9th Circuit Affirms: Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

[_Darth J]

We've recently had a thread where Maklelan openly expressed his utter contempt for the official teachings of the LDS Church.

Well, that's quite a manipulative and intentional misrepresentation of my position. Why is lying always ok as long as you're criticizing the church?

Here is your exact statement, in context:

Instead of Facebook polls, I'd recommend quoting Church publications.

Because nothing determines majority views regarding the religious significance of personal items in multinational religious communities like appealing to generic and conventionalized vernacular and then interpreting it for an audience.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22350&p=551414#p551414

Church publications = generic and conventionalized vernacular

[_Kishkumen]

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.

You have to admit, mak is one slippery fellow. He does such a fine job of appearing earnest while contradicting the basics most LDS folk have followed for generations. The point you raise about authority and doctrine is unassailable, and yet he dances around it like a Russian ballerina.

It is truly stunning disingenuousness.

[_maklelan]

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.

That's not been established. All you've been able to show is that you guys can quote comments that can be interpreted to support either side. I've been able to show that general church membership (at least as far as I or anyone else has been able to ascertain) agrees with me.

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

No, that (1) "disagree" and "utter contempt" are two different things, (2) I don't see any disagreement in the particular example to which Darth pointed, and (3) the quotes that have been provided can be interpreted just as easily to support my side. I've pointed this out multiple times now.

That's true--hence why I don't try to dismiss things like the location of Cumorah as "unimportant."

But you do tell me what I am and am not allowed to "dismiss" as "unimportant." That's a part of "the power or the official capacity to . . . say what questions are 'important' or 'unimportant.'" Are you really going to sit there and declare what is important and at the same time tell me that I don't speak officially for the church and thus cannot declare what is important? Are you really this cognitively dissonant?

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."

Actually it's "when our leaders speak," and that statement does not come from the Brethren. They've actually repudiated it. Surely you already know that President George Albert Smith wrote that it "does not express the true position of the Church."

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

Nor is Elder Peterson. He's been dead for almost 30 years.

No. Where did I ever claim that?

When you claim to declare what is and is not "important," when you claim that I am not allowed to point to what the Church identifies as official doctrine, when you claim to declare what is official doctrine, etc.

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.

First, you've yet to provide a single text that actually disagrees with my understanding of the protective function of garments. Second, your concern was not with official doctrine, but with the prevalence of the belief I described.

No, I'm not.

Then I can count on you to stop declaring to me what is and is not important to Latter-day Saints?

The Brethren are. Unless you want to try and undermine their authority, that is.

So the brethren determine what is and is not relevant? You mean they don't simply respond to socio-religious conditions that are in the hands of the membership and society at large? I disagree with you there.

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?

This does not answer my question. You said the fact that church leaders wrote stuff down blew my understanding out of the water. I asked you how so. Please be specific.

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

Another bald faced lie. You are the most manipulative and dishonest of commentators when it comes to what the Brethren mean when they speak or write on issues. You even sit there are tell me directly that I didn't mean what I thought I meant when I made this or that comment, and it's always directly predicated on what rhetorical value you can extract from the statement.

[_Darth J]

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.

1. There is no "must." There is nowhere in the text of the Constitution that says how it is supposed to be interpreted.

2. The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying their citizens the equal protection of the laws. The 14th Amendment does not create any substantive state laws. It only says that when a state, under its general police powers and the reservation of powers in the 10th Amendment, enacts a law, that state law cannot deny people who live in that state equal protection under that law. The Constitution does not define marriage. States define marriage.

3. Not a single state has defined marriage according to the terms assumed by the "traditional marriage" crowd. Neither in California, nor anywhere else in the United States, is having children or having the ability to have children a requirement in order to have a marriage. A man with a vasectomy can get legally married. A woman with a tubal ligation can, too. Completely infertile people can get married. In Utah, first cousins can get married once they reach a certain age and a judge determines that they cannot have children.

4. Marriage, as it exists in positive law in every jurisdiction in the United States, is a domestic partnership---and that's it. There is nothing within the substance of what marriage actually is in law that needs people of opposite gender to accomplish it.

[Guest]

Church publications = generic and conventionalized vernacular

So what? It is generic and conventionalized. Do you mean to say that acknowledging that it is generic and conventionalized indicates "utter contempt"? If that is really your contention, you are quite mistaken. When writing for a worldwide audience of all ages one is required to use generic and conventionalized vernacular and rhetoric. That's an absolute necessity, and there's nothing wrong with that. You'll notice my real concern was with the way you manipulate its interpretation. You take advantage of that lack of precision in order to assert interpretations that better serve your rhetoric. Again, yours is a thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of my position, and the above is an incredibly poor attempt to defend it.

[_maklelan]

You have to admit, mak is one slippery fellow. He does such a fine job of appearing earnest while contradicting the basics most LDS folk have followed for generations. The point you raise about authority and doctrine is unassailable, and yet he dances around it like a Russian ballerina.

It is truly stunning disingenuousness.

What point of his is unassailable? I don't see anything in his comments that is coherent, much less unassailable. If you can quote him or point to the exact unassailable comment I would be happy to reply directly and honestly to it.

[_Darth J]

So the brethren determine what is and is not relevant? You mean they don't simply respond to socio-religious conditions that are in the hands of the membership and society at large? I disagree with you there.

It's good to know that we no longer need to dress up Official Declaration 2 as a "revelation."

[_Darth J]

Church publications = generic and conventionalized vernacular

So what? It is generic and conventionalized. Do you mean to say that acknowledging that it is generic and conventionalized indicates "utter contempt"? If that is really your contention, you are quite mistaken. When writing for a worldwide audience of all ages one is required to use generic and conventionalized vernacular and rhetoric. That's an absolute necessity, and there's nothing wrong with that. You'll notice my real concern was with the way you manipulate its interpretation. You take advantage of that lack of precision in order to assert interpretations that better serve your rhetoric. Again, yours is a thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of my position, and the above is an incredibly poor attempt to defend it.

Look, you're the one who called the inspired counsel and teachings of modern prophets and apostles "generic and conventionalized vernacular."

The only difference between you and me is that I no longer feel obligated to pretend there is any reason to claim loyalty to the organization churning out said generic and conventionalized vernacular. But as far as having reverence for the products of the LDS pulp mill, you and I are clearly on the same page.

[_maklelan]

Look, you're the one who called the inspired counsel and teachings of modern prophets and apostles "generic and conventionalized vernacular."

I never contested this. What I contested was the silly notion that such a position evinces "utter contempt." Can you defend your characterization, or are you just going to pussyfoot around it?

The only difference between you and me is that I no longer feel obligated to pretend there is any reason to claim loyalty to the organization churning out said generic and conventionalized vernacular. But as far as having reverence for the products of the LDS pulp mill, you and I are clearly on the same page.

Keep your projection to yourself. If you don't have the sack to acknowledge that you misrepresented me then stop pretending to be able to participate in these discussions on an adult level.

[_Darth J]

Maklelan, as much as I enjoy your militant heresy, don't you think you have derailed this thread enough?

Why don't you weigh in on how equal protection of laws works?