No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Gray]

In the end that choice is yours.

 

I choose family

[Gray]

Snide critics?

 

We're going to need some enormous white blood cells!

[thesometimesaint]

I choose family

 

It is all a choice, and eventually we will all be Sealed as one family. Though I doubt that is what the Lord had in mind when he referred to as eternal increase of children.

[ttribe]

Not "discussing the doctrines of salvation" per se. But faultfinding leveled at the Church, its leaders, doctrines, principles, beliefs, practices, history and administration appears to be.

 

Interesting.

 

So, since you were responding to a comment I made in the context of rep points, I am still left wondering how it is that the distribution of said rep points is indicative of "team" membership.  For any individual poster, he or she has no direct control over who gives his or her posts rep points.  And yet, it's been suggested in this very thread that such a pattern indicates the poster who received said points may not be "who they say they are" with respect to their claims of being faithful members of the Church.  Is there not an inherent flaw in using this system to identify which "team" they are on?  This seems especially problematic now that several who typically defend the Church, its leaders, doctrines, principles, beliefs, practices, history and administration have stated support for this "team" concept on this board.  Are rep points really a measure of one's perceived "loyalty" to the Church, its leaders, etc.?

Edited May 18, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting.

 

So, since you were responding to a comment I made in the context of rep points, I am still left wondering how it is that the distribution of said rep points is indicative of "team" membership.  For any individual poster, he or she has no direct control over who gives his or her posts rep points.  And yet, it's been suggested in this very thread that such a pattern indicates the poster who received said points may not be "who they say they are" with respect to their claims of being faithful members of the Church.  Is there not an inherent flaw in using this system to identify which "team" they are on?  This seems especially problematic now that several who typically defend the Church, its leaders, doctrines, principles, beliefs, practices, history and administration have stated support for this "team" concept on this board. 

I don't see anything inappropriate or wrong with the application of the term or concept of "team" for illustrative purposes.

 

I would say unabashedly, for example, that I want to be on the Lord's "team." There is a hymn we sing in Church, "Who's on the Lord's Side? Who?" (number 260 in the hymnal). Its title and text allude to scripture, the incident when Moses upbraided the people for worshiping the golden calf and cried, "Who's on the Lord's side? Let him come to me" (Exodus 32:26).

 

On occasion, I have declared on this board that I cast my lot with the prophets and apostles. That is as much as to say I'm on their team.

 

Honestly, I find  your aversion to this metaphor puzzling. Did you not have a good experience with high school sports or something?

 

 

Are rep points really a measure of one's perceived "loyalty" to the Church, its leaders, etc.?

 

Not necessarily. But they can be, if, for example, the points are being awarded as an expression of assent and agreement when the one making the post has declared such loyalty or, alternatively, one's opposition to "the Church, its leaders, etc."

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

I don't see anything inappropriate or wrong with the application of the term or concept of "team" for illustrative purposes.

 

I would say unabashedly, for example, that I want to be on the Lord's "team." There is a hymn we sing in Church, "Who's on the Lord's Side? Who?" (number 260 in the hymnal) Its title and text allude to scripture, the incident when Moses upbraided the people for worshiping the golden calf and cried, "Who's on the Lord's side? Let him come to me" (Exodus 32:26).

 

On occasion, I have declared on this board that I cast my lot with the prophets and apostles. That is as much as to say I'm on their team.

 

Honestly, I find  your aversion to this metaphor puzzling. Did you not have a good experience with high school sports or something?

 

Not necessarily. But they can be, if, for example, the points are being awarded as an expression of assent and agreement when the one making the post has declared such loyalty.

 

 

You can stow the snark, Scott. 

 

What I find puzzling is that people on this board would place loyalty to their perceived "team" of board participants over certain principles they allegedly espouse.  I see aggressive attacks on posters with regularity and it often smacks of unabashed tribalism, not actual defense of underlying substantive issues.

 

And before you issue the CFR, that is just an opinion based on my personal observations.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 

You don't get it. A poll that is not conducted according to scientific sampling principles is not a reliable measure of prevailing public opinion.

 

Read this article for an explanation of why. Here is a germane passage:

 

4. How were those people chosen?

The key reason that some polls reflect public opinion accurately and other polls are unscientific junk is how people were chosen to be interviewed. In scientific polls, the pollster uses a specific statistical method for picking respondents. In unscientific polls, the person picks himself to participate.

 

The method pollsters use to pick interviewees relies on the bedrock of mathematical reality: when the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population. This is called a random sample or a probability sample. This is the reason that interviews with 1,000 American adults can accurately reflect the opinions of more than 210 million American adults.

 

Most scientific samples use special techniques to be economically feasible. For example, some sampling methods for telephone interviewing do not just pick randomly generated telephone numbers. Only telephone exchanges that are known to contain working residential numbers are selected, reducing the number of wasted calls. This still produces a random sample. But samples of only listed telephone numbers do not produce a random sample of all working telephone numbers.

 

But even a random sample cannot be purely random in practice as some people don't have phones, refuse to answer, or aren't home.

 

Surveys conducted in countries other than the United States may use different but still valid scientific sampling techniques, for example, because relatively few residents have telephones. In surveys in other countries, the same questions about sampling should be asked before reporting a survey.

 

 

5. What area (nation, state, or region) or what group (teachers, lawyers, Democratic voters, etc.) were these people chosen from?

It is absolutely critical to know from which group the interviewees were chosen.

 

You must know if a sample was drawn from among all adults in the United States, or just from those in one state or in one city, or from another group. For example, a survey of business people can reflect the opinions of business people – but not of all adults. Only if the interviewees were chosen from among all American adults can the poll reflect the opinions of all American adults.

 

In the case of telephone samples, the population represented is that of people living in households with telephones. For most purposes, telephone households are similar to the general population. But if you were reporting a poll on what it was like to be homeless, a telephone sample would not be appropriate. The increasingly widespread use of cell phones, particularly as the only phone in some households, may have an impact in the future on the ability of a telephone poll to accurately reflect a specific population.  Remember, the use of a scientific sampling technique does not mean that the correct population was interviewed.

 

Political polls are especially sensitive to this issue.

 

In pre-primary and pre-election polls, which people are chosen as the base for poll results is critical. A poll of all adults, for example, is not very useful for a primary race where only 25 percent of the registered voters actually turn out. So look for polls based on registered voters, "likely voters," previous primary voters and such. These distinctions are important and should be included in the story, for one of the most difficult challenges in polling is trying to figure out who actually is going to vote.

 

The ease of conducting surveys in the United States is not duplicated around the world. It may not be possible or practical in some countries to conduct surveys of a random sample throughout the country. Surveys based on a smaller group than the entire population – such as a few larger cities – can still be reliable if reported correctly - as the views of those in the larger cities, for example, but not those of the country - and may be the only available data.

Also, this very concise statement:

 

The results of the well-conducted scientific poll provide a reliable guide to the opinions of many people in addition to those interviewed – even the opinions of all Americans. The results of an unscientific poll tell you nothing beyond simply what those respondents say.

 

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

I read the board guidelines, Scott Lloyd,

 

Here is the board guideline about signatures:

 

Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission.

 

Surely there is a difference between quoting you (a violation) or addressing you (not a violation) in my signature?

 

 

Here are the signature rules on the signature setting:

 

Your signature may contain:

• • Up to 1 images
• • Images up to 80 x 80 pixels
• • Up to 4 URLs
• • Up to 5 lines

I do not have an image, and only 1 url, and less than 5 lines....so no violation there.

 

Russell/Pahoran,  nice try and what a fantastic fail.  My use is a documented accepted usage. In fact, my usage is a documented accepted usage in the very article that that was used to claim my use was improper.

 

Cinpero documented quite well the fallacious use you resorted too.

Edited May 18, 2015 by tonie

[Gray]

You don't get it. A poll that is not conducted according to scientific sampling principles is not a reliable measure of prevailing public opinion.

 

Read this article for an explanation of why. Here is a germane passage:

 

Yes, I agree, it's not a reliable measure of prevailing public opinion. 

[Scott Lloyd]

You can stow the snark, Scott. 

 

What I find puzzling is that people on this board would place loyalty to their perceived "team" of board participants over certain principles they allegedly espouse.  I see aggressive attacks on posters with regularity and it often smacks of unabashed tribalism, not actual defense of underlying substantive issues.

 

And before you issue the CFR, that is just an opinion based on my personal observations.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Well, if you won't do a CFR, perhaps you will give us your definition of "unabashed tribalism" and tell us why that is such a nasty thing. It seems to have become the designer buzz term of this day and age and, like all buzz terms, perhaps generates more heat than light.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

You can stow the snark, Scott. 

 

What I find puzzling is that people on this board would place loyalty to their perceived "team" of board participants over certain principles they allegedly espouse.  I see aggressive attacks on posters with regularity and it often smacks of unabashed tribalism, not actual defense of underlying substantive issues.

 

And before you issue the CFR, that is just an opinion based on my personal observations.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

I'm working on getting my head around the fact that tonie gave you a rep point for this...

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm working on getting my head around the fact that tonie gave you a rep point for this...

Hmm ... perhaps an instance of the "unabashed tribalism" that ttribe was decrying?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I agree, it's not a reliable measure of prevailing public opinion. 

Good. I'll rep you for that.

 

(So much for ttribe's theories on "unabashed tribalism.")

[Gray]

Good. I'll rep you for that.

 

(So much for ttribe's theories on "unabashed tribalism.")

 

One for you as well

[ttribe]

Well, if you won't do a CFR, perhaps you give give us your definition of "unabashed tribalism" and tell us why that is such a nasty thing. It seems to have become the designer buzz term of this day and age and, like all buzz terms, perhaps generates more heat than light.

 

Since it seems you are already predisposed to doubt the validity of any criticism of such behavior on this board as nothing more than a trendy word choice, I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but I recently read this article - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201205/how-tribalism-makes-risky-word-even-more-dangerous - that seems to sum up the phenomenon relatively well.  This statement, in particular, I find illuminating when I engage in self-reflection of my own conduct: "Tribalism is pervasive, and it controls a lot of our behavior, readily overriding reason."

 

I think there has been some evidence of such overriding of reason in this very thread, but my mind certainly harkens back to the situation involving one Bro. Schryver and his actions regarding certain inappropriate behavior toward women on various message boards.  I, myself, was called a *liar* (for example) when I spoke up in criticism of his behavior.  In short, I felt like a placed principle over loyalty to other defenders and was ill-used as a result.

 

I'm working on getting my head around the fact that tonie gave you a rep point for this...

 

Well, if I follow the reasoning on rep points, perhaps I am "not who I claim I am."

[ttribe]

Hmm ... perhaps an instance of the "unabashed tribalism" that ttribe was decrying?

 

 

Good. I'll rep you for that.

 

(So much for ttribe's theories on "unabashed tribalism.")

 

And, thus returns the snark.

[Scott Lloyd]

Russell/Pahoran,  nice try and what a fantastic fail.  My use is a documented accepted usage. In fact, my usage is a documented accepted usage in the very article that that was used to claim my use was improper.

 

What was documented was merely that others use "beg the question" in the same improper, ignorance-based way that you did. This is indeed an argumentum ad populum. Russell was spot on.

 

And by the way, thank you for removing my name from your sig line.

 

Edited to add:

 

 

Cinpero documented quite well the fallacious use you resorted too.

 

I went back and read the link. And I read Russell's rebuttal, which I regard as solid.

 

Limiting the definition of faithful Latter-day Saint to "has his/her name on the records of the Church" strikes me as extremely legalistic and hardly workable.

 

I see the process of apostasy as being not a single flashpoint event, but rather, a process along a continuum. When an excommunication for apostasy finally occurs, it is nearly always a formalization of what has already taken place gradually over time.

 

Full disclosure: I added the latter part of this post after jwhitlock had aready awarded me a rep point. He may or may not agree with the addendum.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And, thus returns the snark.

Well if that's your observation, you're going to love my new member title.

 

But if you ever want to lead your own movement, here's a suggestion for a group title: The Unabashed Ttribalists.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Well if that's your observation, you're going to love my new member title.

 

Don't hurt your arm with that self-congratulatory pat on the back for your cleverness.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm working on getting my head around the fact that tonie gave you a rep point for this...

 

 

 

Well, if I follow the reasoning on rep points, perhaps I am "not who I claim I am."

I think it's more a matter of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't hurt your arm with that self-congratulatory pat on the back for your cleverness.

What about "The Unabashed Ttribalists"? I thought that one was pretty good too.

[ttribe]

I think it's more a matter of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

Are we "enemies" now, Scott?

 

What about "The Unabashed Ttribalists"? I thought that one was pretty good too.

 

It wasn't in the post when I first responded.  Yes, also clever play on my name.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are we "enemies" now, Scott?

 

 

I was alluding to tonie's possible perception.

 

It wasn't in the post when I first responded.  Yes, also clever play on my name.

 

I'm thinking of refining my new member title to "Unabashed Tribalist for the Lord," an allusion to the incident in Exodus that I cited.

 

But I'll probably leave it as is.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Since it seems you are already predisposed to doubt the validity of any criticism of such behavior on this board as nothing more than a trendy word choice, I'm not sure how helpful this will be, but I recently read this article - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201205/how-tribalism-makes-risky-word-even-more-dangerous - that seems to sum up the phenomenon relatively well.  This statement, in particular, I find illuminating when I engage in self-reflection of my own conduct: "Tribalism is pervasive, and it controls a lot of our behavior, readily overriding reason."

 

I think there has been some evidence of such overriding of reason in this very thread, but my mind certainly harkens back to the situation involving one Bro. Schryver and his actions regarding certain inappropriate behavior toward women on various message boards.  I, myself, was called a *liar* (for example) when I spoke up in criticism of his behavior.  In short, I felt like a placed principle over loyalty to other defenders and was ill-used as a result.

 

 

Is that what this is all about? Will's behavior put you off, so now you're imputing it to other defenders? Wouldn't that be a sort of reverse-tribalism, to coin a term?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Well, if I follow the reasoning on rep points, perhaps I am "not who I claim I am."

Maybe you should read my whole post again and try to get what I said right in addition to not stripping what you think I said out of context.

 

 

 

Tonie giving you a rep point in and of it self is not indicative of anything other than Tonie agreeing with you at this point.

 

And no reasonable person would conclude otherwise.