his nose into Quinn's personal life.

Similarly, here, Holland's comments were obviously directed to financial matters, and with that the Church has always been consistent.

No, I understood him to be speaking to more than just money.

And, I think you like, as you have in the past, to stretch Mormons on the rack with disingenuous arguments, like arguing that, Gee, if same sex marriage is legalized, then the Church has no choice but to permit temple sealings.

I have never argued this. In fact, I think the LDS Church should be as bigoted as it wants to be in religious sacraments.

Whether Holland was using "we" to denote the Mormon people or "we" to denote the Church is a rather petty point upon which to draw a distinction.

Not when Holland is lying.

[_3sheets2thewind]

here is the question that was asked perhaps it can offer some guidance on what/who Holland was referrring to with "we"

So my question is a bit of a follow up to the question on gender
Holland: k, k,
and gender identity In response to that you mentioned that your Church is a apolitical organization…
Holland: Well institutionally…
The caveat that it’s apolitical with regards to
Holland: we’ll take, we’ll take, we’ll take a stand on moral issues but to try to stay out of anything that’s just traditionally political
ok, and so, that actually sort of leads to my question which is could you elaborate on the instances on which the Church will take a political stance
Holland: yeah
what immediately comes to mind is the often cited sort of material impact the Church had on proposition 8 in California
Holland: prop 8
[indiscernible}
Holland: lets use that example
and then also sort of how of whatever how political involvement would be, would be squared with the notion that for instance the Americans ability to have people exercise their beliefs
Holland: sure
freely, actually lead to the ability of the Church to [indiscernible]