Jump to content

General Handbook Update: Getting information from reliable sources


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Yeah, none of this surprises me.

I'm just glad I live in a world where you exist so I can benefit from your great insight.

And FWIW, I voted Biden have at least booked a few adjunct gigs in my day.

Edited by Ipod Touch
Link to post
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

This (and the predictable reactions to it) bring to mind two books I highly recommend for people of all political persuasions:

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

My doctoral dissertation incorporated an awful lot of the cognitive sciences and identity politics, and I think Haidt's book is a wonderful popular introduction to some of the features of that field. It's a bit idiosyncratic, and some of the ideas are a bit outdated, but the general outlines are very good. It's the first book in over a decade of which I have bought additional copies to give out to others. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I'm just glad I live in a world where you exist so I can benefit from your great insight.

And FWIW, I voted Biden have at least booked a few adjunct gigs in my day.

Wait, are you really pretending to condescend to me about my academic career? I've booked adjunct gigs in my day, too, but I also have a wonderful full-time job supervising the translation of the scriptures for the Church, and make a lot more money right now than I would at the overwhelming majority of visiting or assistant professor positions in my field. I just finished my PhD in May, too, and the only two apps I have bothered submitting since then were submitted a few weeks ago, are still under consideration, and are for the only two positions that have come along that would actually increase my salary. You don't know me at all and are really barking up the wrong tree.

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

My doctoral dissertation incorporated an awful lot of the cognitive sciences and identity politics, and I think Haidt's book is a wonderful popular introduction to some of the features of that field. It's a bit idiosyncratic, and some of the ideas are a bit outdated, but the general outlines are very good. It's the first book in over a decade of which I have bought additional copies to give out to others. 

Yes, my edition is dated 2012 and the research using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire has been ongoing (expanding and improving, with an eye toward refining the theory, which is discussed in the book and which I hope has taken place), though I see the website itself has not been updated since 2013. I plan on participating in the survey: https://moralfoundations.org/questionnaires/

The book's website has not been updated since 2018, and once I'm done with the book I hope to find sources discussing any refinements.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Maureen said:

Wow, talk about someone who is blind as a bat and at the same time doesn't have a sense of humour.

M.

My apologies to gopher, mfbukowski and bluebell for not perceiving my error at first and not grasping their meaning initially. 
 

But it’s not correct that I don’t have a sense of humor. I quite enjoy a good joke — and this one is on me!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I quite disagree. A false understanding can be impressed upon a receiver’s  mind at least as easily by a brief tweet or an ostensibly clever meme as it can by a treatise of hundreds of words. In fact I would argue it can be done more easily, as the tweet or the meme are often more accessible (and more pervasive) than the treatise. The Church leaders are quite right to admonish us to scrutinize our information sources, and nowhere is this counsel more applicable than in social media. 

@provoman can correct me here, but I took his post as sarcasm.

Edited by rchorse
Link to post

This addition has been made in section 38 of the Handbook, 'Church Policies and Guidelines'. Other entries in this section include 'Gambling and Lotteries' and 'Postal Regulations'. I think it would be a mistake to read it narrowly as applying just to Church-related matters. I believe it's clear that the Brethren are worried about the quality and kinds of voices that the Saints are choosing to listen to. I share that concern and sincerely hope that I am not contributing to it!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This addition has been made in section 38 of the Handbook, 'Church Policies and Guidelines'. Other entries in this section include 'Gambling and Lotteries' and 'Postal Regulations'. I think it would be a mistake to read it narrowly as applying just to Church-related matters. I believe it's clear that the Brethren are worried about the quality and kinds of voices that the Saints are choosing to listen to. I share that concern and sincerely hope that I am not contributing to it!

The section is kind of an area for miscellaneous items that don’t readily fit in other areas of the handbook. 
 

There used to be a publication distributed from Church headquarters called the “Priesthood Bulletin.” It was for local priesthood leaders and contained advisories such as these. Some of these would occasionally be printed in Church magazines under the heading “Church Policies and Announcements.” Many of them were accumulated over time and ended up in this section of the handbook. 
 

And while it could not be said to apply strictly to Church-related matters, my understanding is that the intended audience is the Latter-day Saints and, in particular, those who lead and teach them. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I bet this is causing all kinds of mental gymnastic exercises over in the oddly named Freedom Forum.

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is that the place where the preppers hang out?

Did you mean to say “Freedom Forum”? 
 

I ask, because I just Googled “Freedom Forum,” and it took me to the website of a group whose objective seems to be to champion First Amendment freedoms. From a few moments’ cursory examination, I couldn’t find anything there to disagree with. Moreover, as I saw nothing there that bore any direct relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ, I couldn’t see how this new addition to the handbook would be causing anyone there to be doing “mental gymnastic exercises.”

Did you, perhaps, mean to say “LDS Freedom Forum”? I went to a website that goes by that name, and it seems more to have the sort of fringey, extremist character that you seem to be alluding to here. My intuition tells me this is what you have in mind, but can you clarify?

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Did you mean to say “Freedom Forum”? 
 

I ask, because I just Googled “Freedom Forum,” and it took me to the website of a group whose objective seems to be to champion First Amendment freedoms. From a few moments’ cursory examination, I couldn’t find anything there to disagree with. Moreover, as I saw nothing there that bore any direct relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ, I couldn’t see how this new addition to the handbook would be causing anyone there to be doing “mental gymnastic exercises.”

Did you, perhaps, mean to say “LDS Freedom Forum”? I went to a website that goes by that name, and it seems more to have the sort of fringey, extremist character that you seem to be alluding to here. My intuition tells me this is what you have in mind, but can you clarify?

I meant the LDS Freedom Forum. It was in reference to their love of conspiracy theories.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...