The first problem here is that no matter how many times bc, you, Wade, Charity point out a doctrine, there are other apologists who point out that it is NOT doctrine.
Setting up a straw man, and then setting it on fire, only makes all the clearer its nature as a thing of straw. We disagree on the periphery of doctrine upon things which have not been settled or fully revealed, as is our right. We do not disagree on what is doctrine upon those things that are known to be settled as doctrine.
This mode of argument has long outlived its usefulness as a red herring.
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Yet an organization chose to publish it as it's own and that goes directly to the heart of the matter. The Church has clearly defined what is and is not doctrine. Now you have no excuse and, from your pov, neither do we. If you can't accept it, you're just talking past us instead of to us.
Except that I really see no clarification in there as to what is doctrine.
So you admit the definition is official then, good. Now how is it not clear to you? What part of.....
With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.
The first problem here is that no matter how many times bc, you, Wade, Charity point out a doctrine, there are other apologists who point out that it is NOT doctrine.
Why should that matter? Stick with what the Church says.
Your opinion on what is doctrine doesn't make it actual doctrine.
Correct. Fortunately, I have not directed you to my opinion, but the Church's own statements on the matter.
The other problem is that a prophet can make 2 statements. One will be deemed as doctrine, simply because you guys want it to. The other will be deemed as opinion, well, simply because you guys want it to. There was no distinction other than your wishful thinking that makes one statement doctrine and one opinion.
You have been given the key to make the correct distinction. Is it published by the Church? If not, it is not doctrine.
Wow BC. I think you have an inflated opinion of yourself as an apologist.
I think you are confusing that with self confidence.
Oh no doubt.
Based on your song and dance show about Adam and evolution, your atttempts to define LDS doctrine-which differs from almost every apologist I have even associated with,
The real question is does it differ from what the Church says about it's own doctrine?
The answer is YES.
and your denial that Adam God was taught
I've never denied that anyone taught it. I do deny that it's what BY was talking about in the first place.
And you are incorrect.
or perhaps your buy in to the silly two Adam theory
I buy into the total context of what BY said on the subject in both the JoD and the WWJ. 'Adam-God' canot reconsile with all that was said.
BY certainly seemed confused on this at time.
I think you are a a light weight apologist.
Do you honestly believe I care about your opinion on that?
I am sure you do not. Carry on oh Light Weight wannabe.
BC buys into an apologetic idea that when BY talked about what is called Adam God that he was taking about two Adams and two Eves. There is Adam that is really the name of God the Father-Adam Sr. And there is Adam the fellow in the Garden who is Adam Jr. Same for Eve. Eve Sr, and Eve Jr. So you have to place Sr, and Jr in the right plave and then whoala!!! You come up with two Adams and there is no major conflict. The Adam in the garden is not the guy who is the one being called out God and the Father of Jesus.
BC buys into an apologetic idea that when BY talked about what is called Adam God that he was taking about two Adams and two Eves. There is Adam that is really the name of God the Father-Adam Sr. And there is Adam the fellow in the Garden who is Adam Jr. Same for Eve. Eve Sr, and Eve Jr. So you have to place Sr, and Jr in the right plave and then whoala!!! You come up with two Adams and there is no major conflict. The Adam in the garden is not the guy who is the one being called out God and the Father of Jesus.
I understand what it is, Jason. I think it's total and complete nonsense. Dogding, twisting, distorting, wiggling...nonsense.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb