GLBT+ Protest planned for Fast Sunday?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

A general authority of the church teaching in a public setting or writing in a church publication. 

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory...

Let's go with the definition Scott provided instead -- more reasonable considering it is what the Church has decided to say about it.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then we are at loggerheads from the get-go, as I reject your premise as being far too broad to be an acceptable definition for "official teachings." We both know that at times past certain Church leaders have, in a public setting, expressed personal opinions that have not been consistently sustained by the Church leaders as a body as being "official." A definition such as you are giving here would leave the Church vulnerable to the attacks of adversaries whose modus operandi is to cherry pick certain obscure statements from the past and try to bind the Church of Jesus Christ to them. I would hope that's not your intent here, but in any case, I won't have it.

I hold with this statement on LDS Newsroom:

• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
   

I'm glad that we at least agree that some doctrines are more important than others.  I believe supporters of the Church and detractors alike are guilty of exaggerating the importance or peripheral doctrines.

Edited June 8, 2016 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm glad that we at least agree that some doctrines are more important than others.  I believe supporters of the Church and detractors alike are guilty of exaggerating the importance or peripheral doctrines.

To say that some doctrines are more important than others is not to say that some doctrines are less true than others.

Incidentally, if you are going to leave something out of the middle of a quote, you need to indicate through the use of elipses (...) that you have done so.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To say that some doctrines are more important than others is not to say that some doctrines are less true than others.

Incidentally, if you are going to leave something out of the middle of a quote, you need to indicate through the use of elipses (...) that you have done so.

I had to paste that back in since it was a quote of a quote.  And, as it was a separate bullet, I didn't think that elipses for the first bullet point were needed.

If you are going to say that all doctrines are true than you need to clarify what you mean by doctrine.  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is doctrine.  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is true.  Agreed?

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I had to paste that back in since it was a quote of a quote.  And, as it was a separate bullet, I didn't think that elipses for the first bullet point were needed.

I

In the process of quoting me, you left out the first bullet point, which I had not done. But this is a small matter; let's move on.

Quote

f you are going to say that all doctrines are true than you need to clarify what you mean by doctrine.  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is doctrine.  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is true.  Agreed?

I'm going to stand by the definition I provided from LDS Newsroom.

By the way, regarding some doctrines being more important than others, on occasion I will choose to defend what might be regarded as one of the less-important doctrines, not because I consider it one of the more important ones, but merely because, one, I am capable of defending it; two, it deserves defending (most any truth does); and, three, it might not get defended unless I do it.

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I had to paste that back in since it was a quote of a quote.  And, as it was a separate bullet, I didn't think that elipses for the first bullet point were needed.

If you are going to say that all doctrines are true than you need to clarify what you mean by doctrine.  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is doctrine.  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is true.  Agreed?

There is no doctrine supporting the approach taken in the OP, no doctrine supporting the intent or aims of that approach, and especially no doctrine supporting the secular notions at hand.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the process of quoting me, you left out the first bullet point, which I had not done. But this is a small matter; let's move on.

I'm going to stand by the definition I provided from LDS Newsroom.

By the way, regarding some doctrines being more important than others, on occasion I will choose to defend what might be regarded as one of the less-important doctrines, not because I consider it one of the more important ones, but merely because, one, I am capable of defending it; two, it deserves defending (most any truth does); and, three, it might not get defended unless I do it.

It's too bad that in your desire to defend truth you can't also answer straightforward questions.  Oh well.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's too bad that in your desire to defend truth you can't also answer straightforward questions.  Oh well.

It's too bad that in your pursuit of gotcha argumentation, you pose questions without taking cognizance of answers that have already been given. Oh well.

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It's too bad that in your pursuit of gotcha argumentation, you pose questions without taking cognizance of answers that have already been given. Oh well.

No, Scott, they aren't gotcha questions and I obviously can't scour thousands of pages in the hopes of finding an answer you may have posted somewhere.  If your position on an issue can't withstand a little scrutiny, maybe it's one you ought to reconsider.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, Scott, they aren't gotcha questions and I obviously can't scour thousands of pages in the hopes of finding an answer you may have posted somewhere.  If your position on an issue can't withstand a little scrutiny, maybe it's one you ought to reconsider.

I directed you specifically to the LDS Newsroom article that I had quoted a few posts previously. Ironically, the bullet point from that quote you chose to leave out of your response post was the very bullet point that contains the answer to the question you are now accusing me of evading.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I directed you specifically to the LDS Newsroom article that I had quoted a few posts previously. Ironically, the bullet point from that quote you chose to leave out of your response post was the very bullet point that contains the answer to the question you are now accusing me of evading.

My question added the clarification of "truth" as opposed to "doctrine".  This is what I asked:  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is true.  Agreed?

If you felt you had answered that, than a simple yes or no would have been easier than what we're doing right now.  Why obfuscate when a "yes" will do?

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

My question added the clarification of "truth" as opposed to "doctrine".  This is what I asked:  Not everything ever taught by a church leader is true.  Agreed?

If you felt you had answered that, than a simple yes or no would have been easier than what we're doing right now.  Why obfuscate when a "yes" will do?

For me, an essential attribute of doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ is its truthfulness. For me, that is axiomatic.

It was not clear to me that you draw such a marked dichotomy between the doctrine and truth; hence, it seemed like you were badgering me with a question to which an answer had been given just a few posts previously with my quotation from LDS Newsroom. As I've shown in the past I have a low tolerance threshold for that sort of thing.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For me, an essential attribute of doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ is its truthfulness. For me, that is axiomatic.

It was not clear to me that you draw such a marked dichotomy between the doctrine and truth; hence, it seemed like you were badgering me with a question to which an answer had been given just a few posts previously with my quotation from LDS Newsroom. As I've shown in the past I have a low tolerance threshold for that sort of thing.

So, which comes first?  Is it only doctrine if it is true?  Does a principle's truth make it doctrine?  Or if it is doctrine, than it must be true?  If so, what is your definition of doctrine?

And back to my question:  Would you agree that not everything taught by church leaders constitutes truth?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, which comes first?  Is it only doctrine if it is true?  Does a principle's truth make it doctrine?  Or if it is doctrine, than it must be true?  If so, what is your definition of doctrine?

And back to my question:  Would you agree that not everything taught by church leaders constitutes truth?

Obviously, not everything that is true is doctrinal. My belief in the Church of Jesus Christ entails my belief that all of its doctrine is true.

And why are you asking me again for a definition of doctrine when I gave you the LDS Newsroom article and told you I hold to it?

Yes, it's possible for individual Church leaders to err in teaching. It has happened before.

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this? I have this abiding feeling you're trying to entrap me.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously, not everything that is true is doctrinal. My belief in the Church of Jesus Christ entails my belief that all of its doctrine is true.

And why are you asking me again for a definition of doctrine when I gave you the LDS Newsroom article and told you I hold to it?

Yes, it's possible for individual Church leaders to err in teaching. It has happened before.

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this? I have this abiding feeling you're trying to entrap me.

Scott, how do you have a belief that all doctrine is true...when you have stated that not everything true is doctrinal.  This means that doctrine contradicts truth.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously, not everything that is true is doctrinal. My belief in the Church of Jesus Christ entails my belief that all of its doctrine is true.

And why are you asking me again for a definition of doctrine when I gave you the LDS Newsroom article and told you I hold to it?

Yes, it's possible for individual Church leaders to err in teaching. It has happened before.

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this? I have this abiding feeling you're trying to entrap me.

I'm not cross examning you and I'm not going anywhere with this.  Just trying to understand.  It's not entrapment, Scott.  You don't need to be so suspicious of me.  I actually think we are closer in agreement on this topic than you might believe.

I didn't think the LDS Newsroom quote was all that clear.  So is this the official church definition of doctrine:  "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Is that the definition you are working from?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Scott, how do you have a belief that all doctrine is true...when you have stated that not everything true is doctrinal.  This means that doctrine contradicts truth.

Not contradictory at all. Think about it again. It's true that I had a crispy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A last night. But it's not a matter of LDS doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not cross examning you and I'm not going anywhere with this.  Just trying to understand.  It's not entrapment, Scott.  You don't need to be so suspicious of me.  I actually think we are closer in agreement on this topic than you might believe.

I didn't think the LDS Newsroom quote was all that clear.  So is this the official church definition of doctrine:  "This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Is that the definition you are working from?

I don't know that it's definitive, but it's a workable definition.

And I think you are cross-examining me. I've grown tired of it. This conversation is over.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know that it's definitive, but it's a workable definition.

And I think you are cross-examining me. I've grown tired of it. This conversation is over.

Not definitive, but workable?  Well, that's vague.

Have a good evening.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know that it's definitive, but it's a workable definition.

And I think you are cross-examining me. I've grown tired of it. This conversation is over.

[Jeanne]

 

i am getting your point..but I look at it like this.  It is true, that at the quorum of the twelve's request, Scott had a crispy chicken sandwich, at Chick-fil-A.  Later, he found out that Chick-Fil-A was not true...He was then directed to go to Kentucky Fried..Kentucky Fried is true!

Edited to add:  My quote didn't work..this is my reply to Scott's Crispy Chicken Sandwich.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 

i am getting your point..but I look at it like this.  It is true, that at the quorum of the twelve's request, Scott had a crispy chicken sandwich, at Chick-fil-A.  Later, he found out that Chick-Fil-A was not true...He was then directed to go to Kentucky Fried..Kentucky Fried is true!

Edited to add:  My quote didn't work..this is my reply to Scott's Crispy Chicken Sandwich.

I don't think you are getting my point. Things that are outside the realm of the Church of Jesus Christ can be true without being doctrinal.

To put it another way, everything that's doctrinal is true, but not everything that's true is doctrinal.

 I don't know now to make it any clearer. If you're still not seeing it, I guess I'll  give up trying.

 

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think you are getting point. Things that are outside the realm of the Church of Jesus Christ can be true without being doctrinal.

To put it another way, everything that's doctrinal is true, but not everything that's true is doctrinal.

 I don't know now to make it any clearer. If you're still not seeing it, I guess I'll  give up trying.

 

 

I do..sorry..I get it.  I am so not a comedian..was trying to be funny..

[ERayR]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

 

i am getting your point..but I look at it like this.  It is true, that at the quorum of the twelve's request, Scott had a crispy chicken sandwich, at Chick-fil-A.  Later, he found out that Chick-Fil-A was not true...He was then directed to go to Kentucky Fried..Kentucky Fried is true!

Edited to add:  My quote didn't work..this is my reply to Scott's Crispy Chicken Sandwich.

Huh. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

Huh. 

I told Scott..that I got what he was talking about..my kentucky friend post was a joke..duh..I am so not funny.