Use of Church authority in rhetorical discussions

[Tex]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

If you dislike the poster, the citation is handled poorly. Otherwise, it's brilliantly done.

Yeah, I think that about sums it up.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Absolutely incorrect. If you wish to see how not to use authority, look at Tex or Indy. In their usage, they will cite some partial statement by a Church authority, and then pause to imply anybody who seeks a broader understanding of the context of the statement or who can think of a contrary example is nothing but an apostate.

Pelagius on the other hand, if you read any of his lesson notes, uses authority not to force just one conclusion but to give pause for consideration. Note the example when Pelagius cited the D. Michael Quinn article on women already having the priesthood. Quinn is probably a bad example, but he carefully cited a noted historian, not even claiming he agreed with the paper for us to consider an alternative view.

None of the triad cites for the purposes of instilling debate, but rather the squelch debate under the authority card that since the Triad cited "god's authority" all other authority is apostate. When in fact, there is diverse opinion within the Quorum of Twelve itself.

I'm trying really hard not to be my normal sarcastic self here, but it's hard to restrain. Apparently Indy and I are being criticized for not giving "pause for consideration" ... and the best example Archaea's got is the use of a "noted" but also quite apostate historian.

Forgive me for not quoting more apostates in making my theological arguments.

I cite authorities because it supports the position I advocate. As I said in the other thread, if you feel otherwise, feel free to do the same. Typically, you don't. You instead do a tap dance trying to explain why what they said or wrote doesn't really mean what they said or wrote.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yeah, I think that about sums it up.



I'm trying really hard not to be my normal sarcastic self here, but it's hard to restrain. Apparently Indy and I are being criticized for not giving "pause for consideration" ... and the best example Archaea's got is the use of a "noted" but also quite apostate historian.

Forgive me for not quoting more apostates in making my theological arguments.

I cite authorities because it supports the position I advocate. As I said in the other thread, if you feel otherwise, feel free to do the same. Typically, you don't. You instead do a tap dance trying to explain why what they said or wrote doesn't really mean what they said or wrote.

I don't need to cite authority because I can think for myself. You apparently can only rely crudely upon misplaced partial quotations.

[Archaea]

Here is a deft use of authority for discussion purposes.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8327

Notice, Pelagius uses many authorities and very few to ram home a point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So every single post by those you listed contains exactly what you are talking about.

Good to know.

Look, if you don't want to take three seconds to find an example and help me understand what you're talking about, I am forced to assume you're blowing smoke.

Citations of authority have nothing to do with how they are presented and everything with who is presenting them.

If you dislike the poster, the citation is handled poorly. Otherwise, it's brilliantly done.

Sheesh, Lingo. Why such defensiveness? All I did in this thread was list three or four posters whose posts I typically respect and enjoy. What's the problem?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Sheesh, Lingo. Why such defensiveness? All I did in this thread was list three or four posters whose posts I typically respect and enjoy. What's the problem?

I guess being called lazy by someone who is being deliberately vague makes me defensive.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I guess being called lazy by someone who is being deliberately vague makes me defensive.

Aha... The "I am the real victim here" approach. Gotcha.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Aha... The "I am the real victim here" approach. Gotcha.

I'm not a victim. I just don't want to be held responsible for being tactless when no one bothers to explain the correct way to act.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I'm not a victim. I just don't want to be held responsible for being tactless when no one bothers to explain the correct way to act.

Fair enough. Consider yourself irresponsible.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I'm not a victim. I just don't want to be held responsible for being tactless when no one bothers to explain the correct way to act.

see my post from Pelagius.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Absolutely incorrect. If you wish to see how not to use authority, look at Tex or Indy. In their usage, they will cite some partial statement by a Church authority, and then pause to imply anybody who seeks a broader understanding of the context of the statement or who can think of a contrary example is nothing but an apostate.

You mean like those who use Harold B Lee's prediction/prophecy that blacks wouldn't get the priesthood during his lifetime as ironclad proof that he was racist?