maklelan wrote:Darth J wrote: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.
No, I'm just interpreting a text. Lee was quite explicit.
So, how does one gain a testimony of church teachings if one cannot be sure that the church officially teaches it?
Darth J wrote:You are also equivocating between "doctrine" and "canon."
I never used the word "canon," but by all means, explain how I've equivocated regarding these terms.
When you said, "The standard works are official doctrine. Your post here equivocates by attempting to conflate the categories of counsel and practice with official doctrine."
I look forward to your explaining how "teaching" and "doctrine" have different meanings.
]I didn't use the word "teaching." Try again, only be less manipulative in your word choice.
No, you used the word doctrine, as if to distinguish between "doctrine" and "what the Church teaches." That is a distinction without a difference. Those words ("doctrine" and "teaching") are synonymous.
Better go grab that thesaurus.
You're equivocating again. Not only did I never once use the word "teaching," but I specifically used the phrase "official doctrine," which has a quite clear technical meaning quite apart from the generic use of the word that I have defined many times. Your objections to any attempts to actually define official doctrine don't at all bear on my usage of the phrase.
I am pleased to know that "official doctrine" has a quite clear technical meaning. I look forward to you demonstrating where the Church has established it as such.
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.
You clearly don't understand my point.
Your point is that "official doctrine" is a term of art. I am aware that it is dogma among Mormon apologists that "official doctrine" has some special meaning. The moderators are not going to stop you from showing where the Church has adopted the apologist idea of "official doctrine."
[quote"]
By the way, would you be able to find the "official doctrine" that defines "official doctrine"?
Bush league, J. Defining official doctrine is a policy, not a doctrine. [/quote]
I see. Indeed, how amateur to think that the Church could teach anything about how to determine what its official teachings are. Because, after all, there is no substantive guidance (doctrine) as to how one can tell what it is the Church is even teaching. It is just procedural (policy).
Where might I find the Church's official policy as to what constitutes "official doctrine," including the Church adopting "official doctrine" as a term of art?
How about the "full context" of the FAIR quote? Is that "official doctrine" as to what is "official doctrine"?
Silly obfuscation.
Your wishing to avoid the issue does not make it either silly or obfuscatory. If it is official doctrine, how do we know it is? If it is not official doctrine, why should we rely on it?
And if you take issue with the lesson manuals I cited having different quotes from disparate time periods,
Miles off base. I take no issue with them compiling quotes. I take issue with you insisting that that compilation represents a context from which a single quote was malicious ripped. It demonstrably was not. The portion of the text the quote came from was saying exactly what the quote was used to suggest. You're attempts to rhetorically manipulate this discussion are becoming grotesque, J.
I see. Among the many times that the Church has taught that the teachings of its leaders over the pulpit may or may not be inspired, and we may freely disregard them with no spiritual ramifications, which would be your favorite?
Since you are so insistent that FAIR is correct that General Conference talks are not to be considered official church teachings (the point of that pamphlet), and since you are so opposed to rhetorical manipulation, what you do here is bring in some evidence that Harold B. Lee agreed with that assessment.
You know, instead of just relying on rhetoric, or quoting me but omitting where I cited examples of how the Bretheren do not agree with FAIR that General Conference talks are not official teachings of the Church.
Darth J wrote:Do you think you or David Bednar is a better source to go to as to how important the issue of earrings is?
I don't recall disagreeing with Bednar's thoughts on the matter.
His
thoughts? When a man purporting to be an apostle of Jesus Christ says that the sign that we are faithful members of the Church is being quick to obey what the prophet says, those are merely his
thoughts?
You're just trying to read into my statement things it doesn't say so you can have something to gripe about to evade the fact that you picked the wrong example to use to express your gripe.
Your statements assume without evidence that "official doctrine" means anything more than "what the Church officially teaches."
As soon as you have an authoritative source from the Church that so indicates, I'm sure the board will be gratified to see it.