Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_sock puppet]

Next week it will be Lime flavored I hear.

Shucks, you've got me all wrong . . .

Ohhh. I better stop quick. I hate lime.

Are you sure you're Mormon?

[_Shulem]

Wow, Paul. You've become just as judgmental as God Almighty. No lukewarm for you, eh?

I see Kishy-boy sitting in the pew and enjoying it. What's up with that? Are you sick? Is the testimony of Spencer W. Kimball burning in your balls?

Jesus.

Paul O

[_maklelan]

I agree that Latter-day Saints frequently quote-mine, and frequently rip scriptures and historical quotes from context, but I take issue with the following post:

Simon Belmont:

On another thread I have discussed how FAIR has quoted-mined Harold B. Lee to make it appear as if he taught that General Conference talks are not doctrinal.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/W ... ctrine.pdf

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.” To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”

This is a textbook example of quote mining. FAIR has cherry picked something that he said and taken it out of context to make it appear that he was affirming FAIR's theories. In fact, Harold B. Lee taught that conference talks by church leaders are doctrine for us today.

I disagree with your characterization here. None of the quotes you provided actually constitutes the context of the statement quoted in the FAIR statement above. They're all from completely different publications from disparate time periods. Here's the context of the actual quote:

President Clark said something that startled folks years back. He said, "It is my faith that the gospel plan has always been here, that his priesthood has always been here, that his priesthood has been on the earth, and that it will continue to be so until the end comes." Why, when that conference session was over there were many who said, "My goodness, doesn't President Clark realize that there have been periods of apostasy following each dispensation of the gospel?" I walked over to the Church Office Building with President Joseph Fielding Smith and he said, "I believe there has never been a moment of time since the creation but what there has been someone holding the priesthood on the earth to hold Satan in check." And then I thought of Enoch's city with perhaps thousands who were taken into heaven and were translated. You remember. They must have been translated for a purpose and may have had sojourn with those living on the earth ever since that time. I have thought of Elijah, perhaps Moses, for all we know-they were translated beings; also John the Revelator. I have thought of the three Nephites. Why were they trans¬lated and permitted to tarry? For what purpose? An answer was sug¬gested when I heard this man whom we have considered one of our well-informed theologians say, "There has never been a moment of time when there hasn't been someone holding the priesthood on the earth with power to check Satan and to hold him within bounds." Now that doesn't mean that the kingdom of God was present, be¬cause these men did not have the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to the world. But these individuals were translated for a purpose known to the Lord. There is no question but what they were here.

Now, when does a person speak as a prophet? Do you recall that oft-repeated revelation in which the Lord said:

Behold. . . this is an ensample unto all those who were or¬dained unto this priesthood [and he is talking of General Authorities], whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth . . . they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:2-4.)

This is when that Authority is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost. I think as someone has rightly said, it is not to be thought that every word spoken by our leaders is inspired. The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in his personal diary: "This morning I . . . visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is al¬ways a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Teachings, p. 278.) It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator--please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them "standard"-it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. We can know, or have the assurance that they are speaking under inspiration if we so live that we can have a witness that what they are speaking is the word of the Lord. There is only one safety, and that is that we shall live to have the witness to know. President Brigham Young said something to the effect that "the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.”

Now, according to the actual context, we are to understand that the prophet does not necessarily always speak as a prophet, and that we are responsible to seek the inspiration of God to know for ourselves. In the actual context of the text, he was insisting that the words of the general authorities should not be unilaterally accepted simply in virtue of their position as general authorities. The president of the church certainly has the authority to institute new doctrine, but even then, we are expected to seek spiritual confirmation and not just accept it. That is the only "safety" if someone says something that conflicts with the standard works. The standard works are official doctrine.

Your post here equivocates by attempting to conflate the categories of counsel and practice with official doctrine. Not one of the quotes you shared even contains the word "doctrine," except in the phrase "Doctrine and Covenants." There's a difference between being counseled not to wear more than one earring in each ear and it being official doctrine that Latter-day Saints are not to wear two earrings in each ear. This quote from the first text should sufficiently distinguish between the two:

Those books are good for example, precedent, and investigation, and for developing certain laws and principles. But they do not, they cannot, touch every case required to be adjudicated and set in order.

The standard works establish laws and principles (official doctrine). The living oracles adjudicate and set in order the current affairs of the church (counsel and practice). You may refuse to acknowledge this distinction, but it is very much there. I do not deny the legitimacy of your concern with certain apologetic methodologies (I'm no more a fan of them than you, as much as you may not believe me), but your post here is reductive, it equivocates, and it manufactures a false "context" from which you naïvely insist the FAIR quote was inappropriately ripped. Your rhetoric is no less fallacious than that of the apologists you're criticizing.

[_Kishkumen]

I see Kishy-boy sitting in the pew and enjoying it. What's up with that? Are you sick? Is the testimony of Spencer W. Kimball burning in your balls?

Jesus.

Paul O

What's not to like? Warm room, soft pew, organ music, singing... Yeah, I could go for that now and then. Certainly better than the classes, which tend to be boring in a bad way.

[_sock puppet]

I agree that Latter-day Saints frequently quote-mine, and frequently rip scriptures and historical quotes from context, but I take issue with the following post:

Simon Belmont:

On another thread I have discussed how FAIR has quoted-mined Harold B. Lee to make it appear as if he taught that General Conference talks are not doctrinal.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/W ... ctrine.pdf

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.” This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.” To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”

This is a textbook example of quote mining. FAIR has cherry picked something that he said and taken it out of context to make it appear that he was affirming FAIR's theories. In fact, Harold B. Lee taught that conference talks by church leaders are doctrine for us today.

I disagree with your characterization here. None of the quotes you provided actually constitutes the context of the statement quoted in the FAIR statement above. They're all from completely different publications from disparate time periods. Here's the context of the actual quote:

President Clark said something that startled folks years back. He said, "It is my faith that the gospel plan has always been here, that his priesthood has always been here, that his priesthood has been on the earth, and that it will continue to be so until the end comes." Why, when that conference session was over there were many who said, "My goodness, doesn't President Clark realize that there have been periods of apostasy following each dispensation of the gospel?" I walked over to the Church Office Building with President Joseph Fielding Smith and he said, "I believe there has never been a moment of time since the creation but what there has been someone holding the priesthood on the earth to hold Satan in check." And then I thought of Enoch's city with perhaps thousands who were taken into heaven and were translated. You remember. They must have been translated for a purpose and may have had sojourn with those living on the earth ever since that time. I have thought of Elijah, perhaps Moses, for all we know-they were translated beings; also John the Revelator. I have thought of the three Nephites. Why were they trans¬lated and permitted to tarry? For what purpose? An answer was sug¬gested when I heard this man whom we have considered one of our well-informed theologians say, "There has never been a moment of time when there hasn't been someone holding the priesthood on the earth with power to check Satan and to hold him within bounds." Now that doesn't mean that the kingdom of God was present, be¬cause these men did not have the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to the world. But these individuals were translated for a purpose known to the Lord. There is no question but what they were here.

Now, when does a person speak as a prophet? Do you recall that oft-repeated revelation in which the Lord said:

Behold. . . this is an ensample unto all those who were or¬dained unto this priesthood [and he is talking of General Authorities], whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth . . . they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:2-4.)

This is when that Authority is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost. I think as someone has rightly said, it is not to be thought that every word spoken by our leaders is inspired. The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in his personal diary: "This morning I . . . visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is al¬ways a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Teachings, p. 278.) It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they read and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator--please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them "standard"-it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. We can know, or have the assurance that they are speaking under inspiration if we so live that we can have a witness that what they are speaking is the word of the Lord. There is only one safety, and that is that we shall live to have the witness to know. President Brigham Young said something to the effect that "the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord.”

Now, according to the actual context, we are to understand that the prophet does not necessarily always speak as a prophet, and that we are responsible to seek the inspiration of God to know for ourselves. In the actual context of the text, he was insisting that the words of the general authorities should not be unilaterally accepted simply in virtue of their position as general authorities. The president of the church certainly has the authority to institute new doctrine, but even then, we are expected to seek spiritual confirmation and not just accept it. That is the only "safety" if someone says something that conflicts with the standard works. The standard works are official doctrine.

Your post here equivocates by attempting to conflate the categories of counsel and practice with official doctrine. Not one of the quotes you shared even contains the word "doctrine," except in the phrase "Doctrine and Covenants." There's a difference between being counseled not to wear more than one earring in each ear and it being official doctrine that Latter-day Saints are not to wear two earrings in each ear. This quote from the first text should sufficiently distinguish between the two:

Those books are good for example, precedent, and investigation, and for developing certain laws and principles. But they do not, they cannot, touch every case required to be adjudicated and set in order.

The standard works establish laws and principles (official doctrine). The living oracles adjudicate and set in order the current affairs of the church (counsel and practice). You may refuse to acknowledge this distinction, but it is very much there. I do not deny the legitimacy of your concern with certain apologetic methodologies (I'm no more a fan of them than you, as much as you may not believe me), but your post here is reductive, it equivocates, and it manufactures a false "context" from which you naïvely insist the FAIR quote was inappropriately ripped. Your rhetoric is no less fallacious than that of the apologists you're criticizing.

And you are relying on the living oracles adjudications to not rely on the living oracles adjudications. For that to be the standard, would it have to be spelled out in the 'standard' works? Otherwise, it makes Darth J's point.

[_maklelan]

And you are relying on the living oracles adjudications to not rely on the living oracles adjudications. For that to be the standard, would it have to be spelled out in the 'standard' works? Otherwise, it makes Darth J's point.

In your zeal to come up with something snarky to say, you obviously completely misunderstood the point of my post (and Darth J's, as well, apparently).

[_Kishkumen]

And you are relying on the living oracles adjudications to not rely on the living oracles adjudications. For that to be the standard, would it have to be spelled out in the 'standard' works? Otherwise, it makes Darth J's point.

I didn't see the word "doctrine" in his quote, either.

The truth is that doctrine is something of a moving target, which apologists won't succeed in nailing down. It is no wonder that everyone is confused about the topic.

[_Shulem]

`

I see Kishy-boy sitting in the pew and enjoying it. What's up with that? Are you sick? Is the testimony of Spencer W. Kimball burning in your balls?

Jesus.

Paul O

What's not to like? Warm room, soft pew, organ music, singing... Yeah, I could go for that now and then. Certainly better than the classes, which tend to be boring in a bad way.

Are you looking at the ladies in Facsimile No. 3 during the talks -- thinking of porn? Just look at those hips that Joseph Smith affixed his eyes to when he gave his sexual Explanations of the Facsimile. And, imagine if they only had tits too. The Pearl of Great Price is a feast for the sexual eyes, -- when you follow the prophet Joseph! Ha ha ha!

Kishy-boy is warming his ass on the pew while he listens to the saints sing-a-long! Ha ha! What a joke. Go wipe up, boy.

Paul O

[_Darth J]

Makelelan:

You are conflating two different issues: whether the Church officially teaches something, versus whether an individual member determines that he or she has a testimony of what is being taught.

You are also equivocating between "doctrine" and "canon."

I look forward to your explaining how "teaching" and "doctrine" have different meanings.

Better go grab that thesaurus.

Since you have decided to refute a point I am not making (that official doctrine is equal to canon), I eagerly encourage you to find where I suggested that "official doctrine" is anything more than a tautology: that which is officially taught.

Here, I'll even give you a head start:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20001&p=493566&hilit=tautology#p493566

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17010&p=420396&hilit=tautology#p420396

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&p=378683&hilit=tautology#p378683

By the way, would you be able to find the "official doctrine" that defines "official doctrine"?

How about the "full context" of the FAIR quote? Is that "official doctrine" as to what is "official doctrine"?

And if you take issue with the lesson manuals I cited having different quotes from disparate time periods, feel free to let the Correlation Committee know that they are not accurately promulgating what the Church teaches.

There's a difference between being counseled not to wear more than one earring in each ear and it being official doctrine that Latter-day Saints are not to wear two earrings in each ear.

Do you think you or David Bednar is a better source to go to as to how important the issue of earrings is?

[_sock puppet]

By the way, would you be able to find the "official doctrine" that defines "official doctrine"?

How about the "full context" of the FAIR quote? Is that "official doctrine" as to what is "official doctrine"?

Darth J, mak doesn't like Ash's bootstrapping pointed out to mak. He thinks it is being snarky.