Jump to content

Canadiandude

Members
  • Posts

    286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Canadiandude's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Reacting Well Rare

Recent Badges

153

Reputation

  1. My accusation was that there appears to be a disconnect between your scholastic expectations for the FAIR article vs. the Wikipedia article, both of which are volunteer based. I took issue with the fact that you dedicated less space to critically appraise the lack of peer-review and scholarly consultation, compared to how you’ve approached victim accounts which undermine the article. My words like yours were also hedged in ‘may’ and ‘might’. ~ I acknowledge that the ‘like’ comment is by itself insufficient. Words. Space. What we’re willing to overlook vs. take issue with. These are choices that matter.
  2. Feeling deep outrage right now. Like…temple-clearing-Jesus outrage.
  3. If the FAIR article would not pass muster, would I be amiss then, to expect equal if not greater criticism by yourself on the article’s lack of research ethics and academic rigour? Yesterday you literally just ‘liked’ a poor defence of FAIR’s lack of scholarly peer-review and consultation, on account of it being volunteer-based. So yeah, you might have a bias, but I wouldn’t call it in favour of actual scholarship. If you can’t bring yourself to advocate more forcefully for greater validity, reliability, and ethics in FAIR research, esp. on such an important and painful subject, well, that’s interesting. Edit: punctuation.
  4. I’m confused. If making ‘stuff’ publicly accessible is the goal, shouldn’t we expect an organization like FAIR to first consult with, and ask for feedback from credible, external scholars on said ‘stuff’?? Like, if the ‘stuff’ warrants greater public accessibility, why would we wish any less rigorous a process when confirming and declaring said ‘stuff’, and why wouldn’t accredited academics be the ones to lead out in that dissemination? FAIR presents itself as a credible authority on the matters on which it opines, but if that credibility is unwarranted then it ought to instead seek out and defer to those whom are leading scholars in their respective fields, and follow a rigorous process of peer-review. ~ This is especially important when the ‘stuff’ in question revolves around a marginalized community, and their treatment at the hands of powerful institutions. Basic research ethics alone should direct the author(s) and publisher to seek credible academic feedback from scholars on the subject. If FAIR asked and represented the feedback fairly, I’m sure that the aforementioned scholars and scholarly institutions would love to offer feedback to the organization. Research validity and reliability are no less crucial for volunteer organizations, esp when they seek to explain an academic institution’s historical treatment of minorities.
  5. Then try publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal on the matter. Ask for feedback from the Mormon Social Science Association, Mormon History Association, respected academics like Dr.’s Petrey or Benjamin Park. If FAIR is a scholarly institution, and wishes for robust feedback, then they should start by first asking their accredited peers.
  6. Payne Papers: http://prologuegaymormons.com/the-book/ More about the Payne Papers: https://www.qsaltlake.com/news/2010/12/23/the-payne-papers/ Furthermore, and as discussed in another post on this forum- It is unconscionable for Pres. Oaks to publicly deny, in a public forum, that aversion therapy occurred under his tenure without verifying the matter first. The Salt Lake Tribune followed up with the church in clarification later after his account was demonstrated to be incorrect. Neither the church nor Pres. Oaks corrected the statement.
  7. I think regional differences to how the handbook is put into practice will only become more consequential as time progresses. -and then there are intergenerational differences that will have a powerful impact as well.
  8. The Karen’s be at each other. I’ve faced enough hostility from your opponent in this conversation on other threads to cause me to be a lil unsure of whom to root for here. But I confess, I think you could try to understand what’s going through you’re friend’s mind. edit: I think your accuser could also sometimes use that selfsame empathy on this forum a little more. I believe people who leave the church (such as myself) require empathy, and careful boundaries for everyone involved (yourself included), followed by points of mutually shared interests. I understand that you feel deeply betrayed by your friend. So also do those who leave, and who are doubtful of the church’s claims feel as far as the church is concerned. We often contend that the church betrayed us. Lied to us. Spread demonstrably false things about ourselves and our experiences. If I may: I suggest reading some interview-based scholarly studies on member, non-member, and ex-member interactions within and re: the church. Historical and contemporary. A birds eye-view can be most helpful.
  9. Um. No. That’d be mixing religion in the affairs of the state and the police department ought to remain secular in its reasoning to the public. Keep ‘your mitts off Mormon girls’ unless the girls (Mormon or otherwise) can and do consent to having sex with you. Period. It’s not the purview of the police dept to declare the existence of any deity, let alone what a hypothetical deity wants.
  10. From what little I’ve read of the situation, it was inappropriate for the police chef to have said that. Each allegation of rape needs to be taken seriously.
  11. Did I claim otherwise? My statement about us having to agree to disagree is my acknowledgement that my argument is unlikely to convince you or anyone here. We speak of reason. There’s an entire thread already dedicated to that subject. Let be clear: My anger need not necessarily cloud my judgment if the arguments concerning the evidence (and lack of evidence) hold, and I would warn that your own count-arguments are likewise susceptible to claims of being emotionally charged and more informed by assumptions and biases than fact. What makes a person’s spiritual, elevated emotions legitimate, but anger disorientating? I’d argue that neither by themselves necessarily demonstrate much. What makes the special pleading on behalf of Brigham Young’s racism so sufficient and different so as to legitimate his prophethood despite his racism- as opposed to similar special pleading argued (by the privileged) to this day, on behalf of the legitimacy of planners and agents behind Canada’s residential school system(s)? Are you really prepared to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt regarding polygamy, and the ecclesiastical pressure he used to accomplish such? On what evidentiary grounds? How does one differentiate Joseph Smith’s behaviour from similar lascivious practices by other self- proclaimed holy men, and are you prepared to offer them the same benefit of the doubt? Yes, no, on what grounds? From your perspective my perspective is biased? You’ve mentioned previously how privilege often informs the Latter-Day Saint mansplaining of polygamy. I would ask you. Why would the consequences of positionality stop there? You contend my view as likely informed by bias but have you sufficiently examined your own privileges and reasoning? My language was specific. ’Lazy learners’, Podium Comandeering, angry disobedient ‘children’, these phrases and tropes are not new. They all have been used extremely recently by church leaders. What makes a question honest or dishonest? Reasonable or unreasonable? Asking for falsifiable, valid, & reliable evidence for a claim is reasonable. Furthermore, why would the church’s leadership be absolved from consideration or viewed as somehow separate and distinct from the church? Would we reasonably absolve from examination the language, biases, interests and actions of institutional leaders when examining the phenomenon of systemic discrimination? Would we not examine what is both routinely practiced as well as taught? I grew up in a culture very much influenced by arguments such as those expressed in ‘the mantle is far, far greater than the intellect’. That ‘to obey is better than to sacrifice’. That it is ‘wrong to criticize the Brethren even when such criticisms are true’. That the Lord would remove a prophet before letting them lead the church astray (red flags re: falsifiability?!) Senior church leadership have an extremely powerful role in determining church practices, teachings, and culture. They claim exclusive & divine authority, as well as insight, so yes, I think it fair to expect them not to be merely be ‘men of their time’, and to act and think in such ways at least as selflessly and as carefully as the best and brightest that their generation has to offer. But the church and its leaders have not historically been on the forefront in supporting civil rights, human equity, or even equality. The church (and its leaders) have also been fairly resistant to making and updating claims that reflect valid and reliable processes, and what is known so far from the historical record. How are we to trust and/or have any good-faith dialogue with a church that does not apologize for its errors, and won’t acknowledge when it misrepresents the historical record? (Oaks and BYU conversion therapy as just one small example) Why would we discount the leadership’s actions, consequences, or methodologies when they have such an outsized control over church policies, doctrines, and culture? ~ While I acknowledge your argument in receiving positive, spiritual affirmations in support your faith and it’s legitimacy- without better demonstration as to the validity and reliability of the church’s claims, apologetics on behalf of past/current church doctrines & practices come off as special pleading to those of us looking in. So what makes my anger disorientating but your elevated emotions evidence? How do Latter-Day Saint claims and practices compare with those of other institutions? ~ I say all this without any expectation that my words will convince anyone, but if we’re going to talk about emotions, biases, and failures of reasoning, then let’s discuss these eh? My emotions are def responses to evidence and the lack thereof, but I don’t treat these emotions as evidences in and of themselves.
  12. I think I understand what you are saying although I’m not exactly in agreement. A lot of harm can be done in and through anger, but I’m not convinced that my argument is necessarily impeded by it. To what extent do our intentions matter? Why or in what way? When I read the accounts of Residential School survivors and administrators here in Canada- I can find much evidence of ‘good’ intentions with some pretty fallacious and harmful assumptions/interests underlying these. Maybe Brigham Young sincerely did believe that Blacks were not divinely sanctioned to receive the church’s saving ordinances in his day. Maybe Joseph Smith truly did think that God wanted him to marry each and every woman that he did, including accounts of threatening angels and divine rewards/punishments. There are sexually-abusive and/or racially-prejudiced people today that believe similarly. I’ve met and read a few of these. But Isn’t it convenient that my country’s attempted assimilation of Indigenous Peoples would have ultimately served colonial interests? That prophetic, polygamous marriages (often) included sexual relations, and expanded that man’s access to additional partners? That the priesthood ban supported, and was originally couched through the language of racial supremacy? ~ I’m not saying that your argument nec is an example of tone policing, but I struggle to understand how my anger weakens my argument here. It isn’t enough to have good intentions. We can find examples of people now, and during the age of (many a modern) prophet, who were much more consequential than they their careful study of what can be known re: existence, and/or in serving on behalf of marginalized interests. We are all responsible for critically appraising the methodologies and interests by which our claims our built, and then humbly communicating to others how valid/reliable these are relative to other kinds methodologies and claims. We are also accountable for the consequences of our actions, and must therefore be diligent in considering what these might be. ~ There’s another interesting dilemma too though, as the church has often ascribed negative motivations, descriptions, and phenomena to members and nonmembers that think & believe differently. We are prideful. lazy learners. Overly critical. Disobedient. Commandeers of podiums. Selfish. So-called. We wanted to sin. Get gain. Destroy the church. While (I think/hope) this language is slowly decreasing, it remains very much present within the church’s current narrative. And this is true, even despite the fact that the church has yet to substantiate the validity and reliability of many of its claims. “If we have the truth…” ~ I acknowledge that we might have to agree to disagree. I would contend that the church’s intentions don’t nec outweigh the consequences, methods, and/or evidences by which it operates, and has operated in the past. Our own self-serving interests can also be gilded over by these seemingly-good intentions, and even then- we again have to examine the methods, evidences, and consequences of what we actually do with these intents. I struggle to rule out the null hypothesis here. The church just isn’t very distinguishable from any other church in terms of evidentiary-legitimacy, and I’m at the point now where I seriously question divinity’s existence. (Sorry not meant as an attack. Just wish to be frank)
  13. Your falsifiable, valid and reliable evidence for the ‘fact’ of true prophets? Some of us have been waiting for a long time for y’all to demonstrate this.
  14. There are few words for this sense of betrayal. Impersonal yet intimate, it screams across ever nerve and fibre of my being. That the heaven I fought for and dedicated my life towards has no answers thus far, no space for people like us- unless we accept the roles we are told to play. ~ What a terrible thing to realize that the very power-plays, tactics, and tricks I learned from classical Realist theory in International Relations explains much of religion’s internal dynamics. That it is about power. Order. Stability. Finding answers that suffice. All for the maintenance of those that control and seek such control. Armies. Navies. False priests and tyrants. A truth, and a scream, that echoes down your entire being. It was never about you- or even most people really.
  15. Welcome! There are a few critical Christians, non-Christians, and even Nones here too. I would consider myself the latter.
×
×
  • Create New...