rcrocket wrote:Oh. So you think "publish" means a written material? Don't you want to consult a dictionary before challenging me on a word like that?
I know what the word means, Robert. It's your use of it in the context of the present discussion that is silly. It's ridiculous to answer the claim that the LDS Church doesn't make the Temple ceremony known to its general membership by proclaiming that the Temple ceremony is "officially published" within the confines of the Temple. That was never in dispute.
You're just playing a semantics game at this point, as signaled by your own use of quotation marks around "officially" and "published."
crocket's new method for extracting himself from debates he's clearly lost
That's right Declare victory right after you intentionally misquote a critical source by ending the sentence prematurely with a period when a comma and additional phrase is in order
Be a Scratch acolyte. Declare victory so that that the idiots may believe you.
rcrocket wrote:Oh. So you think "publish" means a written material? Don't you want to consult a dictionary before challenging me on a word like that?
I know what the word means, Robert. It's your use of it in the context of the present discussion that is silly. It's ridiculous to answer the claim that the LDS Church doesn't make the Temple ceremony known to its general membership by proclaiming that the Temple ceremony is "officially published" within the confines of the Temple. That was never in dispute.
You're just playing a semantics game at this point, as signaled by your own use of quotation marks around "officially" and "published."
Chris
Playing semantics by using the English language as intended? Right.
rcrocket wrote:Oh. So you think "publish" means a written material? Don't you want to consult a dictionary before challenging me on a word like that?
I know what the word means, Robert. It's your use of it in the context of the present discussion that is silly. It's ridiculous to answer the claim that the LDS Church doesn't make the Temple ceremony known to its general membership by proclaiming that the Temple ceremony is "officially published" within the confines of the Temple. That was never in dispute.
You're just playing a semantics game at this point, as signaled by your own use of quotation marks around "officially" and "published."
Chris
Playing semantics by using the English language as intended? Right.
Apparently the radar screen is lagging.
Consider this claim:
The LDS Church does not officially publish the Temple Ceremony for its general membership.
Response:
False. The LDS Temple Ceremony is "officially" "published" by performative instantiation within the Temple in the presence of a subset of the general membership deemed Temple worthy.
It's not your facility with the English language I question; it's your obfuscation.
rcrocket wrote:Oh. So you think "publish" means a written material? Don't you want to consult a dictionary before challenging me on a word like that?
"Orson Pratt published portions?" You mean in the mid-nineteenth century?
Yet another thinly-read critic of the Church. You're off my radar screen.
I'm thinly read because you've argued against the thesis that the LDS Church suppresses the Temple Ceremony by referencing something published in The Seer, of all places, in the 1800's?
rcrocket wrote:Oh. So you think "publish" means a written material? Don't you want to consult a dictionary before challenging me on a word like that?
"Orson Pratt published portions?" You mean in the mid-nineteenth century?
Yet another thinly-read critic of the Church. You're off my radar screen.
Published material can be "suppressed" after the fact, Bob. Just like what we are seeing in the Gee example I cited above.
rcrocket wrote:That's right Declare victory right after you intentionally misquote a critical source by ending the sentence prematurely with a period when a comma and additional phrase is in order
You mean like using elipses to change the meaning of an MMM quote? Hmmm.....