A Debate ("Dialogue") Scheduled for Today in Magna, UT

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's being hosted by a Presbyterian pastor who is publicly hoping that the result of the "dialogue" will be that Mormons abandon their faith.

But hey!  Bro. Allred probably knew what he was getting into when he agreed to participate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well that won't work..I say someone who represents the LDS faith be at least co-host..and hope for civil didaloge.. Though I am not of the faith..I want things to be fair!

Edited July 6, 2018 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For those of you who are not familiar with James White, here is a fairly long blog entry about him (written by a Catholic apologist).

You can also peruse Mr. White's website, aomin.org.

Thanks,

-Smac

The following passage from the link above may shed some light on how cordial or civil this upcoming “dialogue” is apt to be. Clearly, Alma Allred is entering a lion’s den. I wish him well. 

“White clearly doesn’t get it. And this is nothing new. Those of us who have dealt with his apologetics and unsavory methods for years know that he is most reluctant to engage people on a personal, “non-debate” level. He has habitually refused to even eat lunch with Catholic apologists who asked him. On some occasions he wouldn’t even shake hands after a debate. He doesn’t want to call someone up, even when invited to do so (Jimmy Akin again noted this in a recent controversy with White). He won’t reciprocate apologies or follow up on good faith efforts at reconciliation.”

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well that won't work..I say someone who represents the LDS faith be at least co-host..and hope for civil didaloge.. Though I am not of the faith..I want things to be fair!

I don't know about you, but it bothers the heck out of me when I hear people misrepresenting the church's teachings, doctrines, or practices. I will always stand up for the church when it is being unfairly represented. Several years ago, someone invited me to a message board that was run by an anti-Mormon Evangelical group. The friend who invited me said he thought I could help explain what the church was all about to these people and promote genuine dialogue. Almost immediately I was attacked for being a "Mormon spy" or "not Christian enough" because I dared to defend the church against false accusations or even just clarify misconceptions. I've never been so badly treated anywhere, and within a few days I deleted my account there. I must be doing something right if some Mormons think I'm "the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is" while the EVs think I'm a Mormon spy. 😆

Edited July 6, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know about you, but it bothers the heck out of me when I hear people misrepresenting the church's teachings, doctrines, or practices. I will always stand up for the church when it is being unfairly represented. Several years ago, someone invited me to a message board that was run by an anti-Mormon Evangelical group. The friend who invited me said he thought I could help explain what the church was all about to these people and promote genuine dialogue. Almost immediately I was attacked for being a "Mormon spy" or "not Christian enough" because I dared to defend the church against false accusations or even just clarify misconceptions. I've never been so badly treated anywhere, and within a few days I deleted my account there. I must be doing something right if some Mormons think I'm "the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is" while the EVs think I'm a Mormon spy. 😆

I know your last sentence was meant facetiously, but it’s an illustration of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy to moderation, also known as the middle ground or false compromise. See the following link. Just sayin’ 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/59/Argument-to-Moderation

Edited July 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I know your last sentence was meant facetiously, but it’s an illustration of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of moderation. See the following link. Just sayin’ 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/59/Argument-to-Moderation

I know. I'm quite sure some people around here think I'm hopelessly biased against the church. That's fine. 

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know about you, but it bothers the heck out of me when I hear people misrepresenting the church's teachings, doctrines, or practices. I will always stand up for the church when it is being unfairly represented. Several years ago, someone invited me to a message board that was run by an anti-Mormon Evangelical group. The friend who invited me said he thought I could help explain what the church was all about to these people and promote genuine dialogue. Almost immediately I was attacked for being a "Mormon spy" or "not Christian enough" because I dared to defend the church against false accusations or even just clarify misconceptions. I've never been so badly treated anywhere, and within a few days I deleted my account there. I must be doing something right if some Mormons think I'm "the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is" while the EVs think I'm a Mormon spy. 😆

You sneaky devil you....a mormon spy!!!  Heya..that is my job!!😊

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The following passage from the link above may shed some light on how cordial or civil this upcoming “dialogue” is apt to be. Clearly, Alma Allred is entering a lion’s den. I wish him well. 

“White clearly doesn’t get it. And this is nothing new. Those of us who have dealt with his apologetics and unsavory methods for years know that he is most reluctant to engage people on a personal, “non-debate” level. He has habitually refused to even eat lunch with Catholic apologists who asked him. On some occasions he wouldn’t even shake hands after a debate. He doesn’t want to call someone up, even when invited to do so (Jimmy Akin again noted this in a recent controversy with White). He won’t reciprocate apologies or follow up on good faith efforts at reconciliation.”

Why would any church want him to be the face of their denomination?  Is this an example of the end justifies the means?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

You sneaky devil you....a mormon spy!!!  Heya..that is my job!!😊

I thought we were tag-teaming.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Why would any church want him to be the face of their denomination?  Is this an example of the end justifies the means?

A lot of people don't have a problem with Robert Jeffress, either. Go figure.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought we were tag-teaming.

 

Okay...but I am woman...I get to roar!

But seriously guys...keep me posted on this debate.  Thanks!!

Edited July 6, 2018 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know. I'm quite sure some people around here think I'm hopelessly biased against the church. That's fine. 

My point is that taking a position somewhere in the middle of two extremes of which one has been falsely accused doesn’t necessarily make one’s actual position correct. The correct position may fall somewhere else along the spectrum, if there be a spectrum. 

That said, I’m glad you occasionally stand up for the Church when you see it falsely maligned. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

My point is that taking a position somewhere in the middle of two extremes of which one has been falsely accused doesn’t necessarily make one’s actual position correct. 

Obviously. 

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That said, I’m glad you occasionally stand up for the Church when you see it falsely maligned. 

I always stand up for the church when I see it falsely maligned. I think the difference is that you and I disagree as to when it's being falsely maligned or accurately criticized. 

[Robert F. Smith]

See Ara Norwood's old review of James White online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=20 .  White also spends a lot of his time attacking fellow mainstream Christians.

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I remember a few years ago reading something from Daniel Peterson who had, IIRC, declined to debate James White.  Part of the reason was that Dr. Peterson felt that in-person debates were less effective (and also perhaps less interesting, at least to some) than written debates.  I think he had a point.  This is why attorneys virtually always submit written briefs to the court, and then may or may not have oral argument about the briefs.   Written briefs clarify the scope of what is to be discussed.  They allow for a more structured and thoughtful interaction, whereas in-person debates can meander, get off-topic, devolve into bickering, etc.  [...]

Yeah, one of the difficulties with in-person debates is that they tend to favor the participant who presents himself as the more skilled debater rather than who actually makes the most compelling arguments. 

Hopefully Bro. Allred is able to comport himself well and give listeners something to counterbalance the arguments presented by "Dr." White. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

See Ara Norwood's old review of James White online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=20 .  White also spends a lot of his time attacking fellow mainstream Christians.

In reading this link, I smiled at the introductory lines:

”At first glance what we seem to have in James R. White’s first book-length project on Mormonism is the evangelical answer to the claims of Mormon doctrine. In fact, Mr. White seems to have the answers to just about anything and everything a Mormon missionary would ever say. After all, he has, “over the past few years, . . . spoken with well over 1,200 Mormon missionaries in Arizona and Utah,¹ and an equal number of plain Mormon folk” (p. ix). Anyone who has spoken with what amounts to over 2,400 people of one particular faith has really done his homework, or so it would seem. Alpha and Omega ministries had only been in business for about seven years when this book was written. Is Mr. White serious when he says he has dialogued with an average of 350 Mormons each year, or 29 Mormons each month, or an average of one different Mormon each day—every day—for a seven-year period? That’s a huge amount of research—in fact, it’s staggering, incredible, and, dare I say, unbelievable.”

 

When I read this, I thought of certain professional athletes and entertainers who claim to have slept with thousands of women — so many that they would have had to spend every spare minute engaged in promiscuous sex. 

 

[Garden Girl]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope so, too.  Alas, one of the participants is James White, who has been brought in from out of state for this "dialogue."  And Mr. White has a long history of debating, and not so much of "dialoguing."

If "dialogue" were really the intent of this event, then Pastor Wallace could have simply done it himself.  Instead, he brought in Mr. White as a hired gun.

If "dialogue" were really the intent of this event, then Pastor Wallace wouldn't be publicizing his hope that "a respectful, but substantive exchange will make the truth clear" and illustrating his hoped-for outcome by referencing "one young man [who] credits the dialogue we did two years ago with his leaving Mormonism for Biblical Christianity."

So the hallmarks here are for more of a debate than a dialogue, and for Mormonism to be scrutinized/criticized/attacked.  I don't think Presbyterianism will get much scrutiny at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is why these types of events rarely are helpful to anyone... the Protestants have one aim and one aim only... and that is to discredit Mormonism... they aren't interested in dialog as they have already concluded that Mormonism is wrong and it is their "calling" to confront us with the error of our beliefs or doctrine...  with the hope they can influence others to leave Mormonism... that's the whole Protestants' purpose of this event, not the respectful exchange of ideas or understanding... do any here actually believe Mr. White has any other purpose than to tear down Mormonism?  You're naive if you do...  I don't know why Bro. Allred has agreed to participate... 

GG

[Calm]

Quote

  I don'tknow why Bro. Allred has agreed to participate... 

My experience is that some believe that some exposure is better than none.  They don't understand that such exposure can taint future encounters that even if positive on their own, if seen with the filter of a debate they are rejected.

[revelstoked]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In my high school debate class we were taught that one of the things you do when presenting a case on the affirmative side is to define the terms of the proposition to be debated. 

And the Affirmative team will only define the terms that will get them in hot water with the "topicality" term.  One of the ways to lose a debate on the affirmative is for the negative to show that you are not on topic (topicality).  So those definitions can backfire because it tells the negative team where to aim the topicality briefs at.  A well argued T position takes 30 seconds for a negative team to read (with all the hooks to win it) and usually longer for the aff to deal with, you waste their time becuase they must deal with the Topicality or lose the debate before its merits are even considered.

I won my first tournoment because in the final the Aff ran a slightly off topic case, I said it wasn't topical, they said it was "topical by effect", I rebutted "Topical by effect isn't topical," The rebutted with "See our previous argument" and lost.

So agreeing on terms, although boring to watch, can be a key in winning and losing a judged event.  The same goes with apologetics, if you can mire the debate in definitions the first arguer must spend time talking about things other than their core message.  If you don't have time pressure or requirements for objectivity you may be better off ignoring such definition debates so you can get to your core message.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

This is why these types of events rarely are helpful to anyone... the Protestants have one aim and one aim only... and that is to discredit Mormonism... they aren't interested in dialog as they have already concluded that Mormonism is wrong and it is their "calling" to confront us with the error of our beliefs or doctrine...  with the hope they can influence others to leave Mormonism... that's the whole Protestants' purpose of this event, not the respectful exchange of ideas or understanding... do any here actually believe Mr. White has any other purpose than to tear down Mormonism? 

Well, the seminar is being advertised as "Defending the Faith In Troubled Times," with the topic for "discussion" this evening being "Is the LDS Church True?"

I doubt very much that Pastor Wallace is seriously considering that the answer to that question might actually be 'yes.' 

 

Quote

I don't know why Bro. Allred has agreed to participate... 

While such endeavors are, in my opinion, usually a waste of time, I do think there's something to be said for defending the faith - even in situations that are less than ideal. 

Plus, you never know when the Spirit is going to break through and touch someone. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

My idea of a religious debate (worked with Testigos de Jehovah in Central America)....each side has 45 minutes to preach their gospel - but no mention of the other side is allowed. At the end the audience votes on which one they would like to follow.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, revelstoked said:

Gak, double post with newbie permissions.  Mods: please delete the one of your choice.

Good enough info to read twice.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

This is why these types of events rarely are helpful to anyone... the Protestants have one aim and one aim only... and that is to discredit Mormonism... they aren't interested in dialog as they have already concluded that Mormonism is wrong and it is their "calling" to confront us with the error of our beliefs or doctrine...  with the hope they can influence others to leave Mormonism... that's the whole Protestants' purpose of this event, not the respectful exchange of ideas or understanding... do any here actually believe Mr. White has any other purpose than to tear down Mormonism?  You're naive if you do...  I don't know why Bro. Allred has agreed to participate... 

GG

Who tends to rush in where angels fear to tread?

[Gray]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's being hosted by a Presbyterian pastor who is publicly hoping that the result of the "dialogue" will be that Mormons abandon their faith.

But hey!  Bro. Allred probably knew what he was getting into when he agreed to participate.

Thanks, 

-Smac

Isn't that the hope of every missionary discussion?

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

See Ara Norwood's old review of James White online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=20 .  White also spends a lot of his time attacking fellow mainstream Christians.

I've watched a couple of debates with James White. He exults in vulgar fundamentalism.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Gray