Quote of the Day

[_Runtu]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." --Albert Einstein

[_Hades]

"Church is a waste of a good Sunday." --Hades

[_J Green]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." --Albert Einstein

Nice. And aside from simplicity, I would add that if you can't explain it persuasively, you don't understand it well enough.

When I was a teen, I would often approach my dad with political and religious questions. He would give me a fairly persuasive answer, and when he saw I was satisfied, he would say, "But here's another perspective." And then he would sell me on another point of view so convincingly that I would ask, "So which do you believe?" I couldn't tell. He would say, "Read through the arguments yourself and then we'll talk about what I think." He would tell me that if you couldn't see what was persuasive about another person's argument (even if you disagreed with it) and couldn't explain it in a way that articulated that persuasiveness, then you probably had some kind of bias and really didn't understand the argument in the first place. I would find later that he in fact had strong opinions on certain topics and even disagreed with some of the things he explained so convincingly.

[_Themis]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." --Albert Einstein

Nice. And aside from simplicity, I would add that if you can't explain it persuasively, you don't understand it well enough.

Not really. Some will not be persuaded regardless of how well it is explained.

[_bcspace]

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." --Albert Einstein

"Official LDS doctrine = official publication". What could be simpler than that and communicate the same thing?
lol

[cacheman]

"Official LDS doctrine = official publication". What could be simpler than that and communicate the same thing?
lol

I would agree with you, except I would change it slightly:

"Current official doctrine = current official publication (since 1971)." Of course, I agree with STS that official doctrine is irrelevant to the teachings and pronouncements of prophets, seers, and revelators. That responsibility for doctrine has devolved on paid church employees ought to give one pause.

[_J Green]

"Official LDS doctrine = official publication". What could be simpler than that and communicate the same thing?
lol

You're quite vocal on this subject. From the perspective of discussion forums as opera, it is certainly your leitmotif. And while I'm not as determined to advance my own opinions so often and so insistently, I still believe your view is rather inaccurate. Further, I think it harmful to consitently portray that view as the Church's interpretation when it very clearly isn't.

Just my $ 0.02, brother.

Regards

[_ludwigm]

... doctrine ...

Variation of an old joke:

- Do you understand the church's definition of doctrine?
- Wait a minute, I explain it!
- No, no, please. I can explain it, too. I asked you if you understand it...

[_bcspace]

I agree with STS that official doctrine is irrelevant to the teachings and pronouncements of prophets, seers, and revelators.

Can't possibly be true as "the teachings and pronouncements of prophets, seers, and revelators are often published as doctrine.

That responsibility for doctrine has devolved on paid church employees ought to give one pause.

Doesn't seem to be the case. The FP and Qo12 establish doctrine. If they happen to trust someone to express it, so what? And if there is some mistake, how come there is little to no change or error correction over 40+ of doctrine? HM remains doctrine. HF was once a mortal man remains doctrine. Etc. Your logic assumes they aren't paying attention while at the same time you argue they are paying attention elsewhere to anti Mormon criticism or members ostensibly "leaving in droves" for example.

[_Runtu]

Can't possibly be true as "the teachings and pronouncements of prophets, seers, and revelators are often published as doctrine.

A lot of what they have taught is not current doctrine but is relevant and important to understanding what the church teaches and has taught.

Doesn't seem to be the case. The FP and Qo12 establish doctrine. If they happen to trust someone to express it, so what? And if there is some mistake, how come there is little to no change or error correction over 40+ of doctrine?

OK, I admit it. I LOLed at this. Having working at the COB writing and editing manuals, I know exactly how much change and error correction goes on. It's not "little to no change." That's hilarious.

HM remains doctrine. HF was once a mortal man remains doctrine. Etc. Your logic assumes they aren't paying attention while at the same time you argue they are paying attention elsewhere to anti Mormon criticism or members ostensibly "leaving in droves" for example.

I'm not arguing that people are leaving in droves (in fact, I explicitly disagreed with that assessment), nor have I ever said the brethren are paying attention to anti-Mormon criticism. I'm not sure why you feel the need to put words into my mouth (I thought only dishonest antis did that).

I know quite well that the brethren do not oversee the production of manuals; that is left to the professional staff, as I said. The only time I have ever seen involvement from the brethren was when we did the For the Strength of Youth materials. Other than that, nothing went beyond the professional staff. It says something, for example, that I had final authority over the manuals I worked on. If I didn't sign the approval form, it didn't go out.