Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_sock puppet]

Remember that prank he played on Abraham? Oh how we laughed...

Abraham, ever the straight man, right? ;-)

[_Chap]

Remember that prank he played on Abraham? Oh how we laughed...

Abraham, ever the straight man, right? ;-)

Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited (The Inspired Version):

Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61”

[_Chap]

Simon, no. Seriously. I've heard religionists say that god has a sense of humor. But as I look through the scriptures, I see no sign of it. From the record, He looks pretty humorless. I'm wondering if you can explain why you say god has a sense of humor.

I can't speak for Simon, but there is that one example where Jesus plays on the word Peter.

Chapter and verse?

This one will crease you ... But you will need the explanation to derive the maximum amusement from the text:

Matthew 16:18

Amplified Bible (AMP)

18And I tell you, you are [a]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a [b]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the [c]infernal region) shall [d]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].


Footnotes:

Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter's inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).
Matthew 16:18 Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies.
Matthew 16:18 Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies.
Matthew 16:18 Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon.

[_maklelan]

If I ask the Church, how can I know that the answer I get is official doctrine?

Why does their administrative decision need to be official doctrine?

No, see, the way that burden of proof works is that in a disputed claim, you don't get to rest on "I don't see any reason to think otherwise."

And I pointed out that the term has been used in a number of publications. Are you just being obtuse, or do you mean to imply in a roundabout way that appropriation of the term in Church publications does not constitute "adopting" the term?

I want to know where you got this idea of "official doctrine" having a discreet, technical meaning in the LDS Church (as opposed to apologetics about the LDS Church).

I get it from the church making explicit statements about what constitutes official, binding, or authoritative doctrine, or what texts have been rendered "official doctrine" in virtue of inclusion in certain categories. Were do you get the idea that the church does not have a discreet, technical meaning for the term?

[_maklelan]

So, how does one gain a testimony of church teachings if one cannot be sure that the church officially teaches it?

That's what Lee was explaining. You should find out for yourself, not just accept something because it's taught. If you need an officially binding declaration to negotiate the space between no testimony and a testimony, then you're basing your view of the church's authority on the wrong thing.

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."

This doesn't explain how I was equivocating, this just asserts that I was equivocating and points a finger. Can you explain exactly how I was equivocating?

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.

Here you make your equivocation explicit. There's a difference between counsel/practice and teaching. You know that "doctrine" in its generic sense just means "teaching," so you naïvely insisted that I was talking about church teaching. I explicitly was not, though. I was talking about counsel, practice, and adjudication. These are not synonyms for "teaching." You want to conflate all these things together to make it seem like my argument is fallacious, but you have to be quite dishonest to do it. Next, the church can also promulgate teachings that are not official doctrine. While doctrine and teaching are synonyms in their generic sense, I've already pointed out that there's a technical meaning associated with the term "official doctrine" that is not synonymous with "teaching." Your objection below, as I will show, is unfounded.

You keep playing this stupid rhetorical games and I'll keep pointing out how bad you are at it.

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.

Well, my L. Tom Perry describes the process in a discussion of the Articles of Faith (here):

After the Pearl of Great Price was revised in 1878 and canonized in 1880, the Articles of Faith became official doctrine of the Church

J, were the Articles of Faith "teachings" prior to 1880? If not, what were they? Whatever they were, they were not "official doctrine." Official doctrine is found in the Church's official canon. That is what the church's own statement says.

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]

Based on previous conversations I thought you were quite a bit more thoughtful than this.

I see.

I don't think you do. I think you're going to continue to try to sling pithy little rhetorical jabs that try to imply that your etic and antagonistic perspective is more insightful and informed.

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).

You continue to equivocate.

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?

Don't play stupid. You know exactly where the church lays out its policy.

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?

I've already directly addressed this. It's silly obfuscation because you're ignoring what I've said about it to try to get me to chase this argument down your little rhetorical rabbit hole.

I see.

I still don't think you do. I don't think you're even trying at all to understand what I'm saying. That's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting my points.

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?

A stupid red herring.

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),

That pamphlet says "official church doctrine," not "official church teaching." Again your attempts to mislead are just painfully transparent. Next, I am not arguing that I agree entirely with the FAIR pamphlet. What I've been saying (and what you've avoided addressing this whole time) is that Lee's quote was not at all ripped out of context. You produced a fake context and ignored the actual context so you could manufacture a fallacy. On top of that, you equivocated in trying to contrast your fake context with the claim made by the FAIR 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.

Again, "official doctrine."

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?

How quick you are to descend into more juvenile rhetoric.

Your statements assume without evidence that "official doctrine" means anything more than "what the Church officially teaches."

I assumed you were aware of the evidence. I was wrong. You can find it above. Don't waste everyone's time with the notion that the church's use of "official doctrine" must be delineated within "official doctrine" in order for its use to be legitimate. The way the church uses the term is the way it uses the term.

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.

No, you will just descend into your stupid rhetoric and thump your chest about how much more enlightened and erudite you are than the knuckle-dragging Mormons. It's really methodologically no different from the ignorant sectarianism over at CARM.

[_Darth J]

If I ask the Church, how can I know that the answer I get is official doctrine?

Why does their administrative decision need to be official doctrine?

So that I can know that there is some substantive ideology guiding this idea about whatever "official doctrine" is, and so I can know if I have an official answer about how to determine what is official.

No, see, the way that burden of proof works is that in a disputed claim, you don't get to rest on "I don't see any reason to think otherwise."

And I pointed out that the term has been used in a number of publications. Are you just being obtuse, or do you mean to imply in a roundabout way that appropriation of the term in Church publications does not constitute "adopting" the term?

You mean, as you made an unsupported assertion about, and then insist that I am obtuse if I do not accept your unsupported assertion at face value?

Yes, Maklelan, I am in fact telling you that I want to see that "official doctrine" means anything other than "that which the Church officially teaches."

But since, according to you, the term has been used in a number of publications, let's see if that sheds any light on whether the Church thinks that "official doctrine" means something other than "this is what we officially teach." For example, in the August 1977 issue of the Ensign, someone asked the following in the "I Have a Question" section:

Should that which is written in Church publications and lesson manuals be taken as official doctrine?

Here is the answer from Elder Dean L. Larsen of the First Quorum of the Seventy and Managing Director of Curriculum Resources:

Church publications fall into four general categories: (1) materials related to the curriculum, such as lesson manuals, teachers’ supplements, and student materials; (2) magazines; (3) administrative documents, such as handbooks, leadership training materials, organizational guidelines and bulletins, etc.; and (4) missionary discussions, tracts, and support materials. All of the materials within these four categories are prepared under the direction of some officially recognized Church agency, and they are reviewed and cleared by the Church Correlation Review committees before they are published and issued to the Church.

A wide range of hardbound books, pamphlets, and other printed materials is constantly being printed and placed on the market by independent publishing companies. Many of these materials deal with religious matters. Some are written by Church members, including General Authorities. Publications that fall into this category are not generally authorized by the Church. The authors, compilers, and publishers assume full responsibility for the content and do not seek or receive official Church endorsement.

Over the years a careful selection of these hardbound, independently published books has been made and approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve for placement in Church meetinghouse libraries. They are to serve as approved resource materials for priesthood leaders, teachers, and the general membership. Any additions to this “authorized list” of hardbound books must be approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve. The number of books on this list is small. They can be identified by meetinghouse librarians.

While the content of the approved Church publications identified above does not claim the same endorsement that the standard works receive, nonetheless they are prepared with great care and are carefully screened before they are published. Writers of curriculum materials must be cleared by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Their product is reviewed closely by the heads of the organizations that are responsible for their implementation. Correlation Review committees check carefully for doctrinal accuracy and for harmony with established Church policies and procedures.

The General Handbook of Instructions is not only reviewed by Correlation, but also receives a close auditing from each individual member of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

Church magazines draw their content from a wide range of authors and contributors, in addition to those who serve as professional staff members. Those items that are published in the magazines receive not only the scrutiny and judgment of the editing staffs, but are also subject to clearance by the Correlation Review committees. Committee members are called as a result of their expertise in such areas as Church doctrine, Church history, and Church administration, and serve three different age groups: adult, youth, and children.

Much care is exercised to make certain that the official publications of the Church carry messages that are sound in doctrine and fully in harmony with currently approved policies and procedures. A constant effort is maintained to upgrade and correct the content of these materials so that they can merit the confidence and approval of Church leaders and the general membership.

All official Church publications that have received the clearance described above will carry the designation “Copyright © Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

So, in answer to the question, does "official doctrine" mean something other than "that which the Church officially teaches"? Underline the part where it says so.

But funny thing about this answer being in the "I Have a Question" section:

Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.

So even if this statement says "official doctrine" means something other than "that which is officially taught by the Church," can we rely on it?

I want to know where you got this idea of "official doctrine" having a discreet, technical meaning in the LDS Church (as opposed to apologetics about the LDS Church).

I get it from the church making explicit statements about what constitutes official, binding, or authoritative doctrine, or what texts have been rendered "official doctrine" in virtue of inclusion in certain categories. Were do you get the idea that the church does not have a discreet, technical meaning for the term?

That's funny, because Gerald Lund, writing in the February 1982 Ensign, says this about how whether a given precept is doctrine:

Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

So, someone who works for CES (and later became a General Authority) says that whether the First Presidency makes an "official" pronouncement about something is not a valid way to determine whether it is doctrine. But guess what? Like the example above, this also is in the "I Have a Question" section.

Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.

So can we rely on it?

I'll help you out some more. There are a total of 10 hits on LDS.org when you search for "official doctrine."

http://LDS.org/search?lang=eng&query=%2 ... octrine%22

Two of them I already cited. Another one talks about "official doctrine" in the counsel of Nicea, which I am pretty sure is not the LDS perspective on official doctrine. The others talk about the Thirteen Articles of Faith being adopted as "official doctrine." And then there is this, from the May 1998 New Era:

Another form of misrepresentation is to claim something is official LDS doctrine when it may merely be an individual opinion or even speculation. The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and procedures are official whenever those who hold the keys and have been sustained by the Church to make them declare them so.

Is the above statement official doctrine? Stephen E. Robinson, who wrote it, was not a member of the First Presidency, so obviously he and the other two members of the First Presidency could not have jointly taught it. This New Era article was not sustained in General Conference. It is not found in the standard works. Stephen E. Robinson did not hold the keys and was not sustained by the Church to declare official policies or procedures. And also:

(This article is largely adapted from the book Are Mormons Christians? Bookcraft, 1991.)

That's not an official publication of the Church. So is a New Era article adopted from a book not officially published by the Church and written by someone without authority to speak on behalf of the Church authoritative as to what "official doctrine" means?

And keep in mind that his standard of doctrine contradicts that of Gerald Lund, who says that whether a principle is officially pronounced by the First Presidency is not determinative of whether it is doctrine. But of course, statements in "I Have a Question" are not necessarily the position of the Church.

Where is this official, authoritative definition of "official doctrine," Maklelan?

[_Aristotle Smith]

It seems apropos to quote from the Apologists' articles of faith at this point:

5. We believe that the first principle of the restored gospel is a hyper-legalistic and largely self-serving definition of what constitutes "official church doctrine," such that we can freely disregard the teachings of prophets and apostles while claiming to be faithful members of the Church. Anyone who calls this hypocrisy or de facto apostasy is trying to impose standards of prophetic infallibility that we do not accept. We emphatically believe that prophets and apostles are playing a theological game of pinata, and we will be the judges of when they have managed to hit the pinata and made the candy come out.

[_Darth J]

So, how does one gain a testimony of church teachings if one cannot be sure that the church officially teaches it?

That's what Lee was explaining. You should find out for yourself, not just accept something because it's taught. If you need an officially binding declaration to negotiate the space between no testimony and a testimony, then you're basing your view of the church's authority on the wrong thing.

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion that "General Conference talks are not official doctrine" does not follow from the premise of "Harold B. Lee said we need to get our own testimony."

If I can't tell whether or not the Church teaches something, how do I know what it is that I want a testimony of?

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."

This doesn't explain how I was equivocating, this just asserts that I was equivocating and points a finger. Can you explain exactly how I was equivocating?

When you say "the standard works are official doctrine," and then say that I am mistakenly trying to conflate that with counsel and practice, the meaning of the words you said is that [EDIT: fixed typo] the standard works are official doctrine and everything else is counsel and practice. Your words mean that because that is how you defined "official doctrine."

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.

Here you make your equivocation explicit. There's a difference between counsel/practice and teaching. You know that "doctrine" in its generic sense just means "teaching," so you naïvely insisted that I was talking about church teaching. I explicitly was not, though. I was talking about counsel, practice, and adjudication. These are not synonyms for "teaching." You want to conflate all these things together to make it seem like my argument is fallacious, but you have to be quite dishonest to do it. Next, the church can also promulgate teachings that are not official doctrine. While doctrine and teaching are synonyms in their generic sense, I've already pointed out that there's a technical meaning associated with the term "official doctrine" that is not synonymous with "teaching." Your objection below, as I will show, is unfounded.

You keep playing this stupid rhetorical games and I'll keep pointing out how bad you are at it.

Excellent work, Maklelan. Since you of course are not playing stupid rhetorical games, I look forward to your presenting evidence instead of relying on argument by assertion.

(Hint: this is where you show me the official church definition of "official doctrine" instead of merely insisting that it exists.)

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.

Well, my L. Tom Perry describes the process in a discussion of the Articles of Faith (here):

After the Pearl of Great Price was revised in 1878 and canonized in 1880, the Articles of Faith became official doctrine of the Church

J, were the Articles of Faith "teachings" prior to 1880? If not, what were they? Whatever they were, they were not "official doctrine." Official doctrine is found in the Church's official canon. That is what the church's own statement says.

Wait I minute! Did you forget this?

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."

This doesn't explain how I was equivocating, this just asserts that I was equivocating and points a finger. Can you explain exactly how I was equivocating?

So are you or are you not saying that "official doctrine" is limited to the standard works?

By the way, L. Tom Perry's statement you quote is not in the standard works. How do we know this is not just his opinion about what "official doctrine" means?

You know, I'm just curious about something from the same chapter of that Institute manual that L. Tom Perry was quoting.

http://LDS.org/manual/church-history-in ... o?lang=eng

As members of the Council of the Twelve Apostles returned from their missions to the British Isles in 1841, Joseph Smith taught them one by one the doctrine of plurality of wives, and each experienced some difficulty in understanding and accepting this doctrine.

How could that have been a doctrine, since it wasn't in the standard works yet?

And given your insistence that getting a testimony, per Harold B. Lee, is the same as figuring out what exactly it is the Church teaches, here's another curious thing in that chapter of the Institute manual:

After their initial hesitancy and frustration, Brigham Young and others of the Twelve received individual confirmations from the Holy Spirit and accepted the new doctrine of plural marriage. They knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in all things.

Now, were these bretheren praying to know whether Joseph Smith even taught this at all, or whether it was true? Although I still can't figure out how it could be a doctrine anyway, since D&C 132 had not been canonized yet.

And in that same chapter of that same manual, which you are asserting determines what "official doctrine" is:

The most renowned of all the Prophet’s sermons was given at general conference in April 1844 as a funeral address in honor of his friend King Follett who had died in a construction accident. Joseph Smith spoke for over two hours mentioning at least thirty-four doctrinal subjects, including the importance of knowing the true God, the way to become as God is, the plurality of gods, eternal progression, the importance of the Holy Ghost, the nature of intelligence, the unpardonable sin, and little children and the Resurrection.

One of his most profound messages concerned God and man’s destiny in relationship to him. He declared, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …

“… you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves … by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings.” Man, then, is to become like God now is. Joseph also explained the “first principles of consolation” for those mourning for the righteous dead: “although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.”

How did the Saints respond to this lengthy, yet eloquent and inspiring sermon? Most were profoundly moved by it. Joseph Fielding wrote in his journal, “I never felt more delighted with his Discourse than at this time, It put me in Mind of Herod when they said at his Oration It is the Voice of a God and not of a Man” (see Acts 12:20–23).

While the Saints sojourned in Nauvoo they witnessed a flowering of theology. They listened to their prophet leader elaborate upon doctrinal themes that had been only touched upon earlier. As they read the Times and Seasons, they tasted of a more fully developed theology than they had known in Ohio or Missouri. As they built the temple and participated in its sacred ordinances, they received power, knowledge, and blessings unknown in earlier years. The doctrinal developments in Nauvoo created an enduring legacy for the Church in the future.

How could there have been doctrinal developments, and how could Joseph Smith have expounded on doctrinal themes, when many of those things were not in the standard works yet?

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."

Based on previous conversations I thought you were quite a bit more thoughtful than this.

"You're stupid" is a convenient substitute for evidence, isn't it?

I see.

I don't think you do. I think you're going to continue to try to sling pithy little rhetorical jabs that try to imply that your etic and antagonistic perspective is more insightful and informed.

It is simply a truism that trying to figure out what it is that the Church teaches is tantamount to an attack on the Church.

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).

You continue to equivocate.

"This doesn't explain how I was equivocating, this just asserts that I was equivocating and points a finger. Can you explain exactly how I was equivocating?"

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?

Don't play stupid. You know exactly where the church lays out its policy.

Then it stands to reason that you do, too (since I am playing stupid), so it should be no problem at all for you to show it to everyone.

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?

I've already directly addressed this. It's silly obfuscation because you're ignoring what I've said about it to try to get me to chase this argument down your little rhetorical rabbit hole.

Alternatively, you could just show everyone where the Church defines "official doctrine" to mean something other than "what the Church officially teaches."

I see.

I still don't think you do. I don't think you're even trying at all to understand what I'm saying. That's the only explanation I can think of for why you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting my points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

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?

A stupid red herring.

So you don't want to talk anymore about the statement to which you originally took exception?

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),

That pamphlet says "official church doctrine," not "official church teaching." Again your attempts to mislead are just painfully transparent. Next, I am not arguing that I agree entirely with the FAIR pamphlet. What I've been saying (and what you've avoided addressing this whole time) is that Lee's quote was not at all ripped out of context. You produced a fake context and ignored the actual context so you could manufacture a fallacy. On top of that, you equivocated in trying to contrast your fake context with the claim made by the FAIR pamphlet.

While we continue to wait to see why "official doctrine" has a meaning other than "that which is officially taught," let's see if Maklelan acknowledges the non sequitur of "Harold B. Lee taught we need to obtain our own testimonies, therefore General Conference talks are not official doctrine."

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.

Again, "official doctrine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

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?

How quick you are to descend into more juvenile rhetoric.

According to David A. Bednar, is a girl taking out her excessive number of earring evidence of her commitment to the gospel? Yes or no?

Your statements assume without evidence that "official doctrine" means anything more than "what the Church officially teaches."

I assumed you were aware of the evidence. I was wrong. You can find it above. Don't waste everyone's time with the notion that the church's use of "official doctrine" must be delineated within "official doctrine" in order for its use to be legitimate. The way the church uses the term is the way it uses the term.

Yes, your single example of L. Tom Perry quoting an Institute manual in which other non-canonized teachings are referred to as "doctrtine" is irrefutably the final word on how the Church authoritatively defines "official doctrine" as a term of art.

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.

No, you will just descend into your stupid rhetoric and thump your chest about how much more enlightened and erudite you are than the knuckle-dragging Mormons. It's really methodologically no different from the ignorant sectarianism over at CARM.

Some of you thought I was kidding that apologists cannot stand the idea of objectively determining what exactly it is that the Church teaches. Do you still doubt me?

[_Darth J]

It seems apropos to quote from the Apologists' articles of faith at this point:

5. We believe that the first principle of the restored gospel is a hyper-legalistic and largely self-serving definition of what constitutes "official church doctrine," such that we can freely disregard the teachings of prophets and apostles while claiming to be faithful members of the Church. Anyone who calls this hypocrisy or de facto apostasy is trying to impose standards of prophetic infallibility that we do not accept. We emphatically believe that prophets and apostles are playing a theological game of pinata, and we will be the judges of when they have managed to hit the pinata and made the candy come out.

Clearly, more juvenile rhetorical games I invented that have no basis in reality.

[_Darth J]

Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a revelation authorizing plural marriage under certain conditions (that Joseph Smith repeatedly ignored, but there are other threads that have talked about that). Anyway, the Doctrine and Covenants is a book in the standard works, so it is official doctrine. So the concept of plural marriage, although not currently practiced by the LDS branch of Mormonism, is part of LDS doctrine.

An Institute manual published by the Church explains how even though it is no longer a practice, polygamy is still a doctrine:

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual

Smith and Sjodahl pointed out that the revelation has two major sections: “The first, comprising vv. 3–33 , deals mainly with the principle of celestial marriage, or marriage for time and all eternity; the second , comprising the remaining verses, deals with plural marriage. The doctrine of celestial marriage remains in force; the practice of plural marriage was abandoned by the acceptance by the Church, in Conference assembled October 6th, 1890, of the Manifesto of President Woodruff.” (Commentary, p. 821; also see Historical Background on Official Declaration 1 .)

But wait! In an interview with Larry King, President Gordon B. Hinckley condemned the practice of polygamy because it is not doctrinal.

Gordon B. Hinckley interview, September 8, 1998

HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

Huh? It's in D&C 132, and that is doctrinal. An Institute manual says it is doctrine. But the Prophet says he doesn't think it is. Who is right?????

And in an interview with Time magazine, President Hinckley said he doesn't know that we teach that God was once a man, who went through the Plan of Salvation like we are, to become God. FAIR says that Time left out some of President Hinckley's statement, so let's make sure we get all of it:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.

But just a couple of years previously, President Hinckley said that the King Follett discourse was doctrinally important.

Gordon B. Hinckley
September 1994 Ensign

In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.

If it's an important doctrinal document, why don't we emphasize it? Or is it even doctrine, since it was never canonized, nor taught in an official proclamation by the First Presidency?

But as already shown in this thread, Gerald N. Lund said that whether "as man is, God once was" has been stated in an official proclamation by the First Presidency is not determinative of whether it is doctrine. But that statement is itself not an official declaration of policy!

Well, FAIR says:

The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.

Except that we do teach this in our classes today---it's in lesson manuals!

Lesson 32: “To Seal the Testimony”, Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 183

What truths about the Godhead were restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? (See D&C 130:22–23; Joseph Smith—History 1:17; and the following quotation.)

In a sermon given at the funeral of Elder King Follett on 7 April 1844, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345).

Gospel Principles, Chapter 47: Exaltation

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

And the Church History manual that Maklelan cited (via L. Tom Perry) says that this was a doctrinal discourse! And it is in official lesson manuals. So if it's official, and it's doctrine, is it "official doctrine"?

Is plural marriage doctrinal? Is God's former status as a mortal man doctrinal? Do we even ever say that?

Who knows what the Church teaches? Did President Hinckley know? Does FAIR know? Does Maklelan know? Does anybody know?

At least we can rely on that discreet, authoritative meaning the Church has given to the term "official doctrine," which Maklelan assures us exists......somewhere........