9th Circuit Affirms: Prop 8 Unconstitutional!

[_Darth J]

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.

Just so we're clear: in order to have a discussion on an adult level, one must either accede to Maklelan's militant heresy as being consistent with mainstream Mormonism, or else face the potency of your scrotum being called into question.

ETA: For our chapel Mormon friends who may have wandered in here by mistake and may not have understood his reference, Maklelan is disputing the testosterone output of my little factory.

[_maklelan]

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?

If the Supreme Court determines that marriage is a fundamental right, then Prop 8 would be unconstitutional. The will of the people is not supreme in the United States, the rule of law is. This would open doors for other groups to get their foot in the marriage door, but I don't believe that there are legitimate legal grounds for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

[_maklelan]

Just so we're clear: in order to have a discussion on an adult level, one must either accede to Maklelan's militant heresy as being consistent with mainstream Mormonism, or else face the potency of your scrotum being called into question.

No, one must just be able to acknowledge when they've been shown to have flatly misrepresented someone. You know as well as I that you mischaracterized my position, and now you're just trying to ignore it.

ETA: For our chapel Mormon friends who may have wandered in here by mistake and may not have understood his reference, Maklelan is disputing the testosterone output of my little factory.

No, it's just a metaphor for being mature enough to let honesty overrule your pride.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

So you agree with Pres. Young's teachings on race? And Elder Packer's teachings on masturbation? And Elder Petersen's teachings on miscegenation? And Pres. Benson's teachings on communism?

See: all I have to do to establish this is list off the wonky things the Brethren have taught. Either you agree with them or you don't. And up above, you said, rather forthrightly, that you "disagree" with all kinds of things.

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.

My remarks here are unconcerned with the "contempt" element of Darth J's post. If you want to pursue that, you'll have to take it up with him.

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 not accurate. I tell you that you need to refer to commentary from Church leaders. If you were to cite Church authorities, I would bow to their doctrinal authority.

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?

No, Maklelan. All I'm saying is this: cite "official" Church publications to support your point. That's it.

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.

And Joseph Smith has been dead far, far longer than that. As have Jesus, Moses, and Abraham.

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.

*I* don't claim that, Maklelan. The Brethren do. Do you reject the words of the Brethren, or what?

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.

Huh?

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.

"Be specific"? This isn't a "specific" sort of thing. This is a question of whether or not you think the prophets and leaders of the LDS Church have authoritative power. It all boils down to that.

Do you believe in and sustain the leaders of the Church, Maklelan? Or do you think they're wrong?

[_maklelan]

So you agree with Pres. Young's teachings on race? And Elder Packer's teachings on masturbation? And Elder Petersen's teachings on miscegenation? And Pres. Benson's teachings on communism?

I'm clearly talking about the garments question.

See: all I have to do to establish this is list off the wonky things the Brethren have taught. Either you agree with them or you don't. And up above, you said, rather forthrightly, that you "disagree" with all kinds of things.

Yes, I do, but regarding the function of the garments, I don't disagree.

My remarks here are unconcerned with the "contempt" element of Darth J's post. If you want to pursue that, you'll have to take it up with him.

So you've abandoned your original line of argumentation? I'll take that as tacit admission that Darth mischaracterized me and will thank you for finally getting around to acknowledging that.

[_moksha]

There will be weeping and wailing and bunching of garments over this decision, but that only means the Church will redouble its efforts to defeat this gay victory in the higher courts. The Temple prayer roll will be kept busy while attorneys preparation Dr. Daniel C. Peterson to address the Supreme Court. Seems like an apologetic redefinition of the Equal Protection Clause is needed.

[Guest]

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?

If the Supreme Court determines that marriage is a fundamental right, then Prop 8 would be unconstitutional. The will of the people is not supreme in the United States, the rule of law is. This would open doors for other groups to get their foot in the marriage door, but I don't believe that there are legitimate legal grounds for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Nope. It has already been determined by the Supreme Court that marriage is a fundamental right, but it is not necessary to reach that question to decide the equal protection violation created by Prop 8.

At least you're back on topic, though.

[_Darth J]

Just so we're clear: in order to have a discussion on an adult level, one must either accede to Maklelan's militant heresy as being consistent with mainstream Mormonism, or else face the potency of your scrotum being called into question.

No, one must just be able to acknowledge when they've been shown to have flatly misrepresented someone. You know as well as I that you mischaracterized my position, and now you're just trying to ignore it.

That must be why I both directly quoted you and linked to where you said it.

ETA: For our chapel Mormon friends who may have wandered in here by mistake and may not have understood his reference, Maklelan is disputing the testosterone output of my little factory.

No, it's just a metaphor for being mature enough to let honesty overrule your pride.

Oh.....you mean like admitting that you bet on the wrong horse vis-a-vis religion.

You'll get there someday, too. You're already there doctrinally. Eventually your disdain for the Mormonism that is taught by the LDS Church (instead of the bastardized apologist Mormonism to which you subscribe) will lead you to realize that if the doctrine isn't true, neither is the organization that promulgates it.

We've all been there, and we will welcome you with open arms when you allow yourself to let your heresy arrive at its natural destination.

[_Drifting]

If the Supreme Court determines that marriage is a fundamental right, then Prop 8 would be unconstitutional. The will of the people is not supreme in the United States, the rule of law is. This would open doors for other groups to get their foot in the marriage door, but I don't believe that there are legitimate legal grounds for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

I'm confused, I thought you were an active, believing Mormon.
My apologies.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

That the role authority generally plays in determining what is considered doctrinal Trump's just about every other consideration. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand, mak.