9th Circuit Affirms: Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

[_Brackite]

The claim that the equal protection clause requires California to grant SSM is pure flatulence. The Constitution must be read in the sociohistorical context in which it was written and amended, and the equal protection clause does not and cannot mean what SSM advocates claim it means.

But what about Bush versus Gore??? The Supreme Court Ruled that the equal protection clause does apply to Florida in the recounting of ballots. If the equal protection clause applied in that case there, then why wouldn't it apply to California to grant SSM???

Bush v. Gore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[_Doctor Scratch]

How would you put it, then? That you think you know better than Church leaders? That Church leaders are flat-out wrong?

I don't disagree with the Church leaders, I just don't interpret their statements about garments the way that you guys do. Obviously my interpretation is not at all atypical. I've explained this numerous times already. Why do you feel it necessary to continue to lie about what I am saying?

Darth J's remark--though it did seem to be referencing your views on garments--was referring more generally to the unorthodox views expressed on this board by TBMs like yourself. We don't have to limit this to garments, after all. For example, do you agree with Elder Mark E. Petersen's views on interracial dating? How about the First Presidency's views on the location of the Hill Cumorah? How about Elder Packer's views on the teaching of history in the Church?

At what point, I wonder, does "interpret differently" cease to mean anything other than "disagree with"? I bet you're thrilled that the contemporary Church has basically ceased to take a real position on much of anything.

[_maklelan]

Darth J's remark--though it did seem to be referencing your views on garments--was referring more generally to the unorthodox views expressed on this board by TBMs like yourself.

It was explicitly a specific reference to my view on garments. He even linked to the thread. It's more dishonesty to suggest that it "seemed" to reference my view.

We don't have to limit this to garments, after all. For example, do you agree with Elder Mark E. Petersen's views on interracial dating? How about the First Presidency's views on the location of the Hill Cumorah? How about Elder Packer's views on the teaching of history in the Church?

I disagree with a lot of things, but none of these are "official teachings," and I don't have "utter contempt" for any of them. More dishonesty.

At what point, I wonder, does "interpret differently" cease to mean anything other than "disagree with"?

It doesn't mean disagree with. I believe the statements Darth quoted agree with my position and not with his. The interpretation with which I disagree is his, not the church's. Certainly you understand what I mean when I say I don't interpret their statements the same way Darth does.

I bet you're thrilled that the contemporary Church has basically ceased to take a real position on much of anything.

Not at all. It leaves a lot of room for people to manipulate the vagaries of doctrine and theology. On the other hand, I bet you'll continue to be dishonest. I'm pretty confident that my bet is accurate.

[_Doctor Scratch]

We don't have to limit this to garments, after all. For example, do you agree with Elder Mark E. Petersen's views on interracial dating? How about the First Presidency's views on the location of the Hill Cumorah? How about Elder Packer's views on the teaching of history in the Church?

I disagree with a lot of things, but none of these are "official teachings," and I don't have "utter contempt" for any of them. More dishonesty.

You don't have "utter contempt" for BY's teachings on race, or blood atonement? Or polygamy? Okay.

I'm not really concerned whether or not you agree or disagree with "official teachings," since no one--not you, not Church leaders, not the Mopologists--is willing to say what these actually are. I'm satisfied with the mere fact that you admit to disagreeing with Church leaders. It seems to me that your notion of what's "important" or "official" is basically irrelevant. After all, I'm sure that Elder Petersen felt that his own views on miscegenation were important enough to put them in print.

I bet you're thrilled that the contemporary Church has basically ceased to take a real position on much of anything.

Not at all. It leaves a lot of room for people to manipulate the vagaries of doctrine and theology.

You would prefer more orthodoxy? Wow--that's interesting. So, if you were to rise to the office of prophet, what would be official doctrine on the Book of Abraham? How about polygamy, or the location of the Hill Cumorah? What about Book of Mormon geography? What would you tell the rank-and-file that they're supposed to believe?

[_maklelan]

You don't have "utter contempt" for BY's teachings on race, or blood atonement? Or polygamy? Okay.

No. I disagree completely with many of Young's teachings, but I don't really have utter contempt for much at all.

I'm not really concerned whether or not you agree or disagree with "official teachings," since no one--not you, not Church leaders, not the Mopologists--is willing to say what these actually are.

That's a lie. I've weighed in numerous times on exactly what constitutes official doctrine and you and your ilk have simply told me I'm wrong because there is no doctrinally official statement on what constitutes official doctrine. It's quite a juvenile little game of evasion you guys play, but it's even more asinine when you turn around and accuse us of being unwilling or confused.

I'm satisfied with the mere fact that you admit to disagreeing with Church leaders.

Then why did you start a thread speculating about motivations and interpretations?

It seems to me that your notion of what's "important" or "official" is basically irrelevant.

Another lie. A more accurate statement would be that it seems rhetorically useful for you to suggest that it seems irrelevant.

After all, I'm sure that Elder Petersen felt that his own views on miscegenation were important enough to put them in print.

That's not particularly surprising, given your insist that your subjective, etic, ignorant, and antagonistic opinion is the only one that matters.

You would prefer more orthodoxy? Wow--that's interesting.

No, just more specificity in the statements that are actually made. Stop putting words in my mouth.

So, if you were to rise to the office of prophet, what would be official doctrine on the Book of Abraham? How about polygamy, or the location of the Hill Cumorah? What about Book of Mormon geography? What would you tell the rank-and-file that they're supposed to believe?

I don't think those are particularly important questions.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Look, Mak: you disagree with Church leaders. You said so. You disagree with a lot of the teachings of President Young. End of story. That's all I was saying. That's it.

You don't have the power or the official capacity to declare doctrine, or to say what questions are "important" or "unimportant." The words of someone like Elder Mark E. Petersen Trump whatever you say. You might not like that (feel free to "disagree" again, if you want), but the fact remains that you have no authority to comment "officially" on doctrine. So, the fact that you think that doctrinal issues like miscegenation, the Hill Cumorah, etc. are "unimportant" is irrelevant. At various points in time, these things *were* important enough to the Brethren to merit written commentary, which blows your notions clean out of the water.

If you don't like this, you can go and start your own church.

[_Kishkumen]

Come on, Doctor. You don't believe that maklelan is a reliable communicator of official doctrines?

[_maklelan]

Look, Mak: you disagree with Church leaders. You said so.

Yes. I also pointed out that that's quite different from having "utter contempt" for their statements. I also pointed out that, regarding the specific position to which Darth referred, I did not disagree. My brother is in town with me this week, and I decided to ask him about his thought on garments. He would qualify as a hard core "Chapel Mormon" in every way and he was quite convinced that the "reminder" interpretation of garments is the official doctrine regarding their function. My wife, who would also qualify as a hard core "Chapel Mormon" agreed.

You disagree with a lot of the teachings of President Young. End of story. That's all I was saying. That's it.

No it's not, you just want to make this black and white and are frustrated when the shades of grey are pointed out. This is a pretty poor attempt to circumvent that.

You don't have the power or the official capacity to declare doctrine, or to say what questions are "important" or "unimportant."

Nor do you.

The words of someone like Elder Mark E. Petersen Trump whatever you say.

How so?

You might not like that (feel free to "disagree" again, if you want), but the fact remains that you have no authority to comment "officially" on doctrine.

But you do?

So, the fact that you think that doctrinal issues like miscegenation, the Hill Cumorah, etc. are "unimportant" is irrelevant.

Right. You are the arbiter of all things relevant and irrelevant. You and your imaginary informant, anyway.

At various points in time, these things *were* important enough to the Brethren to merit written commentary, which blows your notions clean out of the water.

How so?

If you don't like this, you can go and start your own church.

For someone who knows only slightly more than jack about Mormonism, you sure do like to speak authoritatively on its behalf.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Look, Mak: you disagree with Church leaders. You said so.

Yes. I also pointed out that that's quite different from having "utter contempt" for their statements. I also pointed out that, regarding the specific position to which Darth referred, I did not disagree. My brother is in town with me this week, and I decided to ask him about his thought on garments. He would qualify as a hard core "Chapel Mormon" in every way and he was quite convinced that the "reminder" interpretation of garments is the official doctrine regarding their function. My wife, who would also qualify as a hard core "Chapel Mormon" agreed.

That's wonderful, Maklelan. I'm glad that your brother and your wife agree with your views. None of this really changes the basic fact that you disagree with Church leaders, though.

You disagree with a lot of the teachings of President Young. End of story. That's all I was saying. That's it.

No it's not, you just want to make this black and white and are frustrated when the shades of grey are pointed out. This is a pretty poor attempt to circumvent that.

What is the "shade of grey" in this case? That you only "sort of" disagree with BY's teachings?

You don't have the power or the official capacity to declare doctrine, or to say what questions are "important" or "unimportant."

Nor do you.

That's true--hence why I don't try to dismiss things like the location of Cumorah as "unimportant." Hence why I don't try to pooh-pooh away things that "aren't official." I'm sure you know the old saying: "When the Brethren speak, the thinking has been done."

The words of someone like Elder Mark E. Petersen Trump whatever you say.

How so?

Because you don't hold the keys. You aren't an apostle. You aren't a "prophet, seer, and revelator." (Are you?)

You might not like that (feel free to "disagree" again, if you want), but the fact remains that you have no authority to comment "officially" on doctrine.

But you do?

No. Where did I ever claim that? All I'm saying here is that prophetic declaration from Church leaders is more indicative of "actual" or "official" Church doctrine that whatever you say, or whatever you drum up in your polls of people at the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board.

So, the fact that you think that doctrinal issues like miscegenation, the Hill Cumorah, etc. are "unimportant" is irrelevant.

Right. You are the arbiter of all things relevant and irrelevant.

No, I'm not. The Brethren are. Unless you want to try and undermine their authority, that is.

At various points in time, these things *were* important enough to the Brethren to merit written commentary, which blows your notions clean out of the water.

How so?

Because the LDS Church has an authoritarian power structure--a "top-down" hieararchy. Unless you think you know better than the apostles and the prophets? Is that what you're saying?

If you don't like this, you can go and start your own church.

For someone who knows only slightly more than jack about Mormonism, you sure do like to speak authoritatively on its behalf.

I don't have to speak on its behalf. I'm happy to let the Brethren do that.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Come on, Doctor. You don't believe that maklelan is a reliable communicator of official doctrines?

My dear, dear reverend: you've caused me to resort to my beloved Italian silk hanky to dab the tears from the corners of my weathered and jaded eyes. I love this hanky. It was a gift from Dean Robbers.