Yes -- that was clear enough to me, which was I pointed out that very aspect to you, which is how the discussion over a particular verse went a bit sideways, and where seeing a statement made by daniel1212 in the midst of such as that (dan-the-man, or dan-the-freeperman I may refer to him,in the future) brought reply from yourself.
Now as to the related discussion there --- and I knew you would go there --- I saw it all as it unfolded, and knew the solution just as I saw the problems as they arose also.
So the lecturing tone taken towards myself is both superfluous and not needful, nor helpful either to myself at this juncture.
As I had asked of you;
stressing there in bold the word dictated which as I did take pains to point out, holds a particular meaning, particularly in regards to canon -- for if a thing be dictated and thus faithfully recorded, and those words coming from and/or by the Holy Spirit, then that would make the writing be equal to the being word of God, resulting in some unspecified document being written by Gregory as direct transcription of the same.
Yet as to where the Church teaches that Gregory wrote as dictated by the Holy Spirit, you replied to me;
So it was YOU who was "pointing out the detail". Am I getting that correct?
Now beneath the image (of an ornate carving) displayed in your own comment #312 were the exact words;
which I initially took to be your own words of description.
Checking a bit more thoroughly while composing here reply, I see that the image is separate from the words both above and below the image, as they are also when using my browser and opening "view image info", copying from there it's location, and opening it in another window or tab, there is the image only, with no textual information included with the image itself as it would visibly appear. All of which confirms that it was you who wrote the words seen below the image in reply #312, or if not, would leave only a copy/paste function for the sentence isolated from the image, which would have necessitated being deliberately undertaken in regards to the textual information (below the image) all of which would results in having you, yourself making or presenting claim that this Gregory the Great (otherwise known as St. Gregory I, who was indeed once the bishop of Rome --thus a Latin church "pope") was as was being depicted in the ornate carving (a wonderful and masterful carving it is) again copy/pasting directly from the words found beneath that image, indicated by you to be; "... writing as the Holy Spirit dictated"
But now you seem to be telling me you are not saying that the Holy Spirit was dictating what Gregory was depicted to being then writing...but that, as you now say when called on it, and what was conveyed as "truth" concerning the image and the words both; ;
So now -- it's more "art" which "has it's own language" but the "dictated by the Holy Spirit" language or words initially put there by YOU -- are now also backed away from by referring to is as being merely "inspired".
Where in the "language of Art" (capital "A" art, we should all take note) is there some difference between "dictated by" and "inspired by" that could apply those meanings being so interchangeable in regards to the Holy Spirit itself?
I don't think there is such a consideration -- even in "the language of Art". Stop making things up, and own up to your own words -- and what those words mean.
Then --- you could well enough (and simply enough --easy-peasy, no problemo whatsoever in regards to my own self) more openly admit first that the word dictate went too far (for as you confessed, the church ecclesiastical body which is the Roman Catholic church does not teach Gregory wrote "by dictate of the Holy Spirit", after which you could then adjust your own words to the lesser "inspired".
There is significant difference between the two words "dictate" and "inspire", as I took the trouble to stress & underline.
Why is this so difficult? It's always like this. All this squirming around. It is why I need write like a prosecuting attorney -- to keep people from wriggling away from their own words -- or shifty-shift pretending they don't meqan what they obviously enough do -- and the tow words in question --- holding precise theological definition and usages. They are NOT interchangeable.
Even when or if we use the phrase "inspired by the Holy Spirit" only in regards to Gregory, the question there remains -- does this inspiration of the Holy Spirit (no less) extend to all which he wrote? Every letter? How about every sermon-like teaching of Gregory's (of which there are more than a few that have been transmitted down to us in this day) of which I can read for myself -- thanks to Protestants like Schaff there at the last mile of transmission-line. Not all of those one would think (after reading them) would fully lend themselves to being among "inspired" written works, but more precisely while we are still being generous enough toward the man (hopefully) most all would be better classified as written by a man informed by faith and tradition, and I would like to add (in my own opinion) informed and influenced by the Holy Spirit. Thus are the doctors more accurately spoken of (in official RCC teachings) or so I have been led to believe, rather than spoken of as writing under the[direct] inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for terminology such as "influenced and led by" has definition varying and being something lesser than as directly "inspired"much less "as dictated by".
If there is a problem with that -- then we will return to Gregory and what he did write, to investigate in close detail what he wrote that would be so problematic for papists -- if you insist on terming all of his writings "inspired".
Your choice. Choose carefully.
To return to your own reply towards myself, in your own closing communication -- after speaking of yourself posting to the FR RF,
you have the nerve to speak of Protestants
The very phrase which in my initial reply to you concerning the words which you included as informational & instructive beneath the image --- came not from the RCC as to their own regard -- but from your own mind, from "inside your own head". Is that not true?
Unless you be bringing whatever it is from the RCC magesterium in words found there --- then your own arguments would themselves be "coming from your head" if just to suffer rewrite.
As you did say --- you write much as to the teachings "as you understand them".
But after terming dan-the-man an "internet babbler" fail to show yourself in actuality any better -- for daniel quite often sources his work well, leaving himself to be bringing support for the greater bulk of what he writes, but may have been wandering somewhat in his conversation with the other poster -- who had by slight mis-worded mistake of her own (entirely forgivable) had begun the distraction...
By which I mean -- if he is a "babbler" any beyond the single consideration he was momentarily mistaken for -- but admitted to some error allowing himself to be corrected -- then what does that make yourself, when having committed a possible slight (one word out of place -- not belonging --- put in place of another more precise but still questionable in application -- even according to RCC teachings and attitudes towards "doctors" who inform, but themselves not write that which be equal in inspiration to such as Paul's writings, in comparison OF "inspiration") but a yet worse babbler who himself misleads by writing from "the thoughts in his own head" but will scarcely admit to being in error when called on it? Dictated by The Holy Spirit -- "the language of Art" my foot.
In other words -- get real. I'm not interested in the continual self-justification act. Just stick with the info, and spare the broad-brush insult commentary so that I not be continually forced to respond also to that, which is just so much your own opinions coming across as flame-bait.
Would showing where Mormonism teaches that GOD led Joseph Smith to re-'translate' the KJV of the Bible help any?
Yes. I know this carving, searched for it and attached my own words describing it.
now you seem to be telling me you are not saying that the Holy Spirit was dictating
I am fine with "dictating". The pope was writing always behind a curtain. A scribe or a servant decided to peek in, and saw something that he interpreted as the Holy Ghost whispering to the Pope. Depending how literally you take this story, you can also say "dictated". The use of the word does not imply "canonical" though.
Where in the "language of Art" (capital "A" art, we should all take note) is there some difference between "dictated by" and "inspired by" that could apply those meanings being so interchangeable in regards to the Holy Spirit itself?
Medieval art is concrete in its methods: it does not, for example, rely on naturalistic depiction of emotion through the features of the human face or body. So when a medieval artist takes up the task of depicting inspiration by the Holy Ghost, he will show a dove whispering in (or at least leaning toward) the ear. Likewise, for example, St. Lucy is shown holding up her eyes in her hand, as well as looking at the faithful with another pair of eyes in their natural place, -- not to suggest that she gouged her own eyes but to give a concrete representation of her voluntarily submitting herself to torture. Make a habit of looking at sacred art and avoid anything later than, say, 18 c. and gradually the art will speak to you. Good question, thanks.
I need write like a prosecuting attorney
Yes. Very common among your co-religionists: Protestantism always seeks to destroy something.
from your own mind
Of course. I have the mind so I use it. But I check back with the Church Whose mind I intend to share.