Oh, awesome. So even the content of profiles on Mormon.org counts as official Church doctrine? You really are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Beware of context yes. That's just common sense. It goes like this, if something published in a doctrinal work has a disclaimer saying it's not doctrine or it's "my opinion", or "belongs to me" then the doctrine is that this thing is not doctrine or, someone's opinion, or belonging to someone else. Most people in the real world have no trouble navigating this but apparently gnat-straining pharisaical critics of the LDS Church do.
bcspace, you're the one with the absurd pharisaical view of what counts as doctrine. On the view you attribute to the Church all sorts of trivialities and mundane statements are official church doctrine. On the view you attribute to the Church even questions are ?statements? of doctrine.
Several times now I've shown how the evidence you use in favor of your position doesn't entail it. You have yet to show how the statements you use as evidence lead to the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine.
bcspace, I'm fully prepared to accept your view that the view of the Church is that everything in official publications is official doctrine. Again, will you consolidate your evidence into one post and show us the argument from your premises to the conclusion that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine? Will you please do that for us?
bcspace, but what does it say about publication? Does it say that everything in the publication is official Church doctrine? Or, does it say that official Church doctrine is in official Church publications.
You continue to demonstrate a frightening inability to grasp the logical difference between saying 'X is in Y' and 'Everything in Y is X'. You seem to somehow think that 'X is in Y' means the same thing as 'Everything in Y is X'.
bcspace wrote: It goes like this, if something published in a doctrinal work has a disclaimer saying it's not doctrine or it's "my opinion", or "belongs to me" then the doctrine is that this thing is not doctrine or, someone's opinion, or belonging to someone else.
Why doesn't this apply to Sorenson's LGT?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:LOL bcspace's position is his alone. Not the church's position.
No, in a minute bcspace will hopefully consolidate his evidence into a nice valid argument for his view that the Church's view is that literally everything in its publications is official Church doctrine. We will then all be able to clearly see why we should believe that the position of the Church is that literally everything in its publications is official doctrine.
bcspace likes to think of himself as some authority on what is doctrine. The problem is though that if you look at all the publications you will find many conflicting statements on doctrine. Now going with the current statement is problematic if it is only one statement conflicting with established doctrine. Why should it get precedence over all past statements, especially if the author is not a GA, even even if they are a 70, and past statements have been made by apostles or prophets. In the end it is a mess. What is funny is that bcspace does not accept things like adam/god theory as past doctrine even though it easily meets his standards.
bcspace wrote:On top of that, Jason's hypothesis puts the Church into conflict with itself which is not reasonable. One the one hand Jason says the doctrine is only the scriptures and on the other hand the Church says the doctrine is the publications.
And I see it's obvious that brade is still stung with the answer as to why Roberta is unhappy making the whole thing doctrinal.
I did not say it. Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee and B H Roberts said it. Most apologists I know hold to the canon is paramount position. Many dismiss manuals.
Again I agree with you really. I just want the Church to make it more official than a news release.
That's the problem is that many leaders disagree with each other. If they really want to make it clear that this is the way they are going to do it from here on out, they will need to put out something much better then a news release. They send out letters to the church all the time with their signatures on it. This would more the suffice.
bcspace, but what does it say about publication? Does it say that everything in the publication is official Church doctrine? Or, does it say that official Church doctrine is in official Church publications.
You continue to demonstrate a frightening inability to grasp the logical difference between saying 'X is in Y' and 'Everything in Y is X'. You seem to somehow think that 'X is in Y' means the same thing as 'Everything in Y is X'.
I'd like to thank bcspace for pointing out the key sentence
With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.
I had never examined it in detail before, and now that I do I can say that I believe the statement is inspired. I think the key word here, and perhaps in the entire press release, is consistently.
So yes, it's quite easy to go through past church publications and find inconsistencies with current ones, but if we realize that doctrine is only that which is consistent, we will be able to realize what is doctrine every time.
RaDex: The Radio Index.The All-Wave Radio Log Authority