No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Calm]

However, suffice it to say that most of these questions on sampling issues can't be resolved by a few posts on an Internet message board and shortcut criticisms on either side really miss the mark.

 

Totally agree with this, both from an approval and disapproval point of view.

Edited May 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[rodheadlee]

Unfortunately most objections to gay people come down to this - you think it's icky, so it must be immoral. Personally I don't understand what straight women find attractive about men. Ew, men! That doesn't mean that women are immoral just because they're attracted to something I am not. 

 

Regarding your specific example, straight Latter-Day Saint married couples can engage in that activity all they like, and still maintain all the benefits of full membership. There is no current policy or teaching to stop them, and no one is going to pry into their sex life. 

God thinks it's icky. What is your definition of immoral? That covers a wide range depending on who sets the standard. I can guaranty you there will be no smoking in the Celestial Kingdom, nor homosexual acts, nor anything unclean. 

Straight Latter-day Saints that don't repent will be held accountable for their sins sexual too (mine too). Do we need to be commanded in all things? 

[mfbukowski]

When it comes to softening our hearts about people who are different than us, it actually has everything to do with getting to know the "other". Of course not everyone is amenable to having their hearts softened. 

 

As far as anyone knows, the Lord has not said anything on the topic, so I view that as a red herring.

Uh, we have considerable disagreement about that. Ask any Bible student what she thinks about that one. That would be an interesting poll, to find what percentage of bible believers think the Lord has no opinions on ssm.

[mfbukowski]

But the problem is the happiness stems from living with the dissonance of their own orientation vs what the church is teaching about them. In other words, gay people who live the law of chastity as currently interpreted are not happy by and large.

A truly amazing statement. I have no clue what that means.

[sunstoned]

Well, really, I was just trying to tweak you a bit because I don't know how seriously anyone can really take the whole Rep Points thing, but now you have me genuinely scratching my head.  How is my post not a summarized restatement of the part of your post I bolded above?  I used the word "wrong" to summarize the group of people you were referring to as non-Mormon or ex-Mormon, I believe.  I stated it was just an "indicator," not outright proof.  What did I miss on your point, there?

 

I agree that you that making moral judgements based on rep points is a head scratcher.  Some people seem quick to judge.

 

BTY, I gave you a rep point for this post.

[mfbukowski]

But the sample was collected much the same....it was a survey of people who responded to the request for input through online and other organizations that were seen as likely having high number of such individuals rather than being selected by a randomized process.

You mean, for example that people who respond on this board are more likely to be interested in Mormon topics than the world population?

That can't be!

[canard78]

Here's a suggestion, Canard: next time you "respond" to something I post, how about you try reading it first?

Here, again, for your edification:

But what about a white man who wanted to marry a Polynesian woman? A Polynesian man and an Asian woman? An Asian man and a Native American woman? A Native American man and a white woman? Where was the "ban" on those "racially mixed" marriages, pre 1978?

 

It's been a busy week so I've not been around much.

 

Interesting tacit admission. You're right. Those appear to have been possible. By that are you admitting that marriage between whites and blacks was not possible, but now is? Are you admitting there has been a change in doctrine? 

[canard78]

If you look up the definition for sodomy, you'll see that many married couples participate in this too.  I think the "oral" part was at one time discussed with married couples (from leaders), but I don't think it is anymore (?).  So, that alone is not enough to condemn only gay couples, IMO.

 

 

Are you speaking from experience?

 

 

I agree with Gray.  I assume a great many of especially the younger generation partake of this type of sex.  Sodomy is not just limited to one act.

 

I take a 4-day hiatus from the thread due to work commitments and get back to this?!

 

[canard78]

Seems pretty clear to me Canard is referring to a white person and a black person.  

 

Got it?

 

Or do you just  want to be intentionally obtuse?

 

The latter... but he will claim otherwise. 

[canard78]

1) Pompeii was destroyed by fire.

 

2) Modern archeological excavation reveals that homosexuality was rampant at the time.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

1) Brighton has not been destroyed by fire

 

2) Modern news sources describe it as the UK's gay capital

 

Draw your own conclusions.

[canard78]

It's a valid category.  Supposing you can define it as you wish and then use it to dismiss relevant criticisms is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

 

 

It means what it says... I meant what I wrote.  And you must have me confused with someone else, StayLDS had nothing to do with me staying in the church.  I think I have only read material on that website in response to questions raised here on these threads.

 

Probably me. I'm fairly sure I've said that several times in the past.

[canard78]

I think it's the only kind of sampling possible for this kind of project. As samples go it was a large group - 1600 respondents. 

 

Absolutely not. There are many ways to collect sample. Dehlin's approach, on both studies, has been faulty. I could get 1600 respondents through a survey tomorrow by reliable means or unreliable. 

 

Having a university professor on the study doesn't mean he understand market research techniques.

 

I can think of quite a number of other ways to collect samples, it just would take a lot more effort than having people come to you.

 

And the size of the group is meaningless if it is collected poorly.

 

If one goes to Mormon Women Stand and asks for suvery responses from their members, do you think that even if you got 6000 women to respond (taken the number off of the facebook page stat of those who are talking about the fb page) you could claim this was a good selection of the opinions of women in the Church?

 

What arena did Dehlin etc. use to ensure that he got an accurate percentage of active homosexual LDS who were in mixed gender marriages?  What reasoning did he use to evaluate his percentages that he got?

 

 

I think this fact alone greatly hinders the credibility and reliability of a study of this nature, which is apt to attract mostly respodents eager to see the study prove a specific point.

 

Just to say I agree with both of you. I've worked in market research for 15 years. Dehlin's data is junk. It represents the badly collected views of a self-selecting audience. It is neither representative of the sample he claims to represent nor does it accurately represent the views of those he interviewed, given how badly he crafted the questionnaire.

 

/step-down-from-research-soap-box

[canard78]

It's reliable data on 1600 gay Mormons and their experiences. This kind of sampling is used by social scientists 

 

But if you think there's a problem with it, you could always publish a refutation 

 

I am not an apologist. I believe the position of the church on homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong. If I have a dog in this fight it should be in support of the research Dehlin has done.

 

And yet... it's junk data. I can say that with the confidence of over a decade of sampling and research experience.

 

He posted a link to the survey on forums like Mormon Stories and North Star. This already means the sample is not representative. He then boosted the sample via snowballing. This means a respondent emails his/her friends after completing the survey. This essentially means that the early respondents will have defined and influence the profile of the rest of the sample. Snowballing does give you access to hidden groups... but it doesn't give you particularly useful data. 

 

So... yes... the data can be said to represent the views of those interviewed (if the survey is well-crafted) but it can't be claimed to be representative of the experience of all gay mormons. Worse still, the surveys I've seen from Dehlin are badly written and use leading questions and very literal assumptions. They are questions that are easy to answer but not very reliable.

 

And yes, lots of news outlets reported on the data but news outlets publish junk data every single day. I've seen the surveys and sampling techniques and often the "Research for PR" data is often absolute nonsense... but the newspapers fill their columns with it anyway.

[canard78]

I'm not a scientist of any stripe, but here's something I found on convenience sampling:

 

https://explorable.com/convenience-sampling

 

There seem to be advantages and disadvantages to it. However I think this is the only kind of sampling you could use and get this kind of data. Especially as long as gay people continue to be marginalized in their communities. 

 

The advantage is that you can reach people you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach

The disadvantage is that you still end up with junk data

 

As I was telling a colleague the other day: "no data is better than junk data."

[Tacenda]

The advantage is that you can reach people you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach

The disadvantage is that you still end up with junk data

As I was telling a colleague the other day: "no data is better than junk data."

Especially data that eggs are bad for you and now they're good for you type data.

[jwhitlock]

Essentially gay people who try to marry the opposite sex have a quality of life comparable to someone living with lupus. On the other hand, those who enter a same sex marriage have a quality of life slightly higher than straight married couples. 

 

Unadulterated garbage. Studies that claim to quantify something inherently subjective aren't worth the time it takes to read them - especially with conclusions like this.

[Russell C McGregor]

Wait, getting rep points from the "wrong" people is an indicator that someone isn't the type of Mormon they claim to be?

No.

But it stands to reason that members of the same team will cheer each other on.

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm not getting angry. I'm telling you, this thread has gotten hilarious. I'm here for the entertainment factor now.

You started this thread, presumably, to debate the accusation against you of using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Now, in citing the consensus on this thread

And you've done it again.

"Citing" is not a synonym for "fabricating."

I wasn't saying everyone was agreeing with me (that's your technique, I won't steal it). I was, however, pointing out that the majority of the commenters here agree that you were guilty of engaging that fallacy.

And "pointing out" doesn't mean "making an unsubstantiated assertion."

Also, a "majority" is not a "consensus." A "consensus" is a general or unanimous agreement. A "majority" is something else.

And what's so funny is that you've now doubled down on it right here in this thread.

No. I have not.

But it is understandable that you would try to make that failed accusation stick.

It's what you do.

On top of that, what absolutely fascinates me is your obsession with declaring me unbelieving, unfaithful, and apostate.

I have no such "obsession."

You are projecting.

It is starting to feel like it really bothers you that a recommend-holding High Priest could possibly have views like mine and not have some kind of subversive agenda. Is it important for you to believe that I am not who I claim?

Only to the extent that you keep claiming that your oh so "faithful" standing somehow sanctifies your apostate views.

You seem to imagine that if you have a bit of paper certifying your membership in good standing, that somehow makes all your positions, however outrageous, into perfectly orthodox ones.

In reality, you have it exactly backwards. It is not the orthodox believer that vouchsafes the orthodox belief, but the fully orthodox set of beliefs that determines the orthodoxy of the believer.

You are an anonymous poster. That is entirely your right, but you cannot make IRL claims about yourself that we cannot check, and then turn around and argue from those claims as if they have evidentiary value.

They do not.

That's the price of anonymity.

My argument is not an instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It is not the case that I am saying that Angus from Aberdeen isn't a true Scotsman because he has sugar on his porridge; it is the case that you are saying that Boris from Rostov is a true Scotsman entirely because he claims he is, and therefore his demand that pipe bands play Cossack music is a truly Scottish position.

Do you understand now?

[tonie]

You are an anonymous poster. That is entirely your right, but you cannot make IRL claims about yourself that we cannot check, and then turn around and argue from those claims as if they have evidentiary value.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.....someone better let everyone know this rule.

 

But can we make claims like "everyone knows" or "everyone defines" or "no Faithfull Saint", without having to prove that "everyone knows" or "everyone defines" or "no Faithful Saint" disagrees with what some random member claims is the standard belief for a "faithful saint"?

Edited May 17, 2015 by tonie

[california boy]

So what happens when No True Scotsman not only supports gay marriage, but  allows for gay clergy to marry them??

 

 

Church of Scotland votes to allow gay ministers in civil partnerships

•  

[Jeanne]

Well fortunately you don't need to concern yourself with the status of people on this board.  Their beliefs belong to them and they don't have to clear them with you or Russell/Pahoran before declaring themselves to be Mormon.

Sorry rockpond, I am an ex-mormon and I gave you a rep point..I hope you are no exed!  I can only hope that the Mormons I love in family and friends are free to think for themselves.

[rodheadlee]

 

So what happens when No True Scotsman not only supports gay marriage, but  allows for gay clergy to marry them??

 

 

Church of Scotland votes to allow gay ministers in civil partnerships

•  

 

Free agency?

[Scott Lloyd]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.....someone better let Pahoran know this rule.

I don't recall Pahoran ever doing that (arguing from his own claims as though they had evidentiary value). That would be an instance of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

But you have trouble with the meaning of the phrase <begging the question>, don't you? I seem to recall you being involved in a discussion about that here once upon a time.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Sorry rockpond, I am an ex-mormon and I gave you a rep point..I hope you are no exed! I can only hope that the Mormons I love in family and friends are free to think for themselves.

I hear Marie Osmond is leaning pro SSM, I wonder if she'd be in the dog house with Russell.

[tonie]

That would be an instance of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

But you have trouble with the meaning of the phrase <begging the question>, don't you? I seem to recall you being involved in a discussion about that here once upon a time.

 

The problem was all yours, and your inability and unwillingness to accept that my usage was proper.

 

And as I recall it is one of the several thread wherein you bullied me to no end, with what could only have been deliberate action on your part to derail a discussion.

 

Said bullying on your part was the reason why I created the thread asking for you treat me "basic courtesy".  

Edited May 17, 2015 by tonie