Mormons Disowning Family? Is This Common?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, so entirely not worth it, strawman after strawman.

I ask again: what "strawman?"

Call for references, please.

Put up, or shut up.

And I note that despite your continued mantra of "so not worth it," you keep right on replying to my posts.

Funny, that.

My reference in post 73 of your propensity to the "no real scotsman" fallacy was not an ad hominem attack on you; you use the argument so lets us just accept that fact.

Sorry. We are not going to "just accept" your bare denials.

Whatever "propensity" you think I have, you have failed entirely to show that I have relied upon that fallacy (or any other) in any post to which you have responded, or indeed anywhere in this thread; therefore, whether or not it constitutes an "attack," your continued harping on it is a textbook example of the ad hominen fallacy.

In your post #73, you presumed to tell Calmoriah what you imagined that I "intended," and because, according to you, I make "frequent use" of that fallacy.

And that is precisely what the ad hominen fallacy is.

(Should I link to your "a real missionary" use of the argument? Just recently, on this board, you posted "I doubt that any plausible Latter-day Saints are...") I am already counting on your denials or deflections, so present them as you need.

Hey, if you want to continue to run the ad hominen fallacy, I can't stop you from linking to whatever irrelevancies you like. It still has nothing whatever to do with anything I have posted in this thread.

In a previous post I mentioned bring the Elder Oaks quote (of you have stated your interpretation thereof is weak,

Really? Where did I "state" that?

but you do not consider position as "nearly as weak as" my interpretation; see post 96). Calmoriah responded with her interpretation of your comment about denying shunning being a Mormon practice.

In post 73, I explained to Calmoriah that I interpreted your presentation of your own experience and your denial of mormon practice, as your standard fallacious argument i.e. your not uncommon use of "No real Latter-Day Saint".

And yet you are the one accusing me of arguing a "strawman." What irony!

But thank you for admitting that you were relying upon the ad hominen fallacy.

One does not need to resort too fallacy to rebut what seems your outright denial in post 66 that a Latter-Day Saint would "shun" a member of their family simple because that family member was involved in a unmarried sexual relationship or is living a lifestyle not inline with the Gospel.

Yet another straw man; and of your own manufacture, too.

What I actually said was:

"I flatly deny that it is an LDS teaching, and reject it as a Mormon practice."

I realise that people like you frequently imagine that you can simply reverse the burden of proof; but, so sorry, you can't. If you want to make your accusation stick, you have to prove it.

And the fact is that it is not an LDS teaching.

And the further fact is that nobody has even tried to show that it is anything resembling a Mormon practice.

For the very good and sufficient reason that they can't.

Instead, they try to make their case by insinuation and misdirection.

Hey, Frankie: guess what?

It's not going to work.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again with the strawman. And thank you for not putting words into my mouth.

Please describe how my post 73 or previous post is an ad hominem argument.

And since we are giving thanks, thank you for admitting your position regarding Elder Oaks statement is weak.

I do have a question though, is "a real missionary wouldn't" a "No true Scotsman" argument?

I am not sure you know what a straw man is. I suggest you get educated on it before you use that term again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I ask again: what "strawman?"

Call for references, please.

Put up, or shut up.

And I note that despite your continued mantra of "so not worth it," you keep right on replying to my posts.

Funny, that.

Sorry. We are not going to "just accept" your bare denials.

Whatever "propensity" you think I have, you have failed entirely to show that I have relied upon that fallacy (or any other) in any post to which you have responded, or indeed anywhere in this thread; therefore, whether or not it constitutes an "attack," your continued harping on it is a textbook example of the ad hominen fallacy.

In your post #73, you presumed to tell Calmoriah what you imagined that I "intended," and because, according to you, I make "frequent use" of that fallacy.

And that is precisely what the ad hominen fallacy is.

Hey, if you want to continue to run the ad hominen fallacy, I can't stop you from linking to whatever irrelevancies you like. It still has nothing whatever to do with anything I have posted in this thread.

Really? Where did I "state" that?

And yet you are the one accusing me of arguing a "strawman." What irony!

But thank you for admitting that you were relying upon the ad hominen fallacy.

Yet another straw man; and of your own manufacture, too.

What I actually said was:

"I flatly deny that it is an LDS teaching, and reject it as a Mormon practice."

I realise that people like you frequently imagine that you can simply reverse the burden of proof; but, so sorry, you can't. If you want to make your accusation stick, you have to prove it.

And the fact is that it is not an LDS teaching.

And the further fact is that nobody has even tried to show that it is anything resembling a Mormon practice.

For the very good and sufficient reason that they can't.

Instead, they try to make their case by insinuation and misdirection.

Hey, Frankie: guess what?

It's not going to work.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I have learned rather recently that some people, even when your present very nuanced and reasoned statements, still reject what you say because they think they know what you said, instead of actually knowing what you said. I have found no way to get around those types of people. Good luck with it. If nothing else I still get a kick out of your posts.

[Pahoran]

To quote a famous poster here

 

Oh wait, that was you that said that.

Yes, it was.

And suspecting that there is more to claims of "shunning!" than what those who make them would have us believe is not an example of circular argument.

 

So let me get this straight.  You are arguing that President Oaks addresses this very issue in General Conference to members of the church, but you feel there is no problem in the church over this issue and if we investigated this problem "most if not all of those who claim to have been "shunned" by their Mormon family members actually made their own ample contribution to the rupture."  So why exactly did President Oaks spend valuable time in General Conference addressing this issue to the members of the church?  Do you feel the general authorities routinely give conference talks that have no relevance to the members of the church?

Did you actually read the talk? There's a lot more to it than Frank's single paragraph.

It's neither all, nor mostly, nor even significantly, about "Why we should all stop 'shunning' our less-active family members."

As I already pointed out: Elder Oaks mentioned in passing that he had seen it; he didn't say where, and he described it as an "extreme."

Extremes are not norms.

And those attempting to parlay it into evidence of a group Mormon characteristic are merely looking for justification for their bigotry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

Yes, it was.

And suspecting that there is more to claims of "shunning!" than what those who make them would have us believe is not an example of circular argument.

 

Did you actually read the talk? There's a lot more to it than Frank's single paragraph.

It's neither all, nor mostly, nor even significantly, about "Why we should all stop 'shunning' our less-active family members."

As I already pointed out: Elder Oaks mentioned in passing that he had seen it; he didn't say where, and he described it as an "extreme."

Extremes are not norms.

And those attempting to parlay it into evidence of a group Mormon characteristic are merely looking for justification for their bigotry.

Regards,

Pahoran

Has the church leaders repeatedly counseled members to not shun those who are less-active family members or not?  Is it an issue that the church leaders have addressed repeatedly or not?  I am going to just leave it with just that question.  You seem to have difficulty answering more than one question at a time.

[Porter_Rockwell]

For Frank Jessop: this is an example of an actual fallacious argument. The fallacy in view is known as the fallacy of circular argument, in which the arguer assumes his conclusions and argues from them as if they were already accepted.Porter, this is an argument you would do better with in a forum where people either don't know the truth, or don't care. In this forum, there are altogether too many people who know that excommunication is neither "shunning" nor "banishing" for you to make that false equivalence work. And what evidence do you have that it is "modelled from the top-down?" Since the only people who really know the whole story about what went on in the family described in the OP are the members of that family, and since they aren't posting here, there are no "tough questions" found therein.There is no better established fact that books slamming the Church, written for non-Mormon audiences, can get away with a great deal.Regards,Pahoran

Thanks for the reply and the ad-homie jab suggesting my comments aren't valid because they're not flattering. Did you just slam me for slamming the church?

Top down: do official ex communications not occurr at the top?

disowning: I said there's no difficulty believing the non-members who join are turned on by their families...so what makes the 180-degree not possible?

The original poster asked 'is this the truth'...I'm saying that in my opinion it absolutely is. I've seen on a number of occasions.

How do you know that books critical of the church are written for non-Mormons? Some of them are written by Mormons

[Calm]

"Top down: do official ex communications not occurr at the top?"

Do you mean are excommunications order from the top leadership? If so, no.

Edited May 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

Has the church leaders repeatedly counseled members to not shun those who are less-active family members or not?  Is it an issue that the church leaders have addressed repeatedly or not?  I am going to just leave it with just that question.  You seem to have difficulty answering more than one question at a time.

 

"Repeatedly?"  I think I might have heard this subject mentioned twice.  I suppose that makes it "repeatedly."

 

But the only firm conclusion that can be drawn from it is that such behaviour is contrary to the teachings of the leaders of the Church.

 

Anything beyond that is mere conjecture.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Thanks for the reply and the ad-homie jab suggesting my comments aren't valid because they're not flattering. Did you just slam me for slamming the church?

 

I didn't say your comments aren't valid because they're not flattering.  I said they're not valid because they're not true.

Get it right.

 

Top down: do official ex communications not occurr at the top?

 

Not normally, no.

 

But as you know -- or would, if you took the trouble to actually read what was posted -- I've explicitly denied that excommunication is, or has anything to do with, "shunning."

 

A fact which is not in dispute.

 

disowning: I said there's no difficulty believing the non-members who join are turned on by their families...so what makes the 180-degree not possible?

 

I'm not talking about what is "possible." I'm saying the one thing is not evidence for the other. An exact logical parallel to your argument would be to say that since street gangs rob convenience stores, the police who arrest them must do the same thing.

 

The original poster asked 'is this the truth'...I'm saying that in my opinion it absolutely is. I've seen on a number of occasions.

 

And I'm saying that absolutely everyone who's ever made that claim has done so in order to advance an agenda hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ. I've seen that on countless occasions.

 

How do you know that books critical of the church are written for non-Mormons? Some of them are written by Mormons

 

Some of whom might have even gone to Church a few times.

The fact that those books are written for non-Mormons is so well established as to need no commentary.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

"Repeatedly?"  I think I might have heard this subject mentioned twice.  I suppose that makes it "repeatedly."

 

But the only firm conclusion that can be drawn from it is that such behaviour is contrary to the teachings of the leaders of the Church.

 

Anything beyond that is mere conjecture.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

How many times would it take having the general authorities talk about this subject and or print articles in the Ensign before you concluded that this issue might be more than just contrary to the teachings of the leaders of the church and in fact is a big enough problem that needed direct attention?

[Pahoran]

How many times would it take having the general authorities talk about this subject and or print articles in the Ensign before you concluded that this issue might be more than just contrary to the teachings of the leaders of the church and in fact is a big enough problem that needed direct attention?

 

How many times do the leaders of the Church have to teach against it before the peddlers of the "shunning" libel get the message that it is contrary to the teachings of the Church?

 

Note that such comments by Church leaders are direct and conclusive evidence of the latter, and only weak and indirect support for your claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Raharu]

The congregations I have attended throughout my years of attending the church have been counselled with great frequency to be sensitive to the needs and feelings of less active members of the church. We are encouraged to withhold passing judgement, to offer friendship and service to everyone we have dealings with.

[california boy]

How many times do the leaders of the Church have to teach against it before the peddlers of the "shunning" libel get the message that it is contrary to the teachings of the Church?

Note that such comments by Church leaders are direct and conclusive evidence of the latter, and only weak and indirect support for your claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

How many times do the leaders of the Church have to teach against it before the peddlers of the "shunning" libel get the message that it is contrary to the teachings of the Church?

Note that such comments by Church leaders are direct and conclusive evidence of the latter, and only weak and indirect support for your claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

I guess you didn't want to answer that question. What a surprise. Now you have come up with the idea that conference talks are not directed at the needs of the members but just PR messages.

[Porter_Rockwell]

For Frank Jessop: this is an example of an actual fallacious argument. The fallacy in view is known as the fallacy of circular argument, in which the arguer assumes his conclusions and argues from them as if they were already accepted.Porter, this is an argument you would do better with in a forum where people either don't know the truth, or don't care. In this forum, there are altogether too many people who know that excommunication is neither "shunning" nor "banishing" for you to make that false equivalence work. And what evidence do you have that it is "modelled from the top-down?" Since the only people who really know the whole story about what went on in the family described in the OP are the members of that family, and since they aren't posting here, there are no "tough questions" found therein.There is no better established fact that books slamming the Church, written for non-Mormon audiences, can get away with a great deal.Regards,Pahoran

So excommunication is like a birthday party...no hard feelings...no change in social status? All the Mormons here know that's not true.

Educate me: where in the church hierarchy does excommunication occur? Is it registered anywhere? Where is that office located?

[Pahoran]

I guess you didn't want to answer that question. What a surprise.

That's a pretty poor guess, since I did in fact answer the question.

It just wasn't the answer you wanted to see.

So you refused to see it.

What a surprise.

 

Now you have come up with the idea that conference talks are not directed at the needs of the members but just PR messages.

I came up with that idea...?

And yet that's the first I've heard of it.

Funny, that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

So excommunication is like a birthday party...no hard feelings...no change in social status? All the Mormons here know that's not true.

 

Including me.

 

Which is why I didn't say that.

 

And so now we see not one, but two logical fallacies introduced by you.  These are:

 

1. The straw man fallacy, wherein you construct your own caricature of your opponent's argument and then attack that -- because you're unable to deal with the real argument; and
2. The fallacy of the false dilemma, in which you set up two unacceptable alternatives and pretend that they exhaust the spectrum of possibilities.

 

And all of this in an attempt to make the utterly inconscionable "Mormon shunning" libel stick.  And you are trying to do that by consciously, deliberately, intentionally and with malice aforethought, misrepresenting excommunication as somehow equivalent to "shunning."

 

Which, as someone once said, "All the Mormons here know that's not true."

 

Educate me: where in the church hierarchy does excommunication occur? Is it registered anywhere? Where is that office located?

 

Excommunications are carried out by bishoprics, and by stake presidencies with their high councils.  Excommunications are not "registered" anywhere, but they are reported to Church headquarters and recorded there.

 

Just like baptisms, ordinations and marriages.

 

None of which is actually relevant to the matter currently under dispute.

 

Excommunication is not shunning.  Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church, but there is neither a "ritual," nor a doctrine, nor even any folklore or folkways that entail "shunning" of excommunicated persons.

 

This is a totally non-controversial fact.  Nobody disputes it.

 

Absolutely nobody.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

I think in a lot of cases, excommunication is somewhat a healing time for the individual, a way to cut out the sin of whatever they did wrong. It's odd that more of them aren't happening as they have in the past, or I'm just unaware. But there are a few so called apostates or wolves in sheeps clothing that appear to have beat the system.

[ERayR]

I guess you didn't want to answer that question. What a surprise. Now you have come up with the idea that conference talks are not directed at the needs of the members but just PR messages.

 

Huh! Extrapolate much to the extreme you do.  Overboard you are.

[ERayR]

Including me.

 

Which is why I didn't say that.

 

And so now we see not one, but two logical fallacies introduced by you.  These are:

 

1. The straw man fallacy, wherein you construct your own caricature of your opponent's argument and then attack that -- because you're unable to deal with the real argument; and
2. The fallacy of the false dilemma, in which you set up two unacceptable alternatives and pretend that they exhaust the spectrum of possibilities.

 

And all of this in an attempt to make the utterly inconscionable "Mormon shunning" libel stick.  And you are trying to do that by consciously, deliberately, intentionally and with malice aforethought, misrepresenting excommunication as somehow equivalent to "shunning."

 

Which, as someone once said, "All the Mormons here know that's not true."

 

 

Excommunications are carried out by bishoprics, and by stake presidencies with their high councils.  Excommunications are not "registered" anywhere, but they are reported to Church headquarters and recorded there.

 

Just like baptisms, ordinations and marriages.

 

None of which is actually relevant to the matter currently under dispute.

 

Excommunication is not shunning.  Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church, but there is neither a "ritual," nor a doctrine, nor even any folklore or folkways that entail "shunning" of excommunicated persons.

 

This is a totally non-controversial fact.  Nobody disputes it.

 

Absolutely nobody.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

And when the come to the ward Christmas party they are welcome and most of the ward is happy to see them there.

[ERayR]

I think in a lot of cases, excommunication is somewhat a healing time for the individual, a way to cut out the sin of whatever they did wrong. It's odd that more of them aren't happening as they have in the past, or I'm just unaware. But there are a few so called apostates or wolves in sheeps clothing that appear to have beat the system.

 

They are not beating the system.  They are going to have to walk before the judgement bar of Christ in full fellowship, with no excuses.

[Porter_Rockwell]

Yes, it was.And suspecting that there is more to claims of "shunning!" than what those who make them would have us believe is not an example of circular argument. Did you actually read the talk? There's a lot more to it than Frank's single paragraph.It's neither all, nor mostly, nor even significantly, about "Why we should all stop 'shunning' our less-active family members."As I already pointed out: Elder Oaks mentioned in passing that he had seen it; he didn't say where, and he described it as an "extreme."Extremes are not norms.And those attempting to parlay it into evidence of a group Mormon characteristic are merely looking for justification for their bigotry.Regards,Pahoran

Let's cut through it... The church is false. Let's throw some overhand shots.

[Pahoran]

Let's cut through it... The church is false. Let's throw some overhand shots.

 

Thank you, Porter.  You may be the very first honest anti-Mormon I've ever met.

 

You don't really care about the truth of the matter; you're happy to libel all Mormons everywhere with the "shunning" falsehood.  Because since you've decided that "The church is false," any ammunition will do.

 

And if it turns out to be a dud -- well, you haven't risked anything, have you?

 

It's not like you've got any skin in the game, after all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

I don't know that it's that common, but it definitely happens. There are a lot of homeless gay teens in Utah for this reason, I think

or, perhaps, they made themselves so obnoxious the family could no longer bear to have them live at home. it is too easy to knee jerk blame upon the parents

[ERayR]

I don't know that it's that common, but it definitely happens. There are a lot of homeless gay teens in Utah for this reason, I think

 

And you have reached this conclusion based on what evidence?