jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I'm not sure an obsessed ex-Mormon stalking the Church looking for its demise is the same as a Professor at BYU studying Islam.I think that is a massive case of Apples and Oranges.JMHO.
Stargazer Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 It is creepy. At times it feels like the church is being stalked. I don't know of any other religion that has such a club of ill wishers.This got an quick bark of laughter out of me. "The church is being stalked" implied a vision of a creepy looking guy in a trenchcoat and hat, slowly slinking up to a stationary building.There are, I think, lots of ill wishers of all kinds of religions. I don't think we are alone in this. We may come in for particular attention from time to time, but alone? Nah.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 Because Rodney Stark is not an obsessed ex-Mormon. He does religious studies for a living, and his motives are not to hope for the decline of a particular religious group.It's creepy. The obsession would be a concern for any unbiased mental health professional.JMSOh brother. As if you of all people would know what an unbiased mental health professional would think about me.
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Oh brother. As if you of all people would know what an unbiased mental health professional would think about me.I'm not the one obsessing about someone else's religion. I think most mental health professionals would be concerned about people who abandon a religion, but won't move on. If you can find me an active mental health professional that would support such a condition, I will eat my own hat. And that is saying a LOT since I like my Fedora.JMS
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 This is a small minority. One just needs to hang out on critic boards to see the hatred and ill wishes and the gigantic hope that the lds church is soon disappearing as they wait for the figures to come out. And then when the figures are announced, all sorts of speculation is offered as to why there is still growth. And none are complimentary.May I request that talk about "hatred and ill wishes and the gigantic hope that the lds church is soon disappearing" be off-topic for this thread? Please recall that Roger Loomis predicted that the church would continue to grow indefinitely.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 I'm not the one obsessing about someone else's religion. I think most mental health professionals would be concerned about people who abandon a religion, but won't move on. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about somebody who responded to an academic paper with an academic paper, and spends a few minutes once every year or two monitoring a long-term forecast. The fact that you would perceive this as obsessing about somebody else's religion says a lot more about you than it does about me.
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about somebody who responded to an academic paper with an academic paper, and spends a few minutes once every year or two monitoring a long-term forecast. The fact that you would perceive this as obsessing about somebody else's religion says a lot more about you than it does about me.Really? So this was an Academic paper? Where was it published? Which organization backed it? How will it be used to better society?JMS
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Not to quibble too much but my calendar says it is only 2012. I realize that we all like to take intermediate temperatures of these predictions but it seems we ought to wait until 2080 to really see who was correct. Congrats to Loomis for his outstanding prediction but let's wait a while before we declare a winner in the Stark prediction contest. Who knows, maybe there will be a major increase in membership when..... Oh, maybe when the Savior comes again!!! MWI think that we will see the numbers begin to increase once the lds church combats the influence of the internet by bringing out its own interpretations of church history. The parts of church history that seem to obsess the critics.
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 This got an quick bark of laughter out of me. "The church is being stalked" implied a vision of a creepy looking guy in a trenchcoat and hat, slowly slinking up to a stationary building.There are, I think, lots of ill wishers of all kinds of religions. I don't think we are alone in this. We may come in for particular attention from time to time, but alone? Nah.I agree. The Open Directory Project attempts to create a human-edited catalog of all websites of significance. It's identified 1,048 that oppose one religion or another. Of those, 54 oppose Mormonism. In comparison, 97 sites oppose Catholocism, and 182 oppose Scientology. Given its smaller numbers, that is the most opposed religion on the Internet.http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 May I request that talk about "hatred and ill wishes and the gigantic hope that the lds church is soon disappearing" be off-topic for this thread? Please recall that Roger Loomis predicted that the church would continue to grow indefinitely.I thought your point was to show that the church was not growing as predicted. And I came up with a few reasons about why that was. And I think that these reasons I gave are valid. When individuals wish to find out information about the lds church, where do they go? To the internet and to the many critic sites that are available for viewing. This must have an effect. And who owns these sites: the lds fan club? I don't think so.
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 May I request that talk about "hatred and ill wishes and the gigantic hope that the lds church is soon disappearing" be off-topic for this thread? Please recall that Roger Loomis predicted that the church would continue to grow indefinitely.Why? I thought criticism was healthy.JMS
why me Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) In comparison, 97 sites oppose Catholocism, and 182 oppose Scientology. Given its smaller numbers, that is the most opposed religion on the Internet.http://www.dmoz.org/...Opposing_Views/The problem here is simple: it is not easy to find anticatholic sites because they have plenty of sites that support catholicism. And their apologetics site is far superior to FAIR. A religion of a hundreds of millions of people can muster up plenty of prosites for viewing. And they are very sophisticated. Edited April 2, 2012 by why me
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 Really? So this was an Academic paper? Where was it published? Which organization backed it? How will it be used to better society?JMSIt was not published (I'm sure that it could have been, but in contrast to your accusations that I obsess about this, I didn't follow-through on publishing it). Which organization “backed” it? I’m not even sure what that means; are you suggesting that the only papers that are real academic papers are the ones that are “backed” by "institutions"? The paper has been presented at academic conferences and cited in academic publications. I’m sorry you find this so disturbing, but the answer to your question is yes, it is an academic paper.It betters society because it does in fact contain valuable insights into the nature of reality. Specifically, it gives valuable insights into the nature and limits of exponential growth, and how the exponential growth of anything can be modeled. Furthermore, the paper potentially helped academics better-allocate scare resources: the ostensible point of Stark’s paper was that academics should research Mormonism like crazy, because we are witnessing the once-in-a-millennium beginnings of a major new world religion. If Stark was incorrect about that, it would be valuable to researchers of sociology to recognize the limits to how large it will grow.
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 It was not published (I'm sure that it could have been, but in contrast to your accusations that I obsess about this, I didn't follow-through on publishing it). Which organization “backed” it? I’m not even sure what that means; are you suggesting that the only papers that are real academic papers are the ones that are “backed” by "institutions"? The paper has been presented at academic conferences and cited in academic publications. I’m sorry you find this so disturbing, but the answer to your question is yes, it is an academic paper.It betters society because it does in fact contain valuable insights into the nature of reality. Specifically, it gives valuable insights into the nature and limits of exponential growth, and how the exponential growth of anything can be modeled. Furthermore, the paper potentially helped academics better-allocate scare resources: the ostensible point of Stark’s paper was that academics should research Mormonism like crazy, because we are witnessing the once-in-a-millennium beginnings of a major new world religion. If Stark was incorrect about that, it would be valuable to researchers of sociology to recognize the limits to how large it will grow.That all sounds great, but here is the reality. Very few people care about what some guy said decades ago on LDS Church growth. So while it sounds useful, most people I know don't even know who Stark is or believe that his analysis is true. So IMHO, it's just an obsession.JMS
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Hey, I have obsessions too. I obsess about the progression of time going faster as we age. Part of OCD thinking. I just think you should admit it and you'd feel more free! JMS
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 Why? I thought criticism was healthy.JMSStaying on-topic is also healthy.
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 Staying on-topic is also healthy.Just calling into question the motivation behind bringing this topic up in the first place. Seems like a lot of self-patting on the back to me.JMS
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 That all sounds great, but here is the reality. Very few people care about what some guy said decades ago on LDS Church growth. So while it sounds useful, most people I know don't even know who Stark is or believe that his analysis is true. So IMHO, it's just an obsession.JMSThe topic of discussion is whether or not my paper was academic. Are you sugesting it isn't academic because very few people care about it? Real academics who care about the growth models of churches find academic merit in my paper. The fact that you don't is of no concern to me--you are not the target audience. Why are you so obsessive about something you don't care about? You come across as being bitter that time is proving me right, and jealous that I wrote something intelligent. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) At the risk of riling some of my compatriots here, I'll say we should let up on Roger. If anything, we are indebted to him for bringing some of us back to reality after a decade or so of Stark-induced giddiness.And as I've said here before, it's doesn't matter a great deal anyway. The caravan will move forward, hindered more or less by the stiff wind of opposition, until, to borrow a phrase from the Wentworth letter, the Great Jehovah shall say, "The work is done." Edited April 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) I appreciate that Scott.My pleasure, Roger.I have to say for future reference, though, that if Graham, after serving out his week-long banishment, should reappear here, that's the moment I exit the thread. Not because his argumentation is particularly formidable, but because I can't abide his obnoxiousness. Edited April 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
wenglund Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 You are the one that's being disdainful.Wrong. It isn't disdainful to intelligently draw a contrast between the gospel of love and Graham's gospel of rancor.The two sides of the debate in question are Rodney Stark's forecast of Church's growth and Roger Loomis's. Which of those two do you think made a better forecast of Church growth?Not that it matters to me, but you did.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
jskains Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) The topic of discussion is whether or not my paper was academic. Are you sugesting it isn't academic because very few people care about it?Real academics who care about the growth models of churches find academic merit in my paper. The fact that you don't is of no concern to me--you are not the target audience. Why are you so obsessive about something you don't care about? You come across as being bitter that time is proving me right, and jealous that I wrote something intelligent.Not really. I am not bitter at all. Your adding an unnecessary emotion to discount my concerns.JMSP.S. - I'll keep away from the third person creepiness. That could be a whole other thread. Edited April 2, 2012 by jskains
KevinG Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 My pleasure, Roger.I have to say, though, that if Graham, after serving out his week-long banishment, should reappear here, that's the moment I exit the thread. Not because his argumentation is particularly formidable, but because I can't abide his obnoxiousness.It surprised me he lit into my comments even after agreeing that Roger's numbers were good and not surprising to me.Any opportunity to stick it to the man I guess?
Analytics Posted April 2, 2012 Author Posted April 2, 2012 It surprised me he lit into my comments even after agreeing that Roger's numbers were good and not surprising to me.Any opportunity to stick it to the man I guess?Graham is something else.
Log Posted April 2, 2012 Posted April 2, 2012 I was also intrigued by what Roger says about one of the reasons he sees for the change in the rate of growth as being, essentially, a sales problem.Have we lost our uniqueness in the marketplace of religious ideas?
Recommended Posts