LDS Garments: Why I Want Out of This Club

[pellegrino]

Wild boars are dangerous. I suggest a tasty Danish Protest Pig instead, or at least a Guinea Hog.


u
Thinking about why a pattern must be authorized, am I far off?

not in the least bit.

[UVACoug]

Come on, UVA, you're smarter than this. Give me an argument that holds water. There is no judge in this country that would consider what these people are doing as either the sale or the distribution of garments.

I didn't realize we were doing legal analysis. It is clearly within the common dictionary meaning of both terms.

[wuapinmon]

I didn't realize we were doing legal analysis. It is clearly within the common dictionary meaning of both terms.

But, you're not talking about common usage. You seem to want to make a legal case against what they're doing. Also, like "obviously," using "clearly" in a subjective statement tends to weaken your argument, especially when it makes repeated appreances.

[YOhio]

I don't get it. If someone wanted Etsy-type g's then a sharpie would seem to do the trick. Why would anyone pay those guys to silkscreen a few lines and angles?

[Mrs. Funk]

I don't get it. If someone wanted Etsy-type g's then a sharpie would seem to do the trick. Why would anyone pay those guys to silkscreen a few lines and angles?

I don't really get paying to have someone silkscreen the symbols, either. It seems like all my garment woes could be solved with one trip to JoAnn's and less than $5. Maybe I should start a business, too.

[wuapinmon]

I don't really get paying to have someone silkscreen the symbols, either. It seems like all my garment woes could be solved with one trip to JoAnn's and less than $5. Maybe I should start a business, too.

Be sure that you only sell a service. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE anything.

[Uncle Ted]

Be sure that you only sell a service. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE anything.

How about just selling a "How to" video on ebay?

[clackamascoug]

I don't get it. If someone wanted Etsy-type g's then a sharpie would seem to do the trick. Why would anyone pay those guys to silkscreen a few lines and angles?

Why not just tattoo the marks on your body? I'd do that if it was authorized.

[RC Vikings]

Why not just tattoo the marks on your body? I'd do that if it was authorized.

Just imagine a tattoo room in every temple. I think I would get one of a bike on my shoulder while they were at it.

[Mrs. Funk]

Just imagine a tattoo room in every temple. I think I would get one of a bike on my shoulder while they were at it.

I'd love a calling as Temple Tattoo Artist. Sacred designs brought to you by Sister Funk!

[wuapinmon]

I'd love a calling as Temple Tattoo Artist. Sacred designs brought to you by Sister Funk!

Women could finally get the piercedhood! (lol)

[pellegrino]

I didn't realize we were doing legal analysis. It is clearly within the common dictionary meaning of both terms.

I'm saying no, it's not within the common dictionary meaning. I can't see how anyone would interpret what they're doing as distributing or selling a product.

I bring the judge into it because you are a lawyer, the law thrives on definitions, and the HBOI is essentially a legal document, or at least one crafted by lawyers.

Are these people doing something that the church would disapprove of? Yes, but that clause from the HOBI you cited can't really be seen as the basis for said disapproval, as they aren't selling garments and they aren't distributing them.

[UVACoug]

I'm saying no, it's not within the common dictionary meaning. I can't see how anyone would interpret what they're doing as distributing or selling a product.

Did you miss the part where I quoted from the dictionary?

Distribute: "to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distribute

How are they NOT passing out or delivering the item to the intended recipient? And they are clearly selling something ... and the something they are selling is what they claim is an authentic temple garment. Where does the word "product" come up in the handbook?

This is well beyond the point of pedantry at this point. The HBOI is not anything close to a legal document. It is a set of guidelines for priesthood leaders, not a set of rules and regulations to govern the membership of the church. That is why referring to the handbook as if it is some type of authority on anything is stupid to begin with.

This whole discussion was started when someone tried to create a loophole in a pretty straightforward part of the handbook. I didn't bring up the handbook to show that this was against Church policy. Suggesting that the handbook allows for such a thing is what is absurd here.

[UtahDan]

Man ... you got me there. You completely undermined my whole point, even though it was completely unrelated to the comment you quoted. I wish I were as much of a genius as you are. Can you teach me how to think correctly?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

ER might be the smartest guy here. I don't think it can be taught though.

[pellegrino]

Did you miss the part where I quoted from the dictionary?



How are they NOT passing out or delivering the item to the intended recipient? And they are clearly selling something ... and the something they are selling is what they claim is an authentic temple garment. Where does the word "product" come up in the handbook?

This is well beyond the point of pedantry at this point. The HBOI is not anything close to a legal document. It is a set of guidelines for priesthood leaders, not a set of rules and regulations to govern the membership of the church. That is why referring to the handbook as if it is some type of authority on anything is stupid to begin with.

This whole discussion was started when someone tried to create a loophole in a pretty straightforward part of the handbook. I didn't bring up the handbook to show that this was against Church policy. Suggesting that the handbook allows for such a thing is what is absurd here.

You're still not getting it. If you look at all of the possible definitions for the verb "distribute" given by dictionary.com (which is really a poor online dictionary, btw, but I'll let wuap take you to task on that) there are two that apply to this usage. I've bolded them below.

1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.
3. to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, especially in a specified region or area.
4. to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients.
5. to divide into distinct phases: The process was distributed into three stages.

In #3 it is clear that it is talking about a product that was manufactured by someone and then purchased by a consumer. This is likely the definition that would apply to what the HBOI intended, as the church controls the manufacture, distribution, and sale of authorized garments. This website isn't making or selling garments.

#4 is more generic, which is likely why you chose it, but it still implies that the item is being distributed is delivered to someone who takes ownership of it only upon delivery, not before. That's not the case here

Both of these definitions (one explicitly and the other implicitly) describe action distributing as delivering an item to its new owner. That is not what is happening with this makeyourowngarment.com site. They are accepting articles of clothing that have been purchased by someone else, altering them as requested by the owners, and RETURNING them to the owners. Does a tailor distribute? What about a dry cleaner? No, they do not, and neither does this website.

Finally, I have looked up "distribute" at the Corpus of Historical American English (website below) and while I only looked at the examples cited since 2000, I can find no instances where the verb "distribute" is used in the generic sense of #4. In other words, the definition that you propose (poorly, I might add) as the end all for what that clause of the HBOI means is simply not a common usage for the word.


As for your opinion of the HBOI and its status as a legal document, other than disagreeing with you, I'll not comment on. That's a different story.

http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/