Jump to content

Tribe article on declining religiosity among LDS


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Yours is an uninformed and ignorant assessment because the scriptures amply testify that both states of affairs  can be simultaneously true. As the prophet Nephi saw in his great vision, the. Church will indeed become a large worldwide organization, although it will be a relatively small one when compared to the vast numbers of souls found in the church of the Whore of Babylon. And we’re also told that as time goes on there will be a significant number of apostates in the Church who will masquerade as faithful members when they are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing. The scriptures testify that these will have the wrath God poured out upon them in most severe judgement at the time when the prophesied great tribulation period of the last days is about to begin in earnest. In other words, prior to the Second Coming the Church will be as it was in the days of the prophet Joseph Smith, populated with both faithful members and disloyal wicked members, some of the darkest hue. The scriptures frequently attest that this state of affairs — the wheat and tares growing together — which you mock as being preposterous, is commonplace and nothing new under the sun. 

No I am not uninformed.  Nor ignorant.  I know the passages well.  I have just come to understand what nonsense they are and how true believers use the same verses as it suits and have been for a few thousand years.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

'm not particularly impressed with Jana Reiss.  See, e.g., here.

I repose more trust in David Ostler, whom I think genuinely loves the Church and its members.  Ostler posits, correctly, I think, that religious disaffection is a widespread malady, and not just limited to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though he acknowledges some unique conditions amongst us:

And you think Jana Reiss does not love the church and its members?  If so how do you know?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Until you come up with an actual discussion of any topic on these boards I will not be replying to your responses.  I have never seen someone who thinks cutting the comments of others into little pieces, then giving one sentence comments as a reasonable way to have a discussion.  I will wait until you can put a couple of paragraphs together with an overall cohesive discussion.

This is a technique that lawyers use to cross examine testimony.  There is even a term for this kind of attack, but I have forgotten the name of it.  By taking the statement apart piece by piece, they can distort what is being said by completely taking comments out of context.  Once taken out of context, the lawyer can then redirect the line to where he wants it to go rather than where the person's statement intended it to go. This is the reason SMAC answers every single post by slicing and dicing it.  He is an effective lawyer, but not really someone who engages in honest discussion.  You can ignore his comments.  I do it frequently.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

I'm not particularly impressed with Jana Reiss.  See, e.g., here.

I repose more trust in David Ostler, whom I think genuinely loves the Church and its members.  Ostler posits, correctly, I think, that religious disaffection is a widespread malady, and not just limited to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though he acknowledges some unique conditions amongst us:

And you think Jana Reiss does not love the church and its members? 

I decline to answer this question.

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If so how do you know?

Ditto.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is a technique that lawyers use to cross examine testimony.  

Judges likewise critique the constituent elements of a litigant's arguments.

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is even a term for this kind of attack, but I have forgotten the name of it.

Fisking?

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

By taking the statement apart piece by piece, they can distort what is being said by completely taking comments out of context.  

There is that risk.

But there is also the added benefit of parsing things out.  Of separating the wheat from the chaff.  Of differentiating between valid points and specious ones.

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Once taken out of context, the lawyer can then redirect the line to where he wants it to go rather than where the person's statement intended it to go. This is the reason SMAC answers every single post by slicing and dicing it.  He is an effective lawyer, but not really someone who engages in honest discussion.  You can ignore his comments.  I do it frequently.

You seldom post anything other than your subjective and emotion-laden opinion about the Church, and then ladle on heapings of hostility for good measure.  You also regularly play the if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-bigot card, which never fails to not impress.

I guess fisking your emotionalisms can come across as an "attack" on you as a person since you seldom offer substantive evidence, authority, or reasoning/analysis.

Candidly, I'd rather not interact with you either.  We don't get along.  But as long as you are publicly attacking and disparaging my faith and my people, I will defend them.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Being effective in argumentation does not make one dishonest. It might annoy some folks, but not many people relish being bested in a debate. So what?

In my opinion, it can easily cross over to dishonesty when a post is dissected to the point where the meaning and context of the post is compromised and instead the person starts to change the meaning of the post for his own agenda and ignoring the point the poster has made.  When I have tried to correct his misrepresentations, he will even dissect that answer.  This has happened to me enough times that I rarely respond to SMAC's posts.  

It isn't about winning or loosing an argument.  It is about expressing a different point of view.  I don't mind my views being questioned.  I do mind my views being distorted.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Judges likewise critique the constituent elements of a litigant's arguments.

Fisking?

There is that risk.

But there is also the added benefit of parsing things out.  Of separating the wheat from the chaff.  Of differentiating between valid points and specious ones.

You seldom post anything other than your subjective and emotion-laden opinion about the Church, and then ladle on heapings of hostility for good measure.  You also regularly play the if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-bigot card, which never fails to not impress.

I guess fisking your emotionalisms can come across as an "attack" on you as a person since you seldom offer substantive evidence, authority, or reasoning/analysis.

Candidly, I'd rather not interact with you either.  We don't get along.  But as long as you are publicly attacking and disparaging my faith and my people, I will defend them.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. 

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. 

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. 

 

Link to comment

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone defined religiosity in this thread? Anyone care to?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

In my opinion, it can easily cross over to dishonesty when a post is dissected to the point where the meaning and context of the post is compromised and instead the person starts to change the meaning of the post for his own agenda and ignoring the point the poster has made.  When I have tried to correct his misrepresentations, he will even dissect that answer.  This has happened to me enough times that I rarely respond to SMAC's posts.  

It isn't about winning or loosing an argument.  It is about expressing a different point of view.  I don't mind my views being questioned.  I do mind my views being distorted.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Smac deliberately do that, although I have seen him graciously accept correction from time to time (and sometimes, I’ve questioned in my own mind whether the correction was warranted). 
 

What I’m pushing back on here is the attitude that what Smac calls “fisking” and you call “slicing and dicing” is necessarily malicious, malevolent or dishonest. For me, it helps greatly to clarify the points under discussion. I find it to be a very useful and orderly technique, and I would hate to see Smac pressured into abandoning it, not that I would expect him to cave in to such pressure. 
 

And I beg to differ: Sometimes it IS “a matter of winning and losing,” primarily when the faith and the people I love are stridently attacked. This is true if for no other reason than the need to protect onlookers from being misled by specious claims and fallacious argument. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
10 hours ago, smac97 said:

… never fails to not impress.

“never fails to not impress” = never impresses. 
 

It’s a triple negative.
 

“Fails to not impress, would be a double negative and would mean the thing does impress. 

But “never fails to not impress” tacks an additional negative onto the front of the phrase, changing it to mean the thing does not impress. 
 

Expressed in mathematical terms, a negative times a negative is a positive,  but a negative times a negative times a negative is a negative. 
 

Sorry. Three and a half years into retirement and I haven’t yet gotten over the urge to fix wordiness. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a technique that lawyers use to cross examine testimony.  There is even a term for this kind of attack, but I have forgotten the name of it.  By taking the statement apart piece by piece, they can distort what is being said by completely taking comments out of context.  Once taken out of context, the lawyer can then redirect the line to where he wants it to go rather than where the person's statement intended it to go. This is the reason SMAC answers every single post by slicing and dicing it.  He is an effective lawyer, but not really someone who engages in honest discussion.  You can ignore his comments.  I do it frequently.

Every time I read his comments the name Zeezrom comes to mind.  It seems like an approach totally lacking in mercy, compassion, charity or hope.  No desire to try and understand the other side just win at all costs but an example of many members of the Church.   It's a perfect example of why many people are leaving the Church because there are far to many members that have the attitude that either you live the gospel my way or your in apostasy.  In my reading of the Book of Mormon it is a perfect example of the pride that led to the destruction of the Church over and over for the Nephites.  I sense this same attitude in several other posters on this board.  I am sure that these same posters will want to respond that they are compassionate people but my guess would be that compassion only extends to those who think like they do.  I am much more interested in the impact of my actions on the heart of a person than being "right" per my interpretations of the scriptures, prophetic teachings or doctrine.  Truth must always be mixed with even more mercy and forgiveness.  The whole reason Jesus Christ is our savior is because he is willing to listen to any one of us in a manner that makes us feel loved and accepted.  He promises us that we can always be forgiven over and over and over.  I see words like "I will defend my faith" as if that were the 1st requirement of a follower of Jesus Christ.  I believe the first question we ask somebody who left the Church is an honest question of why and then just listen.  The attitudes I see of some on this board is a total lack of listening to understand and feel the pain of someone who has decided to leave the Church.  It is a very painful process for almost everyone who leaves but too many members and leaders only listen to come up with all the explanations why someone's reasons for leaving the Church are wrong.  So I guess if one has no true interest in why people are leaving the Church and what the Church might do but rather are glad to see the "unfaithful" leave, then religiosity (actively participating in an organized religion) will continue to decline.  To be fair to such posters, I believe their intent isn't to hurt people, but their whole basis for feeling purpose and safety in life is complete and total acceptance of everything taught in the Church by leaders.  If they consider for one moment that someone might have a just cause for leaving the Church, it would severely shake their whole worldview.  Currently the Church seems to be catering almost exclusively to this mindset by terms such as "covenant path", "temple attendance" and "come follow me study" rather than in depth discussions about how we should be treating one another or addressing the many problems facing the Church.  You never see any discussion of the faults, failures and unanswered prayers in Church publications.   The Church says nothing to the youth about how many of them will end up divorced, abused or with severe mental illness and what they might do to prepare for such eventualities.  There is no discussion of the high inactivity rate across the world.  No discussion of the many missionaries leaving the Church after coming home (the Church will offer no statistics on this) but I have now heard 5 or 6 stake presidents mention this problem but with no discussion.  The Church offers no explanation why women can never preside over men.  There is no explanation of what the Church is going to do with $150 billion it has in reserves.  I guess I am stating the reasons why religiosity is declining among Church members and it isn't because the lost their faith in God but rather they lost it in men. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“never fails to not impress” = never impresses. 
 

It’s a triple negative.
 

“Fails to not impress, would be a double negative and would mean the thing does impress. 

But “never fails to not impress” tacks an additional negative onto the front of the phrase, changing it to mean the thing does not impress. 
 

Expressed in mathematical terms, a negative times a negative is a positive,  but a negative times a negative times a negative is a negative. 
 

Sorry. Three and a half years into retirement and I haven’t yet gotten over the urge to fix wordiness. 

I actually appreciate your posts on grammar.  I take them as educational and consider them positive.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Expressed in mathematical terms, a negative times a negative is a positive,  but a negative times a negative times a negative is a negative.

So by this line of thinking, a positive times a positive is a positive?

Yeah.  Right.

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Being effective in argumentation does not make one dishonest. It might annoy some folks, but not many people relish being bested in a debate. So what?

It is effective primarily because it is obnoxiously difficult to respond to. The responses are incoherent when taken individually and too short to provide much of anything to respond to. To respond in the same way takes much more time and effort because you have to parse out all the quotes.

I give smac kudos for having the dedication to take the time to do it so often but I agree with others that it is usually a suboptimal method of responding to larger thoughts.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, california boy said:
Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. 

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. 

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. 

 

I notice that your link takes us to the Urban Dictionary (which some might regard as a dubious source) and that you were highly selective in what you quoted. Here’s another excerpt from the same web site that is not quite as supportive of your viewpoint:

“The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies. 
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.”
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

So by this line of thinking, a positive times a positive is a positive?

Yeah.  Right.

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

This is true, of course, in mathematics. 
 

It’s true in language as well, but a double positive could be regarded as adding emphasis to the positive, as in “yes, indeed,” or the example you gave, “yeah, right.”

Each application of a negative, on the other hand, will reverse the meaning of the expression. This is true in language as well as in math. It’s like a toggle switch on a computer in that respect. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is effective primarily because it is obnoxiously difficult to respond to. The responses are incoherent when taken individually and too short to provide much of anything to respond to. To respond in the same way takes much more time and effort because you have to parse out all the quotes.

I give smac kudos for having the dedication to take the time to do it so often but I agree with others that it is usually a suboptimal method of responding to larger thoughts.

I quite disagree. It is effective because it debunks the whole of an argument by exposing the weakness of its components one by one. The interlocutor is then put in the uncomfortable position of having to prop up the weak components if he can. Small wonder some don’t like it. 
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I notice that your link takes us to the Urban Dictionary (which some might regard as a dubious source) and that you were highly selective in what you quoted. Here’s another excerpt from the same web site that is not quite as supportive of your viewpoint:

“The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies. 
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.”

I choose the best definition on how SMAC uses Fisking.  I stand by the one I quoted in this instance.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I choose the best definition on how SMAC uses Fisking.  I stand by the one I quoted in this instance.

What do you make of the fact that pretty much every other definition in that Urban Dictionary entry — and the word derivation itself — contradicts the one you chose to highlight and thus undercuts your argument? Were you hoping nobody here would bother to access the link? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
On 12/2/2021 at 9:12 AM, california boy said:

This is a technique that lawyers use to cross examine testimony.  There is even a term for this kind of attack, but I have forgotten the name of it.  By taking the statement apart piece by piece, they can distort what is being said by completely taking comments out of context.  Once taken out of context, the lawyer can then redirect the line to where he wants it to go rather than where the person's statement intended it to go. This is the reason SMAC answers every single post by slicing and dicing it.  He is an effective lawyer, but not really someone who engages in honest discussion.  You can ignore his comments.  I do it frequently.

💯 It does chop things out so that the context is somewhat distorted.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

💯 It does chop things out so that the context is somewhat distorted.

While some could use it in that way, I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate characterization of Smac’s use of the technique. 
 

Most other techniques of argumentation could likewise be used to mislead or distort. That doesn’t make them inherently bad. It only speaks to how some choose to employ them. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

While some could use it in that way, I don’t think that’s a fair or accurate characterization of Smac’s use of the technique. 
 

Most other techniques of argumentation could likewise be used to mislead or distort. That doesn’t make them inherently bad. It only speaks to how some choose to employ them. 

While I don't want to get into an argument of who is right and who is wrong, it no surprise you have this opinion.  Your method of discussion always seems to come with a strong dose of I am right because I am on the side of God.  You have that right.  I totally disagree with your your characterization of how the technique employed is be used.  It is being used to distort the original intent of the poster's view.  The responses are one off soundbites who's only purpose is destroy the other side.  I never heard any indication of admission that the other side might have a valid reason, just 100% destruction.   Again just my opinion.  Not asking you to change.   I am just wondering if there can be any indication of considering valid another's viewpoint from your own.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...