Runtu wrote:This isn't personal, but I believe it's important to judge the church by its actual teachings and practices. The church has been clear about what constitutes current doctrine, and that is by the canon, proclamations, First Presidency statements, and the Articles of Faith. They have also been clear that church publications that have been through the Correlation process are doctrinally consistent.
What I find highly ironic is that the same person who insists that church publications are "doctrine" is now saying that only some church publications are doctrine, though he refuses to say how he determines which is which. Obviously, this isn't about what constitutes doctrine but rather an ad hoc attempt to wiggle out of the corner he's painted himself into.
Indeed. And frankly, if it is not the Church as it is that is being defended, what is it that is at stake? The ego of the defender, I wager.
Mopologetics is spiritually corrosive.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
How was the name, Intellectual Reserve Inc, developed?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
We worship the Father and him only and no one else.
We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.
harmony wrote:How was the name, Intellectual Reserve Inc, developed?
Probably the same way most things are done at the COB: by committee and then approved by the GAs.
I'm just trying to figure out what's intellectual about what they're reserving.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:I'm just trying to figure out what's intellectual about what they're reserving.
They are referring to the legal term "intellectual property," which means copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, and trade secrets.
Kishkumen wrote:Indeed. And frankly, if it is not the Church as it is that is being defended, what is it that is at stake? The ego of the defender, I wager.
Mopologetics is spiritually corrosive.
Ego is the reason bcspace has walked away from this thread claiming some sort of victory for having simultaneously insisted that church publications are doctrine and that some church publications are not doctrine. I'd call that a pyrrhic victory if there were any victory in it.
A prophecy: sometime in the not-too-distant future, bcspace will bring up his opinions about doctrine and completely ignore that his position has been thoroughly discredited. If someone does bring it up, he'll wave it off, claiming victory and saying that only the spiritually blind and evil would think his position doesn't hold water.