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

[_maklelan]

Listen to the question to Elder Holland. It refers to the CHURCH's influence in passing Prop. 8.

And "the Church" can refer to the administration or to the body of members.

Thus, when Holland's first sentence uses "we" I understood him to mean the Church. He then claims the "institution" did not contribute money, and then talks (in the third person) of individual members, particularly in CA, and the time and money spent and the consequences suffered. For these reasons, I interpreted Holland's use of "we" at the beginning to mean the Church.

That's fine. I interpret it quite differently.

When Holland referred to "no formalization institutionally," he lied, in light of the significant involvement of the Brethren and other leaders in organizing and seeking the resources to pass Prop. 8. Even if he were just trying to downplay the Brethren's great involvement, this would still be a lie, in my opinion.

Encourage members to vote does not constitute institutional formalization, in my opinion, irrespective of whether or not the church put representatives on airplanes.

I am amazed that the Brethren are too cowardly to expressly (and proudly) admit their involvement in Prop. H8.

I am amazed that you have to resort to this kind of sophomoric rhetoric.

But was such "meddling" ever condemned or corrected?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

To me, "covering the church's butt" is just another way of saying that Holland lied. So, in the end, it looks like we agree.

To me, it just means highlighting certain facts that support their position. The majority of the entire legal endeavor is a matter of drawing largely arbitrary boundaries around concepts with fuzzy borders. What you're saying is that Holland's borders disagree with your borders, and that means he's a liar.

[_Carton]

To me, "covering the church's butt" is just another way of saying that Holland lied. So, in the end, it looks like we agree.

To me, it looks like maklelan is teetering on the brink of either apostasy or full-blown Midgley-style apologetics. I can't imagine the tension of the cognitive dissonance in his mind at this moment--what with being in favor of gay marriage and yet also showing such talent at parsing language. You've got to wonder: which way will it go? Will it break for the liberal gay-marriage supporters or the hard-core mopologetics crowd?

It will be very interesting to watch what happens with this one ...

[_Carton]

Tell me, maklelan, are you in favor of gays being sealed in LDS temples for time and all eternity?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Only, I suppose, if you equate the coalition with the church. But it wasn't. There is no way the EVs would have ever supported the campaign if the coalition was Mormon-driven.

It doesn't matter to me if the LDS Church was part of a coalition or not -- its involvement was approved, organized and endorsed from to top down, which I think Holland lied about "no formalization institutionally."

When the coalition organized the canvassing campaign along stake lines, it wasn't the church doing it. The canvassing material I worked on spanned three stakes, so it appeared to me the coalition had little clue how the church operated and simply drew a circle around various church buildings (ours, the Catholics and EVs) to figure out how to distribute the lists.

But we all know that local LDS leaders and members were heavily engaged due to the strenuous prompting and involvement of the Brethren and other leaders. That is where I think Holland crossed the line into falsehood.

[_maklelan]

There is no question that you are heading down the road of apostasy. Not only do you agree with the documentary hypothesis, but now you are a supporter of same-sex marriage.

Thanks for the pretend concern. However, I do not agree with the documentary hypothesis, but you don't know enough about it to know what implications that has vis-à-vis my position on pentateuchal composition, so let's just leave that topic aside.

Tell me, maklelan, are you in favor of gays being sealed in LDS temples for time and all eternity?

Not currently, why?

[_maklelan]

To me, it looks like maklelan is teetering on the brink of either apostasy or full-blown Midgley-style apologetics. I can't imagine the tension of the cognitive dissonance in his mind at this moment--what with being in favor of gay marriage and yet also showing such talent at parsing language. You've got to wonder: which way will it go? Will it break for the liberal gay-marriage supporters or the hard-core mopologetics crowd?

It will be very interesting to watch what happens with this one ...

C'mon, you can pigeonhole me better than that.

[_maklelan]

It doesn't matter to me if the LDS Church was part of a coalition or not -- its involvement was approved, organized and endorsed from to top down, which I think Holland lied about "no formalization institutionally."

Please tell me exactly what Elder Holland meant by "no formalization institutionally."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And "the Church" can refer to the administration or to the body of members.

It could mean a lot of things, but a "Church" does not have a vote -- only individual citizens do.

Encourage members to vote does not constitute institutional formalization, in my opinion, irrespective of whether or not the church put representatives on airplanes.

The Brethren's involvement was far greater than merely "encouraging" members to vote. It was all the other stuff (i.e., overseeing strategy, sending GA's to CA, satellite broadcast, pressuring wealthy members for money, etc.) that made it "institutional formalization," which means that Holland lied.

I am amazed that you have to resort to this kind of sophomoric rhetoric.

I honestly don't know any other way to characterize it.

But was such "meddling" ever condemned or corrected?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

True, but I'm quite certain that the "meddling" occurred.

To me, it just means highlighting certain facts that support their position.

And by omitting material adverse facts, that "position" was based on a lie.

The majority of the entire legal endeavor is a matter of drawing largely arbitrary boundaries around concepts with fuzzy borders.

Are you honestly comparing an apostle of God to lawyers? If this is what we've come to in the Church, then God bless you ....

What you're saying is that Holland's borders disagree with your borders, and that means he's a liar.

Agreed. I heard what he said, and based on what I know I concluded that he lied to the Harvard Law School concerning the Church's involvement in passing Prop. H8.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It doesn't matter to me if the LDS Church was part of a coalition or not -- its involvement was approved, organized and endorsed from to top down, which I think Holland lied about "no formalization institutionally."

Please tell me exactly what Elder Holland meant by "no formalization institutionally."

I understood him to mean that general authorities and resources were not involved beyond expressing the Church's position on gay marriage and telling members to go out and vote (which is essentially what the Church institution has done in other states considering the issue -- reading a letter read in sacrament meeting, and that's it). By the GA's becoming involved in strategy, organization, personal appearances by GA's sent to CA (as well as via satellite from SLC), as well as area and local leaders putting pressure on members to contribute time and money, there was an institutional formalization that Holland later denied.

[_maklelan]

It could mean a lot of things, but a "Church" does not have a vote -- only individual citizens do.

We already know this, Rollo. The question is whether or not Holland referred specifically to the administrative body as getting a vote, which is a rather silly thing to assume. Your assumption was obviously hasty, and now instead of just admitting that you're trying to sidestep the argument and bark about only citizens getting to vote just so you have something to say in rebuttal. I mentioned sophomoric rhetoric before. Here is another instantiation.

The Brethren's involvement was far greater than merely "encouraging" members to vote. It was all the other stuff (i.e., overseeing strategy, sending GA's to CA, satellite broadcast, pressuring wealthy members for money, etc.) that made it "institutional formalization," which means that Holland lied.

A distinction without a difference. I don't see how this is "institutional formalization."

I honestly don't know any other way to characterize it.

Then you need to take more time to think and less time to bark.

True, but I'm quite certain that the "meddling" occurred.

No one is challenging you there. The challenge is that this local meddling was condoned by central leadership, and you simply do not know whether it is or isn't. It certainly helps your rhetoric to believe it was, though, so you're not going to miss the opportunity to just arbitrarily insist that.

And by omitting material adverse facts, that "position" was based on a lie.

I don't see any "materially adverse facts," I just see some semantic quibbling by someone not very well acquainted with semantics.

Are you honestly comparing an apostle of God to lawyers?

Stop acting like such a child. We're talking about a defense of the participation of the church in a legal process in the context of a presentation at Harvard Law School.

If this is what we've come to in the Church, then God bless you ....

If this is what your point has come to, then my point has been well enough made.

Agreed.

Evidently you are unaware that you're agreeing that you're just arbitrarily insisting he's a liar.

I heard what he said,

Of course you did. You obviously didn't understand it, though, and now you're doing a piss-poor job of defending your interpretation.

and based on what I know I concluded that he lied to the Harvard Law School concerning the Church's involvement in passing Prop. H8.

I would reconsider what you know, then.