Jump to content

Tribe article on declining religiosity among LDS


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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? 

Fisking allows SMAC to take things out of context and distort and misrepresent what is being said. It is why I used that definition of fisking.  My experience with the way SMAC fits that definition to the tee and why he probably uses that technique on my posts.

I stand by the definition I used because that is exactly how he uses fisking.

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 7:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Others of the elect, through the cumulative effect over time of individual actions and behavioral choices, some of them so small as to be almost imperceptible, make themselves vulnerable enough to the influence of the adversary that they eventually do fall away. 

What are "the elect"? I think some might be thinking of apostles and prophets, or general authorities. I think it's more general.

Some of the members of this board who are no longer believers, may have been among the elect. I don't consider "electness" to be a matter of position in the church hierarchy. Or at least, not solely so. 

Or might the elect be among those who have their "calling and election made sure"? 

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 12:53 PM, Mike Drop said:

I’m sorry, but I’m a little confused, could you explain something to me please? At the beginning of your post, you said more nonmembers will find their way to the Celestial Kingdom. And if that’s true, why would we even need to show them the “correct way” like you explained in the latter half of your post? If the ultimate goal of our mortal experience is to be tested and prove we’re worthy to live with our heavenly parents for eternity, why would we care if they’re “Mormons” while living here on earth if they’re going to reach the Celestial Kingdom in their own unique way?

He answered this, but here's my answer:

It MUST be true that more nonmembers than members will find their way to the Celestial Kingdom, if by nonmember one means those who could not join the Church during life, but did so in the next. This is simply because the overwhelming majority of humans who have lived upon this earth never even heard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ while they lived here, let alone had a chance to constructively accept it. Since God is not a respecter of persons, those who had no chance to accept Christ in life, but did so afterwards, will be treated the same as those who did, and did.

It must also be true that many members who were members in life will not be found worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, though they will inherit the Terrestrial. One qualification for the Terrestrial Kingdom is to be "not valiant in the testimony of Jesus" (D&C 76:79). How many of us attend church every Sunday, and during the week act like "Gentiles"? But don't ask me to judge what it means to be "valiant in the testimony of Jesus". I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with willingly conforming one's life to the principles of the Gospel. Of course, we will all fall short of perfection in this. And then the Righteous Judge will judge righteously.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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.

You're entitled to feel that way if you want, but in the main I find that his use of fisking (interesting word) is useful because he is generally responding to posts which raise many points, and so by fisking one addresses each one. If he were to try to address all the points in a single block of text, it would be easy to lose track of what was going on. It is similar to what in prose is call "paragraphing", separating related blocks of text into discrete portions for the sake of clarity. Would you really want to read a book that had not be divided into paragraphs? I think it would be a nightmare.

I once had an interaction with someone on AOL (a looonnnggg time ago) in which I spent a good couple of hours composing a post, only to have the person I was interacting with dismiss it all with a simple "What a load of BS!" I think I would have preferred some fisking.

I suppose it is possible to be disingenuous by fisking. But in the main, I find its use helpful in following arguments.

Now, in this immediate altercation between @california boy and @smac97, Spencer seems to have taken some things that CB quoted but not necessarily agreed with, and treated them as if they were CB's own assertions. I may be wrong, but it looks like Spencer messed up in this case.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I suppose it is possible to be disingenuous by fisking. But in the main, I find its use helpful in following arguments.

Points for this post…I am currently out, but think it valuable enough to post my approval. 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What are "the elect"? I think some might be thinking of apostles and prophets, or general authorities. I think it's more general.

Some of the members of this board who are no longer believers, may have been among the elect. I don't consider "electness" to be a matter of position in the church hierarchy. Or at least, not solely so. 

Or might the elect be among those who have their "calling and election made sure"? 

I agree with you. 
 

I think of the statement of Joseph Smith to the effect that every person who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of this world were foreordained to it while in the pre-mortal existence. It is such individuals that I consider the elect.

There is also the Doctrine and Covenants passage that says whoso is faithful unto the obtaining the priesthood are sanctified by the Spirit and become the seed of Moses and of Aaron and “the Church and Kingdom and the elect of God.”

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Fisking allows SMAC to take things out of context and distort and misrepresent what is being said. It is why I used that definition of fisking.  My experience with the way SMAC fits that definition to the tee and why he probably uses that technique on my posts.

I stand by the definition I used because that is exactly how he uses fisking.

Again, from my own observation, I don’t agree that Smac does that. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're entitled to feel that way if you want, but in the main I find that his use of fisking (interesting word) is useful because he is generally responding to posts which raise many points, and so by fisking one addresses each one. If he were to try to address all the points in a single block of text, it would be easy to lose track of what was going on. It is similar to what in prose is call "paragraphing", separating related blocks of text into discrete portions for the sake of clarity. Would you really want to read a book that had not be divided into paragraphs? I think it would be a nightmare.

I once had an interaction with someone on AOL (a looonnnggg time ago) in which I spent a good couple of hours composing a post, only to have the person I was interacting with dismiss it all with a simple "What a load of BS!" I think I would have preferred some fisking.

I suppose it is possible to be disingenuous by fisking. But in the main, I find its use helpful in following arguments.

Now, in this immediate altercation between @california boy and @smac97, Spencer seems to have taken some things that CB quoted but not necessarily agreed with, and treated them as if they were CB's own assertions. I may be wrong, but it looks like Spencer messed up in this case.

I very much like most of this post and agree with it in the main. It is only the last paragraph that stops me from giving it an upvote, because I don’t know what you are referring to regarding Smac’s treatment of CB’s post(s) and thus can’t tell whether I agree with or approve of it. 
 

Regarding the other portion of your post, I’ve been reflecting in the last couple of days that what we are coming to call “fisking” is really the only practical way to deal with the scattergun attacks that all too many adversarial critics of the Church and its members have deployed over the years and continue to deploy. That is, they pack in all manner of specious accusations into one extended diatribe. It’s as if they understand that one focused argument would leave them vulnerable because it is more conveniently rebutted. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're entitled to feel that way if you want,

I agree

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

but in the main I find that his use of fisking (interesting word) is useful because he is generally responding to posts which raise many points, and so by fisking one addresses each one

What responses to post are you referring to?

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

. If he were to try to address all the points in a single block of text, it would be easy to lose track of what was going on. It is similar to what in prose is call "paragraphing", separating related blocks of text into discrete portions for the sake of clarity.

Have you ever read a novel that had no paragraphs?  Just single sentences?  Do you find reading a novel like that cohesive?  I am going to agree to disagree.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

Would you really want to read a book that had not be divided into paragraphs? I think it would be a nightmare.

The reason why books are written in paragraphs is because a paragraph with one idea gives context to what the author is trying to say.  Breaking each though into individual sentences doesn't let the context and complexities of a story come through.  So you are wrong.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I once had an interaction with someone on AOL (a looonnnggg time ago) in which I spent a good couple of hours composing a post, only to have the person I was interacting with dismiss it all with a simple "What a load of BS!" I think I would have preferred some fisking.

I can't speak for others.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I suppose it is possible to be disingenuous by fisking.

Unless by fisking I take each sentence you write and inject points that YOU never intended.  Or take what you are saying out of context, and then add my own thoughts that have no relationship to what you actually wrote.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But in the main, I find its use helpful in following arguments.

Do you find it difficult to follow arguments that Calm makes, or Bludream or well every single other poster on this board?  Do you find what I am trying to say confusing or disjointed until SMAC steps in and does his magic?  Are you saying that without SMAC, you couldn't figure out what posters are trying to say?  

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Now, in this immediate altercation between @california boy and @smac97, Spencer seems to have taken some things that CB quoted but not necessarily agreed with, and treated them as if they were CB's own assertions. I may be wrong, but it looks like Spencer messed up in this case.

This kind of distortion is in most of the posts SMAC comments on.  It is what fisking allows the person to do.  When I do try to clarify what I said, those too are fisked, adding even more confusion and more distortion of what the context of what I wrote was.  

 

So what do you think?  Do you like your thoughts sliced and diced to the point where when reading your own post, you can barely recognize what you wrote?   Is what you said way more clear now that I have done an SMAC fisk?  Or are some of the things I inserted into your thoughts not what you intended to say at all.

I agree that there are times when it is helpful to break a post up into single paragraphs that contain a thought.  Everyone else on this board seems to be able to write responses and still keep what the person had to say in context.  There are many that post that I find very clear in the points they make by commenting on post in context.  What fisking allows the person to do is to take two sentences that combined form a point and break them apart into two separate points that all the sudden cloud what was originally said.  And in my opinion, this is how SMAC uses fisking.  

Just imagine what this board would look like if every person posting fisked every single answer.  It kinda sounds like what you said about reading a book without paragraph breaks.  Nothing ends up having any context.  People start inserting completely different ideas into what you post that you never intended to say.  Things like every other poster on this board can not express opinions clearly because they don't fisk.  Or that you can not understand a debate until SMAC as swooped in and done his fisking.   I highly doubt that is what you meant.  Yet by fisking, I got your post to claim that. 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
18 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Every time I read his comments the name Zeezrom comes to mind. 

I prefer to remember Zeezrom for the latter part of his life, after his conversion, when he became a dedicated missionary, servant of God and a valiant defender of the faith, as during the encounter with the apostate Zoramite sect. In that connection, the comparison between him and Smac is apt. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Have you ever read a novel that had no paragraphs?  Just single sentences?  Do you find reading a novel like that cohesive?  I am going to agree to disagree.

I have seen plenty of tests or questionnaires that only require a sentence or three to respond to each item.  Why would you use a novel as an analogy for a board post…except perhaps some of my epic ramblings.
 

I see it as smac’s way as showing he is paying attention to all the details, not just the ones he finds interesting.  It can be respectful, IMO, giving attention to everything someone has said, but if there is an misinterpretation and it is carried through several responses, I find it very annoying as instead on one block response of thinking “they don’t understand and how am I going to clarify, I have to face the error over and over.  A drawback of the method and if there is someone that there tends to be confusion with, it might be better to avoid the method and engaging at all, but also I understand if Smac feels the need to not let stand accusations of himself, the Church or anyone else he feels doesn’t deserve it.

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

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