Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

Interpreter Podcast: Dehlin is an "idiot" for leaking the 11/5 policy. Also, "we don't hide policies."

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Either implies a failure to grasp the effect of the policy. 

True.  They really should have known there would be a backlash. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Gotcha.  So, you won't back it up, you won't retract it, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to personal insults.  I think that says as much as failing to respond to a CFR.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Gotcha.  So, you won't back it up, you won't retract it, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to personal insults.  I think that says as much as failing to respond to a CFR.  Thanks.

Did you follow either link? I’ve posted two now for you.  I apologize for the insult, I edited it before I saw your reply, but you seem to be deliberately obtuse here. The answer to the cfr is in the link that you have now ignored twice. Should I post it again? Will you read it this time?

Edit: if you don’t read my posts what am I supposed to do? Both links are quoted in your replies btw. Not to mention that the information requested was already in this thread just a couple replies back. I’ll accept your apology anytime. 

Thanks,

John

 

edit: this has to be one of the bizarre conversations I’ve ever had. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Gotcha.  So, you won't back it up, you won't retract it, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to personal insults.  I think that says as much as failing to respond to a CFR.  Thanks.

Once more for simplicity: follow the link found in your post here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209903891

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, let me add some more. There was constitutional freedom of the press in the 19th century too. Maybe that didn't apply in Nauvoo either. Now I concede the Nauvoo government is not the federal government, but I think the spirit of the first amendment was also violated. Counselor?

I'm not a lawyer.  You needn't address me as "counselor," and, in fact, to avoid confusion and misapprehension by observers of the discussion, I will request that you kindly refrain from doing so.  It was not until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified that the United States Supreme Court began to make the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, binding upon the States.  Before that process began, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government.

The Fourteenth Amendment was not ratified until 1868, and even then, Bill of Rights  was not, in its entirety, made binding upon the States.  Rather, various provisions of the Bill of Rights were made binding upon the States in a gradual, case-by-case process as the United States Supreme Court considered each provision of the Bill of Rights when cases implicating each provision were presented to it. 

But even considering a best-case scenario in which the First Amendment immediately was made binding upon the States,  the Nauvoo Expositor press was destroyed in 1844, while the Fourteenth Amendment, as I said, was not ratified until 1868.  Perhaps you could explain to us how the State of Illinois and, by extension, the city of Nauvoo and its officers somehow came to be bound by the First Amendment even before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, let alone before the Supreme Court began the case-by-case process I have described in order to apply provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States and to their political subdivisions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No.  You made the claim, which makes it incumbent upon you to either back it up or retract it. "Do your own homework" has never been considered an adequate response to a call for references here.  In any event, as I have already explained, even knowing what Elder Holland said does nothing to bridge any gap between what he actually said, on the one hand, and your gloss on what he said, on the other.  That's why I issued the call for references.  I already know what Elder Holland said.  The reason why I issued the CFR is to give you a chance to bridge the gap between his words and your gloss.  Either you can do that and you will do that, or you cannot do that and, therefore, you will not do it.  I suspect that if I insist on waiting for you to fulfill the terms of my CFR, I'll be waiting for a highly-unusual cold snap to hit a place which, usually, by contrast, is unbearably hot.  Good enough.  I think that says more than any actual fulfillment of my CFR ever could.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No.  You made the claim, which makes it incumbent upon you to either back it up or retract it. "Do your own homework" has never been considered an adequate response to a call for references here.  In any event, as I have already explained, even knowing what Elder Holland said does nothing to bridge any gap between what he actually said, on the one hand, and your gloss on what he said, on the other.  That's why I issued the call for references.  I already know what Elder Holland said.  The reason why I issued the CFR is to give you a chance to bridge the gap between his words and your gloss.  Either you can do that and you will do that, or you cannot do that and, therefore, you will not do it.  I suspect that if I insist on waiting for you to fulfill the terms of my CFR, I'll be waiting for a highly-unusual cold snap to hit a place which, usually, by contrast, is unbearably hot.  Good enough.  I think that says more than any actual fulfillment of my CFR ever could.

Did you click the link? Or is that too much homework?

I’m really confused. The link contains the quote and a source. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did you click the link? Or is that too much homework?

You won't back up your claim, you won't retract it, and, indeed, other than saying "see here" (which, as I have already explained, does nothing to bridge the gap between Elder Holland's words and your gloss), have done nothing more than resort to personal insults.  As I've already mentioned, that says more than any actual response to my call for references ever could.  Thanks. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You won't back up your claim, you won't retract it, and, indeed, other than saying "see here" (which, as I have already explained, does nothing to bridge the gap between Elder Holland's words and your gloss), have done nothing more than resort to personal insults.  As I've already mentioned, that says more than any actual response to my call for references ever could.  Thanks. ;)

So are you saying that providing a direct link to the quote from Elder Holland as well as two sources isn’t enough to satisfy a CFR? And are you saying that providing a full direct quote with sources early in a discussion and then providing a short paraphrase a couple posts later is bad form?

did you click the link?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You won't back up your claim, you won't retract it, and, indeed, other than saying "see here" (which, as I have already explained, does nothing to bridge the gap between Elder Holland's words and your gloss), have done nothing more than resort to personal insults.  As I've already mentioned, that says more than any actual response to my call for references ever could.  Thanks. ;)

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So are you saying that providing a direct link to the quote from Elder Holland as well as two sources isn’t enough to satisfy a CFR? And are you saying that providing a full direct quote with sources early in a discussion and then providing a short paraphrase a couple posts later is bad form?

did you click the link?

I've already told you (at least twice now) that I know what Elder Holland said, but what you've refused to do is to bridge the gap between his words and your gloss, which is why I issued the CFR.  No matter.  Again, that says more than actually fulfilling the CFR ever could.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've already told you (at least twice now) that I know what Elder Holland said, but what you've refused to do is to bridge the gap between his words and your gloss, which is why I issued the CFR.  No matter.  Again, that says more than actually fulfilling the CFR ever could.

Let’s pretend I’m having an actual conversation with you. I provide you with a direct quote and two references so you can get all the context you want. Later on in our conversation, I offer a paraphrasing of the quote. Have I done anything wrong? Was I trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or put words in someone else’s mouth? If I was, why would I provide the full quote with context upfront?

Let’s say someone comes along mid conversation (they were present during the whole thing but due to selective hearing, decided not to listen to the first half of the conversation). They accuse me of misrepresenting the words. Ask for the quote. I provide them with a record of the complete conversation. What more do I owe them?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've already told you (at least twice now) that I know what Elder Holland said, but what you've refused to do is to bridge the gap between his words and your gloss, which is why I issued the CFR.  No matter.  Again, that says more than actually fulfilling the CFR ever could.

Both statements are available in this thread. I have no idea how they are in any way materially different. I have provided multiple links to both now. Please show me where the gap is because I don’t see it. Formal CFR :)

for reference:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209903882

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209903821

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Let’s pretend I’m having an actual conversation with you. I provide you with a direct quote [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969] and two references so you can get all the context you want. Later on in our conversation, I offer a paraphrasing of the quote. Have I done anything wrong? Was I trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or put words in someone else’s mouth? If I was, why would I provide the full quote with context upfront?

Let’s say someone comes along mid conversation (they were present during the whole thing but due to selective hearing, decided not to listen to the first half of the conversation). They accuse me of misrepresenting the words. Ask for the quote. I provide them with a record of the complete conversation. What more do I owe them?

You haven't, in fact, provided me with a direct quote.  (In any event, it doesn't matter, because ... for at least the third time now ... I've already indicated that I know what Elder Holland said.  My question is how faithful your gloss is to what he actually said.  I have my suspicions about that, and, in the face of a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, I will assume that my suspicions are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Both statements are available in this thread. I have no idea how they are in any way materially different. ...

OK.  I suppose that's as close I'm going to get to a retraction.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  I suppose that's as close I'm going to get to a retraction.

CFR for how the statements are materially different. I retract nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You haven't, in fact, provided me with a direct quote.  (In any event, it doesn't matter, because ... for at least the third time now ... I've already indicated that I know what Elder Holland said.  My question is how faithful your gloss is to what he actually said.  I have my suspicions about that, and, in the face of a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, I will assume that my suspicions are correct.

What are you even talking about? You claim to want to know how faithful my “gloss” is to the original. I think the “gloss” is a faithful paraphrase of the original statement. You have seen the paraphrase, I’ve linked to the paraphrase. You’ve seen the original. I posted the original quote in this thread way before your cfr. I’ve posted links. So you know exactly what the “gloss” said, exactly what the original said but still have questions about how faithful it was!?!? You have suspicions!?! Why? You know what they both say. If you find the “gloss” unfaithful please show me (CFR), but to me they are materially the same. I would never have posted my paraphrase without providing the original quote first. Not my style. 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR for how the statements are materially different. I retract nothing. 

This is hi-freaking-larious.

"CFR."

"Oh, yeah?!  Well, I CFR your CFR!"

Forget it.  Congratulations.  Board rules don't apply to you.  (How would it be?) :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This is hi-freaking-larious.

"CFR."

"Oh, yeah?!  Well, I CFR your CFR!"

Forget it.  Congratulations.  Board rules don't apply to you.  (How would it be?) :rolleyes:

What are you even talking about? You claim to want to know how faithful my “gloss” is to the original. I think the “gloss” is a faithful paraphrase of the original statement. You have seen the paraphrase, I’ve linked to the paraphrase. You’ve seen the original. I posted the original quote in this thread way before your cfr. I’ve posted links. So you know exactly what the “gloss” said, exactly what the original said but still have questions about how faithful it was!?!? You have suspicions!?! Why? You know what they both say. If you find the “gloss” unfaithful please show me (CFR), but to me they are materially the same. I would never have posted my paraphrase without providing the original quote first. Not my style. 

Feel free to report my lack of CFR compliance... 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that both the first and the second came from critics or the offended. Such statements demonstrate a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the policy that came from the Church's top leaders in the manner and for the purpose they said it did, as with the current status (as reported so far) as well.

Here’s what I wrote:

“But I also think that much pain, anguish, and "attachment blockade" (see Josh Weed's blog) came from this policy's pronouncements that marrying the same-gender person you love amounts to apostasy and that children who live with their gay parents are not welcome in full-fellowship in the church.”

Now explain how I misrepresented the policy.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/2/2019 at 7:24 PM, 10THAmendment said:

Pres Nelson could literally come out and say that he’s been deceived into believing the church is true and step down as president and these types of apologists will find a way to spin that into a positive event that proves the church is true.

It’s pretty remarkable what they’re able to justify in their minds. 

1) ¨He´s old and senile. That´s why God has First Presidency Counselors and the 12 Apostles. See the Church is true!¨

2) ¨See, that´s why God says we have to endure until the end, not just until we´re the President of the Church. See the Church is true!¨

3) ¨It´s a test of the membership to help us remember to put our faith in Heavenly Father above our trust in the prophet.¨

4) ¨It´s like when Joseph said he asked male members for their wives to marry him, it´s just a test of faith. Nelson will be back soon and tell us it was just a test.¨

5) ¨All I can say is, it´s a good thing the First Presidency Counselors and The Quorum of the 12 Apostles have all the keys. See the Church is true!¨

6) ¨I thought he was getting a little high and mighty with his fine clothes, high office, and all his prophetic revelations and changes and being ¨unleashed¨ and all. It´s just like the Pride Cycle with the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. See the Church is true!¨

7) ¨God is just separating the chaff, like he did with the 2015 policy and its reversal.¨

8) ¨The Church is perfect, the people are not.¨

9) ¨See, he was removed before he led us astray. See the Church is true!¨

10) ¨He probably never had a real testimony to begin with... I guess he wanted to sin... He probably got offended by someone.¨

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you missed it? He provided everyone with the quote before you even asked for it.  So I am not seeing how he has broken any board rules.  The actual quote was posted by him in this thread prior to his paraphrase and your request for him to copy/paste it 10 hours ago:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209903821

He also posted a link to a DN article with the info and a link to the conference talk it was taken from here:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/prophets-in-the-land-again?lang=eng

This is the full paragraph:

He posted his paraphrase 4 hours ago.  Made sense to paraphrase rather than repeat the full quote imo.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71823-interpreter-podcast-dehlin-is-an-idiot-for-leaking-the-115-policy-also-we-dont-hide-policies/?do=findComment&comment=1209903882

And while Elder Holland didn't use "any group" he did say their grasp "exceeds" meaning is "better" imo and the implications of using think tanks and brain trusts are groups of highest intelligence and highly educated and informed....so outside of another group having better revelation, I don't see Seeking's as an unreasonable paraphrase, the only significant difference imo is Elder Holland also included women, so was talking of General Officers as well as General Authorities, imo.

 

He's still missing a crucial qualifier that Elder Holland used which is my whole point of allegedly "badgering" him, but if "fast and loose" or "quick and dirty" (all my words and phrases in quotes) is good enough for the rest of you, I'm no longer going to press the issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

... Feel free to report my lack of CFR compliance... 

It's not worth it.  Mods always ignore my reports, anyway. (How would it be?  Speshul rules for speshul people.)  Congratulations.  If only by attrition, you win.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 ... I’ll accept your apology anytime. ...

Don't hold your breath.  And you're welcome. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...