Mari Murnigham

[TNBu]

I'm not sure how you get "I'm an authority on Mormonism" out of this. Is she correct? Not strictly speaking, but the inaccuracy of this point doesn't undermine her claim that the church was important to HER FAMILY. I think you are reading more into her essay than is warranted. Additionally, I grew up reading books that I can't currently recall the content of (with any real accuracy anyway), so I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt. Also, if her goal was to intentionally deceive-- don't you think she would have done some homework first? Whatever error is in her statement, I'm willing to believe it was an honest mistake.

I suggest you read the entire article

Nope, no appeal to authority there.

I already read the article in its entirety, as indicated. You seem to be confused.

An appeal to unqualified authority is an informal logical fallacy of weak INDUCTION in which an ARGUER cites the questionable authority or testimony of their own person, or that of another in support of a particular conclusion. What you have pointed out is NOT an appeal to authority. She isn't making an argument and asking us to take her word for it because of her family background. She isn't using that statement to bolster her credibility or support factual claims about the church. She didn't make factual claims about the church. There is no argument presented. She only makes mention of her family's church involvement to provide contextual information that gave background information about her personal experience. You may question the credibility of her account based on the fact that years removed from church activity (activity that didn't appear very substantial in the first place) she cannot remember some basic factual information about the Book of Mormon. That is uncharitable, but at least makes a modicum of sense. However, there is NO appeal to authority in the passage because she didn't a.) assert authority, or b.) use asserted authority as a premise for an argument.

Your personal anecdotes are hardly enough to make her inaccuracies (multiple inaccuracies) more credible. If her family were so committed then the time would have been made or found. Those who are active in sports including my own children also have time for seminary, YMYW and all the other activities. The schedule can be tight, but not to miss out in entire years of church activity. Yes, it is very implausible that such would happen.

And no, it isn't a distraction, it goes to credibility of the author. To state her family was "firmly entrenched in church belief" but then not firmly entrenched enough for her to attend the basic seminary, YMYW, sunday school, smells pretty fishy to me. It is a contradiction of environment versus her claims.

I was speaking of the commitment of her family. She makes the base claim her family was committted. Apparently not nearly so much, which is probably the reason she wasn't.

So you're suggesting that children go astray, don't attend seminary, etc., only if their parents aren't really, truly, committed to the gospel?

You've never met an active, committed family that didn't force children to attend seminary and all church activities? My parents gave me choices-- I chose to attend everything that ever went on, but some of my siblings didn't. My parents are paradigmatic examples of active, faithful, sincere Mormonism and everything that is good and wonderful about it.

You've never heard a committed, believing mother or father tear up during a testimony meeting while talking about her son or daughter who has gone astray? I surely have. You really believe that all such families weren't really committed? That's an awful harsh judgment.

There are plenty of families who are committed to the gospel who have children who don't end up doing all the things the church prescribes. It happens all the time. I really have difficulty believing you can sincerely deny this.

There is nothing unusual at all, or the least bit controversial, about an active, believing family having a child who doesn't do all the things good Mormon teenagers should be doing. Of course you can dogmatically assert whatever you will, but it seems very "no true Scotsman" of you.

I think I'll leave the issue at that. There are more interesting things to haggle over.

[TAO]

TNBu, the problem isn't so much what she didn't know... it's that because of that, she gave in. =(.

[Jeff K.]

An appeal to unqualified authority is an informal logical fallacy of weak INDUCTION in which an ARGUER cites the questionable authority or testimony of their own person, or that of another in support of a particular conclusion. What you have pointed out is NOT an appeal to authority. She isn't making an argument and asking us to take her word for it because of her family background. She isn't using that statement to bolster her credibility or support factual claims about the church. She didn't make factual claims about the church. There is no argument presented. She only makes mention of her family's church involvement to provide contextual information that gave background information about her personal experience. You may question the credibility of her account based on the fact that years removed from church activity (activity that didn't appear very substantial in the first place) she cannot remember some basic factual information about the Book of Mormon. That is uncharitable, but at least makes a modicum of sense. However, there is NO appeal to authority in the passage because she didn't a.) assert authority, or b.) use asserted authority as a premise for an argument.

She is indeed. Let us look how she presents her bonafides again.

I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints or Mormon to most people. I am related to something like 12 prophets of our church including Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith. I even have an old polygamy family photo hanging on my wall. Needless to say, when you grow up reading the Book of Mormon and it is filled with your relatives, you figure out quickly that it is important to fit in and do as you should.

She attempts to establish credibility through lineage. As if somehow being related gives her a personal insight. It is fairly obvious even if you want to deny it. Nothing contextual about that lineage, it adds nothing to her life story, only that she is related to prophets and apostles. It is a claim on authority. You can keep repeating that the sun does not shine, but it does not negate the fact of its existence. Denial doesn't equal truth in your case.

So you're suggesting that children go astray, don't attend seminary, etc., only if their parents aren't really, truly, committed to the gospel?

You've never met an active, committed family that didn't force children to attend seminary and all church activities? My parents gave me choices-- I chose to attend everything that ever went on, but some of my siblings didn't. My parents are paradigmatic examples of active, faithful, sincere Mormonism and everything that is good and wonderful about it.

You've never heard a committed, believing mother or father tear up during a testimony meeting while talking about her son or daughter who has gone astray? I surely have. You really believe that all such families weren't really committed? That's an awful harsh judgment.

There are plenty of families who are committed to the gospel who have children who don't end up doing all the things the church prescribes. It happens all the time. I really have difficulty believing you can sincerely deny this.

There is nothing unusual at all, or the least bit controversial, about an active, believing family having a child who doesn't do all the things good Mormon teenagers should be doing. Of course you can dogmatically assert whatever you will, but it seems very "no true Scotsman" of you.

I think I'll leave the issue at that. There are more interesting things to haggle over.

The number of inconsistencies, the claim that somehow her family was committed and yet she could not find the time to go to seminary but have a lesbian affair with an older woman. Sounds like a Lifetime movie more than real life. So yes, I question her honesty, I question her goodwill, and I think she is little more than another martyr wannabe who seeks to establish herself based on her lesbian identity instead of her individual worth. Nothing new here, just another accident in journalism.

[semlogo]

http://www.outsports...finding-herself

I am not posting this because I in anyway support homosexual behavior. In fact, the issue I take with the article is in no way related to the theme of the article. She writes thusly...

Say WHAT?

If she doesn't even know what the basic story of the Book of Mormon is- what else went over her head?

or

If she is lying about the Book of Mormon to gain sympathy or moral authority- what else would she be willing the lie about? What can we trust in this article? She quotes a Temple President making a pretty wild claim and her story about her ecclesiastical endorsement interview for Ricks seems highly irregular/unlikely.

Or, she misspoke and meant to say "D&C." Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

If she is ill-informed on the basic tenants of her faith because of the pressures of being a student athlete, she should have presented herself as such. Instead she left the impression, through her familial name dropping, that she is a reliable source on issues related to the LDS faith.

Also, she said she grew up reading the Book of Mormon. That is far different then reading a book once when you were a kid. She also had at least one year of Book of Mormon in seminary, appeals to its verses in Sunday School and Young Woman's, and a class at college (since Book of Mormon is mandatory at church schools.) If she doesn't know the basic story of the Book of Mormon, she is a complete bafoon.

Her story was designed to cast the LDS Church in the worst light possible, and had little to do with her "journey".

BTW, to be clear, as I don't see your name pop up often... I am not a member of the LDS Church, least you think this is a case of a TBM getting his feelings ruffled by yet another pro-homosexual, anti-LDS piece.

[kolipoki09]

If she is ill-informed on the basic tenants of her faith because of the pressures of being a student athlete, she should have presented herself as such. Instead she left the impression, through her familial name dropping, that she is a reliable source on issues related to the LDS faith.

Also, she said she grew up reading the Book of Mormon. That is far different then reading a book once when you were a kid. She also had at least one year of Book of Mormon in seminary, appeals to its verses in Sunday School and Young Woman's, and a class at college (since Book of Mormon is mandatory at church schools.) If she doesn't know the basic story of the Book of Mormon, she is a complete bafoon.

Her story was designed to cast the LDS Church in the worst light possible, and had little to do with her "journey".

BTW, to be clear, as I don't see your name pop up often... I am not a member of the LDS Church, least you think this is a case of a TBM getting his feelings ruffled by yet another pro-homosexual, anti-LDS piece.

To graduate from Ricks (or BYU for that matter), she would have to have taken two Book of Mormon classes and four or five additional religion courses. Don't get me wrong...sometimes these can be an "easy A," but that depends on the teacher. I still don't buy into the idea that she grew up in Logan (of all places) and yet had never heard of Ricks College as an LDS school.

I wouldn't go so far as to call her a "bafoon," though there are glaring inconsistencies in her story (enough to call most of it into question). The entire thing was a propaganda piece meant for an audience more than willing to swallow anything she dishes out to them without question.