LDS

[RandFan]

For the record: 1) It was Foster Z, in Post 6545, who was among the first to use the word "dogma." He wrote: "I'm sorry, but just quoting a bunch of dogma as though it is self-evidently true doesn't qualify as evidence of the truth of your doctrine. . . ." It is clear from the context that Foster Z was using a form of the third definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary when he wrote "dogma." 2) RF, in Post 6532, wrote that "Dogma is not per se pejorative" and "LDS doctrine is dogma by definition." Both statements are reckless conjecture. In the first statement, RF found it necessary to insert the disclaimer per se to justify his claim. He was well aware of the negativity associated with dogma. 3) In my response, I indicated--by the use of a bold-faced "c" in citing the definitiion by Webster's Third New International Dictionary--that those oppossing me fully intended to use dogma pejoratively. They did so initially and have done so throughout this exchange. They have every right to do that, but no amount of spinning can disguise their intent.

BTW: It's not a very good dodge. It's very transparent that you are ignoring the issue and attempting to go on the offensive by playing the victim. It's poor form. You've stated your point and others have disagreed.

Can you address the issues and avoid the semantic quibble? It's very poor form.

 

[RandFan]

You cherry picked the definition that would allow you to evade addressing my point by playing the victim. Since it was my post that originally made use of the word, let me make clear, once and finally, that the definition of the word as used by me in this context was the one I gave in post #6555: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Is there any point in asking you to return to the subject of "religious insights" and the problems that have been pointed out regarding the examples you've proffered?

Mormons have a set of principles (principles you have stated) that they believe were laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That's NOT going to change.

• You have stated dogma.
• By your own definition what you stated was dogma.
• Whether the word can be used pejoratively or even whether or not it was is entirely beside the point.

It's a silly semantic rhetorical device that does not advance the discussion and utterly fails to address any points.

 

[Pixel42]

Whether you call it dogma or doctrine it's still unsupported assertions, not spiritual insights.

 

[RandFan]

Whether you call it dogma or doctrine it's still unsupported assertions, not spiritual insights.

And nearly all of those purported insights are repackaged. Other than humans becoming gods (which I think is kinda cool) and the notion that god was once a man, I can't name any novel ideas. The reunion of body and spirit is not even close to novel. And to be frank, it would not surprise me that the notion of god having once been a mortal and the notion that humans can become god are not novel either. But to be fair, they are not traditional among any of the Abrahamic religions. I can't speak for any of the other 20 odd major (not to mention minor) religions.

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
What you denigrate as "dogma," LDS consider doctrine. The test of its validity is not whether or not you consider it true.

Your response is exactly what I anticipated. It functions much like a knee-jerk when a doctor taps the knee cap with a rubber hammer.

What is the test of it's validity? I generally consider a thing as true if it conforms to reality, how about you?


I anticipate

1. ignored
2. personal attack

3. redefine reality.

For the record: 1) It was Foster Z, in Post 6545, who was among the first to use the word "dogma." He wrote: "I'm sorry, but just quoting a bunch of dogma as though it is self-evidently true doesn't qualify as evidence of the truth of your doctrine. . . ." It is clear from the context that Foster Z was using a form of the third definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary when he wrote "dogma." 2) RF, in Post 6532, wrote that "Dogma is not per se pejorative" and "LDS doctrine is dogma by definition." Both statements are reckless conjecture. In the first statement, RF found it necessary to insert the disclaimer per se to justify his claim. He was well aware of the negativity associated with dogma. 3) In my response, I indicated--by the use of a bold-faced "c" in citing the definitiion by Webster's Third New International Dictionary--that those oppossing me fully intended to use dogma pejoratively. They did so initially and have done so throughout this exchange. They have every right to do that, but no amount of spinning can disguise their intent.

I see #1 is the winner.

 

[Slowvehicle]

For the record: 1) It was Foster Z, in Post 6545, who was among the first to use the word "dogma." He wrote: "I'm sorry, but just quoting a bunch of dogma as though it is self-evidently true doesn't qualify as evidence of the truth of your doctrine. . . ." It is clear from the context that Foster Z was using a form of the third definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary when he wrote "dogma." 2) RF, in Post 6532, wrote that "Dogma is not per se pejorative" and "LDS doctrine is dogma by definition." Both statements are reckless conjecture. In the first statement, RF found it necessary to insert the disclaimer per se to justify his claim. He was well aware of the negativity associated with dogma. 3) In my response, I indicated--by the use of a bold-faced "c" in citing the definitiion by Webster's Third New International Dictionary--that those oppossing me fully intended to use dogma pejoratively. They did so initially and have done so throughout this exchange. They have every right to do that, but no amount of spinning can disguise their intent.

It is interesting to me that you claim, here, to be able to divine my intent even in the face of my stated intent and general practice. I provided you a host of definitions, from a myriad of sources, equating "doctrine" and "dogma" without any inherently pejorative connotation. A cursory reading of my posts will demonstrate the term or terms I use when I intend opprobrium; "dogma" is not one of them. Your highlighted statement is incorrect, and unsupportable; you should withdraw it, amend it, or apologize.

For any sect, "dogma" = "doctrine".

 

[Foster Zygote]

For the record: 1) It was Foster Z, in Post 6545, who was among the first to use the word "dogma." He wrote: "I'm sorry, but just quoting a bunch of dogma as though it is self-evidently true doesn't qualify as evidence of the truth of your doctrine. . . ." It is clear from the context that Foster Z was using a form of the third definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary when he wrote "dogma." 2) RF, in Post 6532, wrote that "Dogma is not per se pejorative" and "LDS doctrine is dogma by definition." Both statements are reckless conjecture. In the first statement, RF found it necessary to insert the disclaimer per se to justify his claim. He was well aware of the negativity associated with dogma. 3) In my response, I indicated--by the use of a bold-faced "c" in citing the definitiion by Webster's Third New International Dictionary--that those oppossing me fully intended to use dogma pejoratively. They did so initially and have done so throughout this exchange. They have every right to do that, but no amount of spinning can disguise their intent.

You're still running away from the issue.

 

[skyrider44]

Mormons have a set of principles (principles you have stated) that they believe were laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That's NOT going to change.

• You have stated dogma.
• By your own definition what you stated was dogma.
• Whether the word can be used pejoratively or even whether or not it was is entirely beside the point.

It's a silly semantic rhetorical device that does not advance the discussion and utterly fails to address any points.

The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.

 

[Quinn]

The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.

If by "succeeded" you mean "demonstrated to your own satisfaction and no one else's," then yes, yes you have.

 

[Amazer]

The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.

Congratulations, and here's your medal!

Now would be a good time to address those other points FZ and RF raised.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.

No. The word "dogma" was used descriptively. You took offense without reason, deciding that you knew, better than the poster who used the term, what the poster's intent "really" was. Your error has been pointed out to you by several.

Do you intend to address any of the issues and questions put to you, or are you simply going to pretend to be a victim.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The Book of Mormon was KJV fan fiction

Perfect!

 

[RandFan]

The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.

Then apply for Randi's Million Dollar challenge because apparently now you can read minds.

No skyrider, you have done absolutely no such thing. And assuming for the sake of argument that you had, if, "IF", you had, it still would not change anything. This isn't a court of law. There are no rules of evidence. You came here and cited dogma. That's a point of fact, not someone's mental state which is arguable at best.

But I see you are still busy hand waving, dodging and ducking to avoid the issues.

Like I said before, poor form.

 

[kerikiwi]

The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.

No, it was not.
No, it was not.
Yes, you did.
No, you have not.

 

[gabeygoat]

Is there a way to ignore a thread?

 

[skyrider44]

No. The word "dogma" was used descriptively.

Hmmm. . .a criminal's rap sheet describes his crimes. Do you think that documentation, which is certainly descriptive, is positive? "Dogma," as used in this discussion, was descriptive while being pejorative and prejudical. You seek to neutralize "dogma." The context in which it is used by you and others hereon makes that impossible.

You took offense without reason, deciding that you knew, better than the poster who used the term, what the poster's intent "really" was. Your error has been pointed out to you by several.

He has admitted what his intent was; read his post.

Do you intend to address any of the issues and questions put to you, or are you simply going to pretend to be a victim.

Reminds me of that old line. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

 

[skyrider44]

Then apply for Randi's Million Dollar challenge because apparently now you can read minds.

No need to read minds, just text.

 

[RandFan]

No need to read minds, just text.

To use a term pejoratively requires intent. Intent is a state of mind. But let's be intellectually honest here for a moment, there are certain combinations of words that are obviously pejorative, this isn't one of those incidents.

But, I give you kudos for being able to milk this pity party out for as long as you have. Like I said, even if it were pejorative, which Zygote says it wasn't and he is a reasonable person, it WOULD NOT MATTER.

Your "prejudicial" claim, whatever that is supposed to mean in the context of a discussion forum, is silly and absurd, there are no rules of evidence here. Only rules for civility and customs of form. If you think Foster was being uncivil then report him. Otherwise you are OT, hand waving and dodging the issues.

 

[RandFan]

Reminds me of that old line. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

You are the one protesting such a trivial statement. If your point isn't to play the victim then what is it? If your point isn't to sidestep the issues and put others on the defensive (which you have achieved to some degree) then what is it?

I'm sorry skyrider but the gentleman doth protest too much.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hmmm. . .a criminal's rap sheet describes his crimes. Do you think that documentation, which is certainly descriptive, is positive?

As with most legal issues, context is all. What does the "rap sheet" list? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Victimless crimes?
Is the "rap sheet" accurate?
What bearing have they on the issue being tried?

(As an aside, if a person wants not to have her "rap sheet" used against her, not committing crimes in the first place is a great place to start...)

"Dogma," as used in this discussion, was descriptive while being pejorative and prejudical. You seek to neutralize "dogma." The context in which it is used by you and others hereon makes that impossible.

Um, no. You continue to tell this lie, and it does not get any truer from your repetition.

Go back and read the definitions, all the definitions, of the word. look at the sources that list "dogma" and "doctrine" as synonyms.

Then explain why your contentious, cherry-picked falsehood is more luminous that the poster's stated intent.

In other words, you continue to pretend that you are more aware than the poster who used the term of what the poster meant, over and against the poster's explanation...

And you are going to continue to claim that the one definition you prefer is normative and prescriptive over all others, even the ones you left out of the very link you cited...

He has admitted what his intent was; read his post.

It was you who decided that the accurate term, "dogma", was intended as denigration
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9479557#post9479557
(despite the actual meaning of the trem as defined by multiple sources).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9480242#post9480242

Foster Zygote addressed your mischaracterization of the accurate term, "dogma" as inherently pejorative.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9481240#post9481240

In other words, yes: Foster Zygote "admitted" that it was his intent to use the term accurately and correctly--and you are the only source of the idea that Foster Zygote intended opprobrium. It seems you are claiming to know, better than Foster Zygote does, what he meant by accurately using the correct term.

Reminds me of that old line. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Reminds me of the fact that you are, as is your habit, failing to address substantive issues by derailing the thread at every possible opportunity.

Do you intend to address any substance?

There are many, many questions you have failed to address.