Thoughts on conference

[Jake Starkey]

"urban legend" in the rural lower South?

[Hamba Tuhan]

44 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

"urban legend" in the rural lower South?

A term the meaning of which has evolved far beyond what its name implies: 'An urban legend is a fictional story rooted in modern popular culture. You can think of urban legends as today’s folklore—just like traditional folktales, they are based on real parts of culture and often real people; however, in most cases the details have been exaggerated, ultimately making the stories false'.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Not to mention absolutely no proof of the supposed father in law of the supposed whomever.

Absolute proof, no.  But BG has been a long, long time poster who has consistently presently his backstory and relationships. That establishes credibility when he states a close relative with a background he provides said something. (****We know BG, he knows the source very well, provides solid reasons why his source would be substantive if true....a local leader with access to members and relevant data in the time period needed)

OTOH, you have been on the forum a short time.  Not really long enough to see what you do with documentation (how accurate you are at paraphrasing and thus relaying information given you, for one thing) or to establish credibility about who you are through being consistent in the details you provide of your personal life.  If you are using your real name where we might check your social media or postings elsewhere, you can probably establish yourself quicker as you are who you claim to be than those of us who use aliases are able to. (****Thus we only sort of know you, we have no knowledge of how you know the young missionary and if you can even vouch for him; if source were as claimed, he has firsthand knowledge which would be excellent.)

He provides several details to flesh out why he believes the individual (he knows him in real life's has a longterm personal relationship with him, knows of his callings in the Church that would give him access to data on the subject).  Otoh, you have provided no details iirc of how you know the young missionary (could be a total stranger to you making the claim on the internet) though you have provided details about those who told you the up to 50% loss (acquaintances you knew in the rural while living among them for a number of years, iirc).  That last comment I give much more credibility to as you provide a foundation of why you believe them that is credible.  You have not done so for the alleged young missionary's concrete story for some reason, so I see that as not credible.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Calm

[Jake Starkey]

Does not matter how long or how short anyone has posted here (fallacious appeal to authority).

Does not matter what others believe is credible here.

What matters has the poster been true to the material he or she has posted.

I am the only one who has posted factual evidence that leakage did happen in the Salt Lake valley of all places.

One other person and I, having experience in the lower South, have told you certain things that we have been told.  I could care less whether you believe it, because if you don't what I was told never goes away.

The problem for some here, I think, is that they have trouble thinking the LDS could be racists in the South before being LDS.  Yet they know, those who live here in the Valley, that racism against Mexicans, Asians, Polynesians, along with the Blacks, was common back then in this Valley.

Thus, the issue then belongs to them not me.  I am not carrying their load.

The version of what I have written that others have created in their own mind is not my responsibility.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Calm]

On 10/14/2019 at 8:02 PM, Jake Starkey said:

Does not matter how long or how short anyone has posted here.  

Does not matter what others believe is credible here.

You appear to see the purpose of the board differently than I do and others I suspect.

You can't really educate/inform people by just throwing out assertions and claiming they are true without providing anyway for others to test the assertion.  That is, imo, asking for blind faith.

As far as believing members could be racists, I have no doubt many were (my grandparents were at times excruciating examples of members' prejudice to me and my siblings) and are (I was shocked as a leader of AD to hear a few years ago young girl repeat a family joke she saw as hilarious which was over the top racist, the three leaders there including myself attempted to counsel her to avoid politics at church as members had different views and it could cause hurt feelings and even more so that making such jokes dehumanizing others who were also children of God was not showing charity; we had to be careful on how we phrased it as she likely didn't understand the implications of the joke and was a sensitive girl and we didn't want her to feel humiliated in front of her friends).

I just prefer to see solid documentation before I use claims in conversations with others.  At this point, I will never use your claim about the concrete though may repeat with appropriate conditions attached of information being from personal observations and interactions the claim of significant drops in some areas of the rural lower South just as I will repeat what I consider as reliable claims of other areas that had difficulties for a time (most notably South Africa) as well as the AUB letter and changes to their group as that has been reported by multiple sources including a couple of historians I know.

Quote

The version of what I have written that you have created in your own mind is not my responsibility.

So you have provided information about the concrete source that allows us to know whether it is someone you can vouch for or not?

Edited October 16, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

 

I am the only one who has posted factual evidence that leakage did happen in the Salt Lake valley of all places

 

 

 

There have always been apostate and schismatic groups flourishing in the Salt Lake Valley. This is where the Jeffs group originated, for crying out loud. That a few fundamentalists here would use the 1978 revelation as an excuse to go full-scale apostate and rush into the ranks of one of these groups is not remarkable.

Quote

The problem for some here, I think, is that they have trouble thinking the LDS could be racists in the South before being LDS.  Yet they know, those who live here in the Valley, that racism against Mexicans, Asians, Polynesians, along with the Blacks, was common back then in this Valley.

There's racism everywhere. But I was raised in the Salt Lake Valley and was a returned missionary living here in 1978. The racism that was here then was not as "common" as you are letting on.

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

No, the father in law is no more authoritative than my missionary and some/many others who have discussed this with me.  Why?  Because the readers are relying on you and me for validity and correctness, and neither of us have first hand knowledge.

In fact, though, by your standards, my info is far more acceptable than yours,  because I have some/many than your only one.

Your sources, please.  When I asked for yours, you gave me the father in law of some one.  I gave you  the missionary plus others.

You merely quarrel now because you are behind on offered material.

 

😂

[Jake Starkey]

 You all have a good day.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

 You all have a good day.

Thus sayeth the drone attacker.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

 You all have a good day.

Stick around Jake! I value different opinions. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Tacenda

[Jake Starkey]

Of course I will stick around, Tacenda.  People are uncomfortable at times to realize that all they have to refute challenges to their beliefs is what they 'figure' is right, so since their reaction is personal they at times react personally (see above).  I think we all do that to various extent. 

An issue here is that people who have not lived for some time in the lower South have no idea what the culture is like.  And the urban lower South cities are unlike the rural cities culturally when it comes to religion and race.

My brother this morning verified that when he spent the early 80s on a mission to Sulphur Springs, Quitman, Gilmer, etc. (north of Tyler) in East Texas they directed some of their energy to finding and activating some who had run away because of the lifting of the ban.  They had some success.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[longview]

3 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

- - - rural cities - - -

Contradiction in terms?  How about rural hamlets?

[Jake Starkey]

Good catch!  Some are hamlets, some are villages and towns.  The two largest 'cities', for instance, between the two corridors (Dallas to Shreveport) (Houston to Lake Charles) in East Texas are Nacogdoches and Lufkin, each around thirty thousand.  Yes, a lot of East Texas and the lower South are Evening Shade-esque.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Storm Rider]

20 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Does not matter how long or how short anyone has posted here (fallacious appeal to authority).

Does not matter what others believe is credible here.

What matters has the poster been true to the material he or she has posted.

I am the only one who has posted factual evidence that leakage did happen in the Salt Lake valley of all places.

One other person and I, having experience in the lower South, have told you certain things that we have been told.  I could care less whether you believe it, because if you don't what I was told never goes away.

The problem for some here, I think, is that they have trouble thinking the LDS could be racists in the South before being LDS.  Yet they know, those who live here in the Valley, that racism against Mexicans, Asians, Polynesians, along with the Blacks, was common back then in this Valley.

Thus, the issue then belongs to them not me.  I am not carrying their load.

The version of what I have written that others have created in their own mind is not my responsibility.

Okay, Jake, get off the high horse. Not a single person has stated that no one left the church after the 1978 Revelation. In fact, it is quite the opposite, there were some members that left. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that you stated that up to 50% of members left in the south. That is what everyone has reacted to - it is an exaggeration, a gross exaggeration. 

Evidence has been provided that refutes that concept. No, baptisms did not magically appear to counter the ghosts that ran out the door as you have suggested. Baptisms did not spike during those years. 

Just retract the statement; acknowledge that some Mormons left and move on. We have beat this stupid little pig to death.

A piece of advice, that a quarter will still not buy you a cup of coffee anywhere in the USA, - being so recalcitrant when clearly wrong does not lend confidence to perceiving you as a neutral participant, but rather one that has an axe to grind. 

This board is not filled with extremists of either side. Rather it is a group that is quite open minded and more than capable of knowing, learning, and understanding Church history. Give yourself some time and you will come to understand that and trust others. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That is what everyone has reacted to - it is an exaggeration, a gross exaggeration. 

Not me, I am reacting to the concrete claim. 

[Jake Starkey]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Okay, Jake, get off the high horse. Not a single person has stated that no one left the church after the 1978 Revelation. In fact, it is quite the opposite, there were some members that left. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that you stated that up to 50% of members left in the south. That is what everyone has reacted to - it is an exaggeration, a gross exaggeration. 

Evidence has been provided that refutes that concept. No, baptisms did not magically appear to counter the ghosts that ran out the door as you have suggested. Baptisms did not spike during those years. 

Just retract the statement; acknowledge that some Mormons left and move on. We have beat this stupid little pig to death.

A piece of advice, that a quarter will still not buy you a cup of coffee anywhere in the USA, - being so recalcitrant when clearly wrong does not lend confidence to perceiving you as a neutral participant, but rather one that has an axe to grind. 

This board is not filled with extremists of either side. Rather it is a group that is quite open minded and more than capable of knowing, learning, and understanding Church history. Give yourself some time and you will come to understand that and trust others. 

Step down, Storm Rider, and reprise what I wrote correctly, please.  I said that I had been told by members that up to 50% in some lower South branches left and that leakage in the urban South was almost non-existent, not that 50% in the South left, which is a gross and perhaps deliberate exaggeration.  Please  don't do that.

No evidence has been presented that refutes my claim, except for a father in law of some relative, while others have supported my claim.  I am the only one that has presented any substantiated evidence on leakage, and that was in the Salt Lake Valley of all places.

That you disagree with me is fine and accepted by me.  But stay with what I wrote and away from personality.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Raingirl]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not me, I am reacting to the concrete claim. 

And there has still been no response to the CFR regarding that detail. But I guess it’s hard to respond to a CFR when you have no documentation to provide. 

Funny that he hasn’t even bothered to provide another somebody-said-something “documentation”. 

[MiserereNobis]

On 10/14/2019 at 8:02 PM, Jake Starkey said:

Does not matter how long or how short anyone has posted here (fallacious appeal to authority).

Yes, it does matter. You've posted hearsay about the south and BG has done the same. Yet, we trust him because we know him. We don't really know you yet so we don't know how trustworthy you are. That's not personal, that's just simple reality. I'm not LDS so I don't care one way or another about the content of the disagreement here, but I've known BG for awhile and I trust him.

Stick around and let us trust you, too. But you've kinda gotten off on the wrong foot here, honestly.

 

Ok, ok, you got me... you're right... I trust BG because he is a Catholic inquisitor and I'm afraid he'll burn me at the stake if I don't sing his praises  

[Jake Starkey]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, it does matter. You've posted hearsay about the south and BG has done the same. Yet, we trust him because we know him. We don't really know you yet so we don't know how trustworthy you are. That's not personal, that's just simple reality. I'm not LDS so I don't care one way or another about the content of the disagreement here, but I've known BG for awhile and I trust him.

Stick around and let us trust you, too. But you've kinda gotten off on the wrong foot here, honestly.

 

Ok, ok, you got me... you're right... I trust BG because he is a Catholic inquisitor and I'm afraid he'll burn me at the stake if I don't sing his praises  

Honestly, I am not worried.  You will learn to trust me, I am sure, but an appeal to authority based on longevity is not impressive.

[SettingDogStar]

11 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Honestly, I am not worried.  You will learn to trust me, I am sure, but an appeal to authority based on longevity is not impressive.

But it’s better then nothing. 

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Honestly, I am not worried.  You will learn to trust me, I am sure, but an appeal to authority based on longevity is not impressive.

You are asking us to trust you and your experiences, which is an appeal to authority, too. And actually (as a sometimes teacher of rhetoric -- notice my appeal to authority), there's nothing inherently wrong with an appeal to authority. It's the appeal to inappropriate authority that's the problem.

If I make a claim about relativistic physics and use Einstein as evidence, it would be ridiculous for someone to fault me with the fallacy of appealing to authority. The dude's an appropriate authority.

So perhaps what we are saying is that BG has given an appropriate appeal to authority -- his relative's stature and standing in the LDS church -- and we believe that what he says is true because we trust that he is not making up a fake father-in-law or falsifying what the father-in-law said.

Sure, it's not 100% perfect, but hey, we're on an internet discussion board, so...

 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Good catch!  Some are hamlets, some are villages and towns.  The two largest 'cities', for instance, between the two corridors (Dallas to Shreveport) (Houston to Lake Charles) in East Texas are Nacogdoches and Lufkin, each around thirty thousand.  Yes, a lot of East Texas and the lower South are Evening Shade-esque.

 

Houston is about to pass Chicago as the third largest city in the US, and that doesn't account for its metropolitan area.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Honestly, I am not worried.  You will learn to trust me, I am sure, but an appeal to authority based on longevity is not impressive.

Absurd.

You're with a group that you have known  for years and some guy off the street walks up and starts giving somebody flak.  I'll take that kind of authority all day long.

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Step down, Storm Rider, and reprise what I wrote correctly, please.  I said that I had been told by members that up to 50% in some lower South branches left and that leakage in the urban South was almost non-existent, not that 50% in the South left, which is a gross and perhaps deliberate exaggeration.  Please  don't do that.

No evidence has been presented that refutes my claim, except for a father in law of some relative, while others have supported my claim.  I am the only one that has presented any substantiated evidence on leakage, and that was in the Salt Lake Valley of all places.

That you disagree with me is fine and accepted by me.  But stay with what I wrote and away from personality.

Attempting to decipher your statement then - it is not the urban south that lost members after the '78 revelation, but "up to 50% in some lower South branches left". Where are these lower south branches? 

I grew up in Bonifay, Florida, a town of about 3,000 members. There is a ward there now, but it was a branch during the period you are talking about. There was no a member that left. Within this Church district was one branch, now a ward, in Liberty County (about 70 miles away). I heard that they lost a few members for a period of time and one of them stayed away. More than happy to provide the name of the current bishop and you can talk to him. 

Our district covered from Tallahassee, Florida westward including southern parts of Georgia and Alabama. Upon my return from my mission, I served as a counselor in our branch. I never heard of any branch or ward anywhere in the south that approached your projection of "up to 50% n some lower South branches".  These are the kinds of things that folks would talk about - it certainly would not be secret.

Can you point to any specific location in the lower South that you are talking about?  

[Jake Starkey]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Absurd.

You're with a group that you have known  for years and some guy off the street walks up and starts giving somebody flak.  I'll take that kind of authority all day long.

Think as you will.  But the fact is that no one has been able to rebut the assertion and I am the only who actually gave a link to a solid third party substantiation of the point.