An apology to BCSpace

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Runtu wrote:
bcspace wrote:
No, you've misstated the axiom. Correctly stated it is: There is only one correct answer regarding questions about The Church: the one that agrees with MY interpretation of The Church.


Misstated again. More correctly stated:

There is only one correct answer regarding questions about The Church: the one that agrees with statements by The Church.


... even when those statements conflict.


Especially when those statements conflict.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

bcspace wrote:
... even when those statements conflict.


Then you take the latest date accoridng to the principle of continuing revelation. Of course, much of what gets presented as a conflict often turns out to be no conflict at all.


Of course, just saying. Things do conflict. Doctrines do change. That is, after all, the beauty of continuing revelation.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Of course, just saying. Things do conflict.


Sure.

Doctrines do change. That is, after all, the beauty of continuing revelation.


I've yet to see a doctrinal change that results in a conflict. The LoF debate for example. "Personage of spirit" does indeed show an absence of body but doesn't preclude it. So as far as we we know (because of the possibility of continuing revelation) God does not have a physical body. Now we know he does. If there were a conflict, having a spirit and a body would somehow be incompatible.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

bcspace wrote:
Of course, just saying. Things do conflict.


Sure.

Doctrines do change. That is, after all, the beauty of continuing revelation.


I've yet to see a doctrinal change that results in a conflict. The LoF debate for example. "Personage of spirit" does indeed show an absence of body but doesn't preclude it. So as far as we we know (because of the possibility of continuing revelation) God does not have a physical body. Now we know he does. If there were a conflict, having a spirit and a body would somehow be incompatible.


Well, we've had this discussion before. The LofF seem to accord with the First Vision as two-personed deity, whereas the later development had the shared "mind" of God as a personage. But we disagree. Big deal.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Well, we've had this discussion before. The LofF seem to accord with the First Vision as two-personed deity, whereas the later development had the shared "mind" of God as a personage.


Yet in the surrounding text, it is three that make up the Godhead, not two, thus making "Mind" more likely to be a function or a name-title.

But we disagree. Big deal.


It's a pretty big deal if one of us is correct.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

bcspace wrote:
Well, we've had this discussion before. The LofF seem to accord with the First Vision as two-personed deity, whereas the later development had the shared "mind" of God as a personage.


Yet in the surrounding text, it is three that make up the Godhead, not two, thus making "Mind" more likely to be a function or a name-title.


I don't read it at all that way.

It's a pretty big deal if one of us is correct.


Not really. It might be a big deal if the church were actually true.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: An apology to BCSpace

Post by _solomarineris »

guy sajer wrote: Bcspace is a moron.

I thought he was a Mormon, hmm....
Post Reply