Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying. A little help from you wouldn't hurt. In the last days, each generation in turn has been held in reserve to do its particular part in ushering in the Second Coming of Christ. It should not take a genius-level IQ to grasp that concept -- even after one's mind has been darkened by unbelief. 2
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In the last days, each generation in turn has been held in reserve to do its particular part in ushering in the Second Coming of Christ. It should not take a genius-level IQ to grasp that concept -- even after one's mind has been darkened by unbelief. That is the quintessential apologetic answer. It first reads the evidence at complete odds with what it actually says, then insults not only the intelligence of the person who points it out, but also his spirituality. A trifecta of apologetics. Bravo, Scott! Bravo! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: Wow, that is really astounding. The more educated someone is, the more likely they are to be all in. To me that is the most telling number in this data. That is most interesting. It defies conventional wisdom in some quarters. And it tends to support John Lynch's theory that people let their doubts get the better of them when they cease too soon to study. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That is the quintessential apologetic answer. It first reads the evidence at complete odds with what it actually says, then insults not only the intelligence of the person who points it out, but also his spirituality. A trifecta of apologetics. Bravo, Scott! Bravo! You need to understand something about me, consig: I don't share your contempt for apologetics, which simply means defense. Ergo, when you call me an apologist and intend it as an insult, your effort is wasted on me. Edited January 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
Gray Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That is most interesting. It defies conventional wisdom in some quarters. And it tends to support John Lynch's theory that people let their doubts get the better of them when they cease too soon to study. I think people who are "all in" in the church tend to make education a priority. But education for most of us is really about professional development. There are plenty of LDS dentists, lawyers and managers, but the education we have doesn't really put us in a position to understand the historical and theological issues related to Mormonism better than anyone else. Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray 2
Ahab Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In the last days, each generation in turn has been held in reserve to do its particular part in ushering in the Second Coming of Christ. It should not take a genius-level IQ to grasp that concept -- even after one's mind has been darkened by unbelief. Maybe a thread on what it means to have one's mind darkened (by whatever or whoever) would help to show why people whose mind has been darkened have a hard time seeing the light, Scott. Using light to refer to intelligence, with the greater the light the greater the intelligence, then a darker mind is one that has a harder time seeing and holding on to intelligence. That's what I see as what is often going on around here.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 29 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I'll take that as an admission you agree with me. President Nelson did engage in the logical fallacy of well-poisoning. No, I suggested that one can't poison a well that is already toxic. Ergo, no act of well poisoning has transpired on President Nelson's part; the well you refer to is already poison. Quote ... just who is this mysterious "they" who are "really serving Satan." One would think that an important term to define. But President Nelson didn't define it. And neither have you. Right, he spoke in principle and concept about being careful not to follow servants of Satan. He has left it up to his listeners to use their own discernment to identify such servants as they encounter them. He has thus implicitly expressed confidence in the "millennials" to whom his remarks are addressed. All in all, a very good talk. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Gray said: I think people who are "all in" in the church tend to make education a priority. But education for most of us is really about professional development. There are plenty of LDS dentists, lawyers and managers, but the education we have doesn't really put us in a position to understand the historical and theological issues related to Mormonism more than anyone else. You are insinuating, with no supportive evidence, that educated people in the Church don't bother to educate themselves on Mormonism, while anti-Mormons who prey on those who are weak in the faith do. I don't accept that on your say-so. People with advanced education tend to be readers and, presumably, read widely in a disparate assortment of fields, especially those in which they are vitally interested such as their own religious faith. Incidentally, here is a website that would argue against your notion. Edited January 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You are insinuating, with no supportive evidence, that educated people in the Church don't bother to educate themselves on Mormonism, while anti-Mormons who prey on those who are weak in the faith do. I don't accept that on your say-so. People with advanced education tend to be readers and, presumably, read widely in a disparate assortment of fields, especially those in which they are vitally interested such as their own religious faith. As is often the case, you're inferring a whole lot from my statement that just isn't there. I will just say that there was nothing in my MBA program about 19th century religious history, Christian theology, or mesoamerican archaeology. Trying to infer causation from correlation as it relates to level of education/religious commitment to Mormonism seems premature at best. I think the reason the two are correlated is likely that Mormonism as a culture promotes professional development, which requires a certain level of education. If you have close cultural ties to the church, you'll probably at least get your undergrad finished. I think less educated people tend to leave in higher numbers because they are already less committed to Mormonism (and I suspect many of them are recent converts). It's not about how much you study or don't study the issues. Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Gray said: As is often the case, you're inferring a whole lot from my statement that just isn't there. I will just say that there was nothing in my MBA program about 19th century religious history, Christian theology, or mesoamerican archaeology. Do you only read material related to your MBA program? I think the Mormon Scholars Testify website I linked to suggests that highly educated Mormons typically are broader than that in their interests. Quote Trying to infer causation from correlation as it relates to level of education/religious commitment to Mormonism seems premature at best. I think the reason the two are correlated is likely that Mormonism as a culture promotes professional development, which requires a certain level of education. If you have close cultural ties to the church, you'll probably at least get your undergrad finished. It's no more premature than implying that highly educated Mormons keep themselves in the dark when it comes to their own religious faith even as they pursue scholarship in other areas. And I did say the findings from the study tend to support John Lynch's theory; I didn't say they were definitive proof of it. Quote I think less educated people tend to leave in higher numbers because they are already less committed to Mormonism (and I suspect many of them are recent converts). It's not about how much you study or don't study the issues. And it may be that they tend to leave in higher numbers because they haven't invested the time and effort to learn about the faith that more highly educated members have. Or it may be a combination of both. My speculation is at least as good as yours at this point. Edited January 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you only read material related to your MBA program? I think the Mormon Scholars Testify website I linked to suggests that highly educated Mormons typically are broader than that in their interests. I read all kinds of material, but I'm a sample size of one. 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's no more premature than implying that highly educated Mormons keep themselves in the dark when it comes to their own religious faith even as they pursue scholarship in other areas. I never implied that. 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And it may be that they tend to leave in higher numbers because they haven't invested the time and effort to learn about the faith that more highly educated members have. Or it may be a combination of both. My speculation is at least as good as yours at this point. Maybe. But I think it's as simple as this: Converts to the church tend to be less educated than other members. Converts to the church are more likely go inactive/leave the church than those who were raised in the church. Therefore the remainder who stay tend to be more educated than those who go inactive. But it likely has nothing to do with education per se, only ingrained commitment to the church, which takes some time to develop. Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gray said: I read all kinds of material, but I'm a sample size of one. And you've presented a sample size of zero -- or, that is, zero sample sizes -- to substantiate your notion that educated Mormons only read and study material related to their professional fields. Quote I never implied that. I submit that you did. See above. Quote Maybe. But I think it's as simple as this: Converts to the church tend to be less educated than other members. Less-educated how? Less educated in Mormonism or less educated in general? If it's the latter, I would need to see some evidence before I accept that. Quote Converts to the church are more likely go inactive/leave the church than those who were raised in the church. Therefore the remainder who stay tend to be more educated than those who go inactive. But it likely has nothing to do with education per se, only ingrained commitment to the church, which takes some time to develop. One could turn that around and say that "ingrained commitment to the Church" usually entails being more knowledgeable about it and hence less vulnerable to the sophistries of those who would endeavor to destroy faith. Edited January 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Gray Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And you've presented a sample size of zero -- or, that is, zero sample sized -- to substantiate your notion that educated Mormons only read and study material related to their professional fields. I submit that you did. See above. Scott, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea, but it's not coming from me. Please don't attribute this idea to me. Formal CFR that I expressed the idea, or please retract. 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Less-educated how? Less educated in Mormonism or less educated in general? If it's the latter, I would need to see some evidence before I accept that. One could turn that around and say that "ingrained commitment to the Church" usually entails being more knowledgeable about it and hence less vulnerable to the sophistries of those who would endeavor to destroy faith. Less educated in general. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us/#4 According to the Pew survey, converts to Mormonism are significantly less educated than lifelong members Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Scott, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea, but it's not coming from me. Please don't attribute this idea to me. Formal CFR that I expressed the idea, or please retract. From your prior post: Quote I think people who are "all in" in the church tend to make education a priority. But education for most of us is really about professional development. There are plenty of LDS dentists, lawyers and managers, but the education we have doesn't really put us in a position to understand the historical and theological issues related to Mormonism better than anyone else. I take this to mean you believe that, although some Latter-day Saints are well educated, they are really only educated in their professional fields and they don't bother to improve their knowledge about Mormonism, their chosen faith, because that does not fall under their "professional development." I believe I've drawn a reasonable interpretation of your statement. If you need to clarify, feel free. Meanwhile, I retract nothing.
Gray Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: From your prior post: I take this to mean you believe that, although some Latter-day Saints are well educated, they are really only educated in their professional fields and they don't bother to improve their knowledge about Mormonism, their chosen faith, because that does not fall under their "professional development." I believe I've drawn a reasonable interpretation of your statement. If you need to clarify, feel free. Meanwhile, I retract nothing. It's not a reasonable inference, Scott. I'm not trying to be hostile, but I don't like having words put in my mouth. I never said anything about them "not bothering to improve their knowledge about Mormonism". That's pure straw man. I just said that having an education in business or dentistry or law doesn't better prepare us to deal with theological or historical issues. Edited January 19, 2016 by Gray 1
Ahab Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 37 minutes ago, Gray said: Scott, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea, but it's not coming from me. Please don't attribute this idea to me. Formal CFR that I expressed the idea, or please retract. Less educated in general. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us/#4 According to the Pew survey, converts to Mormonism are significantly less educated than lifelong members I'm a convert to the Church, so to speak, rather than a lifelong member, and I suspect that many converts just wouldn't bother to be involved in that poll because it is just another one of those stupid polls in this world.
Gray Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, Ahab said: I'm a convert to the Church, so to speak, rather than a lifelong member, and I suspect that many converts just wouldn't bother to be involved in that poll because it is just another one of those stupid polls in this world. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the poll. However, statistics are about what is broadly true across large populations. I have converts in my family who are well educated.
ttribe Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not a reasonable inference, Scott. I'm not trying to be hostile, but I don't like having words put in my mouth. I never said anything about them "not bothering to improve their knowledge about Mormonism". That's pure straw man. I just said that having and education in business or dentistry or law doesn't better prepare us to deal with theological or historical issues. Actually, if I may interject, if one obtained a good undergraduate education that included general studies in the liberal arts, he/she may have obtained above average critical thinking skills that are helpful in evaluating evidence in the areas you suggested. Having a law degree on top of that could be especially helpful. 100% guarantee of the conclusions of such population being "right" in either direction? No, not at all. But there is something to be said for the general education level among the believing members of the Church. What that is, exactly, I'm not sure...but, something. Nevertheless, inferences on the positive side of the equation should be tempered by the fact that human beings are notoriously prone to compartmentalizing their lives into areas subjected to substantial scrutiny and others that are not. 4
Ahab Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I have no reason to doubt the validity of the poll. However, statistics are about what is broadly true across large populations. I have converts in my family who are well educated. The people who came up with the poll had their own ideas about what it means to be well educated, though. Joseph Smith once said people can gain more knowledge of God and his kingdom by peering into heaven for just 5 minutes than they could learn by studying books. God is the best teacher.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Ahab said: Maybe a thread on what it means to have one's mind darkened (by whatever or whoever) would help to show why people whose mind has been darkened have a hard time seeing the light, Scott. Using light to refer to intelligence, with the greater the light the greater the intelligence, then a darker mind is one that has a harder time seeing and holding on to intelligence. That's what I see as what is often going on around here. Which explains why you keep bumping into walls. You see my mind as being darkened. I see it as being enlightened. You see yourself as obedient to men you believe to be prophets of God. I see you as tied to a theological Procrustean bed. The important thing is that we do what we believe to be right, and that we follow the path we believe to be best.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, I suggested that one can't poison a well that is already toxic. Ergo, no act of well poisoning has transpired on President Nelson's part; the well you refer to is already poison. This is nonsense. Why do you trot out this tripe, Scott? President Nelson says be careful who(m) you follow because there are servants of Satan everywhere. I say this is well-poisoning. You say it isn't, because there really are servants of Satan everywhere. But the logical fallacy of well poisoning has nothing to do with whether you think the assertion is true. In your zeal to defend President Nelson, you engage in a non sequitur. Back to the books for you, Scott: Quote Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: You are insinuating, with no supportive evidence, that educated people in the Church don't bother to educate themselves on Mormonism, while anti-Mormons who prey on those who are weak in the faith do. I don't accept that on your say-so. People with advanced education tend to be readers and, presumably, read widely in a disparate assortment of fields, especially those in which they are vitally interested such as their own religious faith. Incidentally, here is a website that would argue against your notion. Am I the only one detecting a double-standard . . . ?
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: From your prior post: I take this to mean you believe that, although some Latter-day Saints are well educated, they are really only educated in their professional fields and they don't bother to improve their knowledge about Mormonism, their chosen faith, because that does not fall under their "professional development." I believe I've drawn a reasonable interpretation of your statement. If you need to clarify, feel free. Meanwhile, I retract nothing. Gray already clarified it Scott. Give it a rest already. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, consiglieri said: The important thing is that we do what we believe to be right, and that we follow the path we believe to be best. You forgot to add 'and then scream to high heaven should someone who follows a different path even suggest that we may be wrong'.
consiglieri Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You forgot to add 'and then scream to high heaven should someone who follows a different path even suggest that we may be wrong'. I see only Mormons doing that on this board.
Recommended Posts