Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[Russell C McGregor]

9 hours ago, why me said:

Oh, consig, I miss the bulls eye days when you filled this board with your beautiful faith in your bulls eye OPs. What happened to those bulls eyes? What has changed? We old timers remember your former posts. 

 

Maybe he's replaced the bull's eyes with something from the other end of the bull.

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Emoticon

[Ahab]

He likes playing the devils advocate more now than just saying that he agrees with someone. I think he still knows as much as he ever did though.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

He likes playing the devils advocate more now than just saying that he agrees with someone. I think he still knows as much as he ever did though.

An abundance of knowledge does not always equal wisdom. Very often, in fact, it does not. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An abundance of knowledge does not always equal wisdom. Very often, in fact, it does not. 

Yes indeed.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An abundance of knowledge does not always equal wisdom. Very often, in fact, it does not. 

This is true Scott.

[Gray]

On 12/10/2015 at 4:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

No, the "scripture standard" as you define it is not confirmed by President Lee's own words. It just isn't.

We are not biblioaters, nor are we partakers of the sola scriptura dogma.

And as that is quite obvious to any reasonable person who views the quotes I provided, I'll let the matter rest there.

Well, I'll grant you that the standard for doctrine is different now. But I respectfully maintain that I have accurately represented President Lee's views on scripture and doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, I'll grant you that the standard for doctrine is different now. But I respectfully maintain that I have accurately represented President Lee's views on scripture and doctrine.

The standard for doctrine is what it has always been. And you claim you have represented him accurately while ignoring the string of quotes I provided that explicitly contradict what you claim his position to be. 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The standard for doctrine is what it has always been. And you claim you have represented him accurately while ignoring the string of quotes I provided that explicitly contradict what you claim his position to be. 

Actually, my representation of what he said takes into account everything we've found from him so far on this subject. I can't see your interpretation of his teachings working without ignoring several key sentences that we've already discussed.

The standard for doctrine is definitely not what it has always been. It was quite different under Brigham Young, different again for Harold B. Lee, different again post-correlation. The standard now seems to be, whatever the 15 agree upon is doctrine, regardless of any other considerations. That was not always the standard.

 

 

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2015 at 10:21 AM, mfbukowski said:

I suppose there are cheerleaders on the other board directing this whole discussion.

Oh well.

No board wars?  We shall see.

I am actually capable of conducting a theological and philosophical inquiry without help from others.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I am actually capable of conducting a theological and philosophical inquiry without help from others.

I don't doubt that and I did not mean to offend you.

It was more a comment about past history- and I also know that you are not responsible for what others say.  I would still be posting there but I could not see past the rotten tomatoes coming my way.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2015 at 11:48 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

 

Maybe he's replaced the bull's eyes with something from the other end of the bull.

 

LOL!

I still have bull's eyes aplenty.

You just have to know where to look for them.

[consiglieri]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't doubt that and I did not mean to offend you.

It was more a comment about past history- and I also know that you are not responsible for what others say.  I would still be posting there but I could not see past the rotten tomatoes coming my way.

No problema, mi amigo!

The rotten tomatoes coming my way over there were often from Russell.

Who posts under his real name on this board.

And continues to throw the tomatoes my way . . .

 

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Actually, my representation of what he said takes into account everything we've found from him so far on this subject. I can't see your interpretation of his teachings working without ignoring several key sentences that we've already discussed.

The standard for doctrine is definitely not what it has always been. It was quite different under Brigham Young, different again for Harold B. Lee, different again post-correlation. The standard now seems to be, whatever the 15 agree upon is doctrine, regardless of any other considerations. That was not always the standard.

 

 

You are correct, Gray.

But I find a frequently employed apologetic tactic is to say the way things are now is the way things have always been.

And then to cherry pick quotes to prove the point.

Not only are the contents of "doctrine" an ever-changing subject in Mormonism, but also the very definition of "doctrine."

[CA Steve]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

I still have bull's eyes aplenty.

You just have to know where to look for them.

As with defining "doctrine" , isn't it easier to get a bull's eye if you draw the target after the volley?

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2015 at 9:14 AM, Ahab said:

He likes playing the devils advocate more now than just saying that he agrees with someone. I think he still knows as much as he ever did though.

Thanks, Ahab.

But I do want to make clear I am generally not playing devil's advocate, but rather trying to convey what it is I actually believe.  I wouldn't want anybody to think otherwise.

Also, in the last (almost) five years since I last posted here, I have learned a great deal.

I am trying to get at some of what I have learned in my comments.

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

As with defining "doctrine" , isn't it easier to get a bull's eye if you draw the target after the volley?

LOL!

Always MUCH easier!

Just ask the Q15.

 

[consiglieri]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An abundance of knowledge does not always equal wisdom. Very often, in fact, it does not. 

Glad to know I am exception to that rule.

Whew!

[why me]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks, Ahab.

But I do want to make clear I am generally not playing devil's advocate, but rather trying to convey what it is I actually believe.  I wouldn't want anybody to think otherwise.

Also, in the last (almost) five years since I last posted here, I have learned a great deal.

I am trying to get at some of what I have learned in my comments.

I am not sure if you have conveyed what you actually believe on this thread. Reading your posts, I see someone who is trying to rock the row boat not by knowledge but just by rocking. I have seen nothing of what you actually believe but maybe I missed it. For example, this is thread is about the family. What do you think of the proclamation? When it was made, you were an active member. What did you think of it then when you first heard it. And what has changed in your world view?

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, why me said:

I am not sure if you have conveyed what you actually believe on this thread. Reading your posts, I see someone who is trying to rock the row boat not by knowledge but just by rocking. I have seen nothing of what you actually believe but maybe I missed it. For example, this is thread is about the family. What do you think of the proclamation? When it was made, you were an active member. What did you think of it then when you first heard it. And what has changed in your world view?

At the time I first heard of it in 1995, I was unaware it was likely a legal document designed to give the LDS Church standing to file briefing and argue in the Hawaii gay marriage case.

But from the beginning, I have thought the Proclamation to be rather pedestrian and not of much interest.  It just says a lot of things that have already been said before.

The big thing that stands out to me is the attempt to introduce new doctrine into the LDS Church by way of a Proclamation and not by way of scripture that must be presented to the membership for a vote.

By this, I mean the concept that gender is an eternal part of mankind, both in the premortal and postmortal world.

Here is the sentence:

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes to far, doctrinally speaking.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

At the time I first heard of it in 1995, I was unaware it was likely a legal document designed to give the LDS Church standing to file briefing and argue in the Hawaii gay marriage case.

I have heard that asserted by people who have a track record for finding fault with the Church and its leaders. I'm still not aware of any reason to think that claim "likely."

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

 

You said this on the other thread too.

#1 is wrong.

#2 is wrong.

#3 is wrong and worthy of a CFR.

Just because you make these claims doesn't make them right.

[why me]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

At the time I first heard of it in 1995, I was unaware it was likely a legal document designed to give the LDS Church standing to file briefing and argue in the Hawaii gay marriage case.

But from the beginning, I have thought the Proclamation to be rather pedestrian and not of much interest.  It just says a lot of things that have already been said before.

The big thing that stands out to me is the attempt to introduce new doctrine into the LDS Church by way of a Proclamation and not by way of scripture that must be presented to the membership for a vote.

 

I tend to think that during the middle nineties not many people thought about something that seemed perfectually natural: that marriage is between woman and man. Nothing much stood out for debate or discussion. Most people in the US would not have predicted that there would ever be same sex marriage. But of course, times change and with change comes controversy. Now the proclamation is controversial because of its position as definitions of morality change.

What it does show is that the lds church put out a document in 1995 about the family. It was not all that controversial at that time but now it is. Maybe some leaders of the lds church thought that such a document needed to be written for humanity to read. And maybe it was more about the future definitions of the family.

[consiglieri]

12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I have heard that asserted by people who have a track record for finding fault with the Church and its leaders. I'm still not aware of any reason to think that claim "likely."

 

Only because your ability to think objectively about issues related to Mormonism has been hampered by your over-zealous attempts to defend it at all costs.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Only because your ability to think objectively about issues related to Mormonism has been hampered by your over-zealous attempts to defend it at all costs.

At least my ability to think objectively about issues related to Mormonism has not been poisoned by over-zealous attempts to attack it at all costs.

The fact is that your asinine assumption (hereafter asinumption) that the Proclamation was driven by "the Hawaii gay marriage case" is an instance of splendid "critical thinking" known as the Post Hoc fallacy.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Spelling...

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

At lease my ability to think objectively about issues related to Mormonism has not been poisoned by over-zealous attempts to attack it at all costs.

The fact is that your asinine assumption (hereafter asinumption) that the Proclamation was driven by "the Hawaii gay marriage case" is an instance of splendid "critical thinking" known as the Post Hoc fallacy.

 

You beat me to the punch, Russell. I was going to point out the same thing regarding consig's asinumption.

I will just mention, for those who might not know, that the post hoc fallacy, more formally known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), is illustrated by the absurd assertion that the rooster causes the sun to come up because the dawn always follows its crowing.

Consig's a priori assertion that the proclamation is "likely a legal document" related to the Hawaii case is yet another instance of his trademark sophistry.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd