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

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Based on the above, Bob, you're the very type of mindless member the Brethren must treasure.

[_Kishkumen]

I have no problem with churches teaching as they like. I do have a problem with them using their resources to get them to vote a certain way. I hope that some day the law changes such that churches are no longer able to do that. Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves, not teach them correct principles, call them to canvass on an issue, and discipline them when they speak out against your viewpoint.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I have no problem with churches teaching as they like. I do have a problem with them using their resources to get them to vote a certain way. I hope that some day the law changes such that churches are no longer able to do that. Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves, not teach them correct principles, call them to canvass on an issue, and discipline them when they speak out against your viewpoint.

Ahh, yet another proponent of anticlericalism. Churches stay out of politics.

So many examples to refute such nonsense. If it weren't for Ed Firmage and Spencer W Kimball we'd have the MX rolling around in Southern Uah where mountain bikers now roam.

Or if weren't for Pope Paul most of the civilized world would still have the death penalty.

Or if it weren't for John Wilberforce and his obssesive evangelizing we'd still have slavery and Great Britain would have entered the war for the South.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Based on the above, Bob, you're the very type of mindless member the Brethren must treasure.

My stake president and law partners would get a kick out of that claim.

Off to see Van Halen tonite. Bye.

[_Kishkumen]

Ahh, yet another proponent of anticlericalism. Churches stay out of politics.

Nope. Clerics do wonderful work in churches.

So many examples to refute such nonsense. If it weren't for Ed Firmage and Spencer W Kimball we'd have the MX rolling around in Southern Uah where mountain bikers now roam.

Oh well. We'd also have the ERA amendment. I'd rather have that.

Or if weren't for Pope Paul most of the civilized world would still have the death penalty.

Or if it weren't for John Wilberforce and his obssesive evangelizing we'd still have slavery and Great Britain would have entered the war for the South.

Well, I don't deal in contrafactual history, so I concede we have those things. I just can't say what the world would have been like without churches. Neither can you, really. So, I am sticking with my position.

Let churches teach their parishioners as they will and leave voting to the conscience of the people. If these churches trust their teachings, that should be no problem.

In any case, I was always more of a Roger Williams kind of guy. I don't think too kindly of churches forcing their idiosyncratic value systems on everyone else, especially in contravention of the US Constitution.

[_lulu]

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.

You never answered the question.
Simple question.
Why is it so important for those "one the church side" of Prop 8 to point out that the church did not spend any money?
Direct answer please.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Based on the above, Bob, you're the very type of mindless member the Brethren must treasure.

My stake president and law partners would get a kick out of that claim.

Your SP would love it; your partners would just be embarrased for you.

Off to see Van Halen tonite.

Excellent choice.

[_sock puppet]

Based on the above, Bob, you're the very type of mindless member the Brethren must treasure.

My stake president and law partners would get a kick out of that claim.

Off to see Van Halen tonite. Bye.

Ok, bot. You and I are oil and water. But Van Halen? Bot watching David Lee Roth? Mind blowing.

Please return and report. Please! I haven't seen Van Halen since 1984, on the tour promoting... 1984.

[_DrW]

My stake president and law partners would get a kick out of that claim.
Off to see Van Halen tonite. Bye.

Ok, bot. You and I are oil and water. But Van Halen? Bot watching David Lee Roth? Mind blowing.

Please return and report. Please! I haven't seen Van Halen since 1984, on the tour promoting... 1984.

+1

[_Yahoo Bot]

Terrific concert. David Lee Roth's voice isn't what it used to be, he cheats and i think some of the songs were rekeyed and I prefer the Hagar versionof VH but Panama brought down the house. Eddie hasn't lost a step. Greatest guitarist alive, next to Satriani, in my opinion.