tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post8122093892552135150..comments2024-03-28T15:23:18.071-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Essential Mormon Books of 2015 (And One From 2012)Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-18603473215368624702016-02-20T07:24:56.532-08:002016-02-20T07:24:56.532-08:00One last comment; proof that the LDS Church has de...One last comment; proof that the LDS Church has definitely departed from the Lord:<br />Brother Smith was excommunicated per the 10th of february last.<br />From his web-blog Upward Thought, where he is writing about the trial, I quote: <br />"One exchange that occurred that I thought was of note: I declared that I had not apostatized from Christ or from the gospel. A high councilor said, "none of us think that you have. You are here for apostasy against the church and its leaders." Possibly the most condemnatory thing that occurred last night was that a group of 15 church leaders agreed that one can be cut off, so they suppose, from God's blessings without having done anything to offend him".<br />Must we not conclude here now that this church is in deep trouble?R. Metzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15875261161185193692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-48182710847669195662016-02-11T13:52:22.008-08:002016-02-11T13:52:22.008-08:00Again I want to thank you for drawing our attentio...Again I want to thank you for drawing our attention to "Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" by Robert Smith. It is a very much needed and inspired warning for our time, and a courageous effort to wake us up to the real Gospel of Jesus Christ. Also the many quotes and footnotes I found important and interesting.I have read it intensely and I am sure to read it again soon. Especially the last chapter I found impressive, almost emotional. Also thanks for this fine web-blog. Goodbye.R. Metzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15875261161185193692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-48991418769902404772016-01-21T05:16:45.959-08:002016-01-21T05:16:45.959-08:00Roots of the Bible: An Ancient View for a New Outl...Roots of the Bible: An Ancient View for a New OutlookJan 15, 2014<br />by Friedrich Weinreb<br /><br />This book reconciled me with my religion.It openes a view of the ancient interpretation of the meaning of the stories and notions of the bible. for example: the arc also means the word of god, and the flood ( water ) the flow of time. So, if you stay in the word of god, you will not drawn in the "world" as we name it as members.<br />Realy a great book. I understood the Book of Mormon better, becouse as Nephi said,"1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father;" beeing most probably the things Friedrich Weireb ist talking about.Folkhardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504585811853023481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-53739296346215035602016-01-17T04:41:56.684-08:002016-01-17T04:41:56.684-08:00"Teaching for doctrines the commandments of m..."Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men", by Roberts Smith, is a very good book. Especially the chapter "No poor among them" is inspired writing. Thanks for putting it on the internet to be downloaded for free. Wonderful.R. Metzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15875261161185193692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-24251052271443147702016-01-13T12:59:16.417-08:002016-01-13T12:59:16.417-08:00Yeah Linda, that does sound fishy. Why on earth wo...Yeah Linda, that does sound fishy. Why on earth would they need the handbook? By the way, I think it's only legislators who are LDS that will get the handbook. It's only handbook 1 that regular members are not allowed to see. So maybe she was referring to the first one. Another thing is that I remember in the 2000s a stake president would receive two handbooks: one which contained guidelines that could not be changed and another that contained those that could be adapted for local circumstances. So there was a different idea about handbooks back in 1998.Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-76187387965779259472016-01-13T09:32:12.712-08:002016-01-13T09:32:12.712-08:00Sorry to hijack the thread, but I just couldn'...Sorry to hijack the thread, but I just couldn't help myself. So I am asking for forgiveness from all readers but especially from Rock, please forgive me.<br />This was just too unsettling for me to try to find the correct place to post my comment. So here goes:<br /><br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lesbian-mayor-salt-lake-city-mormon-church-lgbt-rights_56951bfde4b086bc1cd531ae<br /><br /><br />Jackie Biskupski made history last week as the first openly gay or lesbian person sworn in as mayor of Salt Lake City....<br /><br />“The LDS church continues to evolve as the world evolves,” she said. <br />“We have to remember, too, that the leadership of that Church is from a much different generation than I am from. I can only second guess what goes on. But I have to believe that as we are evolving in our world, and in our community, and in our country, that they’ll continue to evolve as well. <br />And that change will happen. It has been [happening]. When I was first got elected [to the state legislature in 1998] what was in the LDS handbook that we would get every two years as a legislator — the language was so different than it is today when it comes to people who identify as LGBT. So I think we’re moving in the right direction.”<br /><br />What did she just say? That the Utah Legislature gets the LDS Church Handbook every 2 years? Huh? The majority of church members have never ever seen what is in the official handbook, and yet the legislators get to peruse the new one every 2 years? Church members are judged and counseled by what is in that secret handbook and yet we cannot have access to it, or even know what is contained in it? What’s up with that?<br />Linda Galehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04935171755082721769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-16885064396471290732016-01-12T19:30:01.849-08:002016-01-12T19:30:01.849-08:00Also, Rob:
Amy and Sammy were convinced it was ma...Also, Rob:<br /><br />Amy and Sammy were convinced it was malice that drove the negative Yelp reviews of their products. This is because, as far as Amy and Sammy were concerned, their food was perfect - the fault for any distaste lay in the diners.<br /><br />If you would be so kind as to show where either Robin or I have made any efforts to persuade others to avoid your book, I would appreciate it. That, or a retraction of your implicit accusation of such would be appreciated, too.<br /><br />For my part, I would not have said a word about my reaction to your book in public except for your interesting reaction to Robin's expressed negative reaction - not even a review - towards your book.<br /><br />You may understand me to be saying "It's OK to not like Rob's book, and to say so publicly, without giving Rob a detailed review illustrating what you didn't like about it."<br /><br />Just like a diner need not explain exactly how the cook has put something not to his taste in front of him. It doesn't matter to the diner how much effort the cook went through; their experience with the food reigns supreme in evaluating the meal.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-32465871161387688632016-01-12T18:57:02.133-08:002016-01-12T18:57:02.133-08:00Rob,
You're entitled to your opinion of what ...Rob,<br /><br />You're entitled to your opinion of what is fair.<br /><br />However, neither Robin nor I are reviewing your book; for my own part, I'm simply expressing distaste for it, and that's how I take Robin's statements. Your "advis[ing]" Robin that he should expend sufficient effort to justify his feelings to your satisfaction to escape your censure in expressing his opinion seems unfair, therefore.<br /><br />Your mileage may vary, of course.<br /><br />I remember that both Amy and Sammy were assured that the negative opinions of their cooking were in the extreme minority. I also recall Sammy challenging a diner who expressed distaste for the meal by requiring him to explain exactly what was wrong with it to Sammy's satisfaction. I think he would agree with you.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-63794783664991461882016-01-12T18:24:03.987-08:002016-01-12T18:24:03.987-08:00Log is entitled to his opinion. Though I disagree ...Log is entitled to his opinion. Though I disagree with it, I opt out of arguing with him because of past experience with him. From the feedback I've received from others, I assure those considering reading the book that his opinion is the extreme minority.<br /><br />Log: It is one thing to state one's dissatisfaction with a meal. It is another to rail against a restaurant in an effort to persuade others to avoid it without offering any real reasons for discontent. I think it is fair to expect a review to be commensurate with the scope of the content reviewed. I expect most people would agree.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08876761145806406244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-78717881167675557732016-01-12T16:39:47.614-08:002016-01-12T16:39:47.614-08:00Miguel,
Some interesting avenues of exploration y...Miguel,<br /><br />Some interesting avenues of exploration you can perform on your own might be:<br /><br />1. Contrast and compare the doctrines, beliefs, practices, and structure of the Nephite Church (both pre- and post-Advent) with those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.<br /><br />2. Contrast and compare the requirements for salvation as explicated in the Lectures on Faith with the professional backgrounds and temporal conditions of the United 15 Apostles, their assistants, the First Quorum of the 70, the Mission Presidents, and CES employees.<br /><br />I could suggest a few more, but it is more meaningful if you do it yourself - that way, nobody's pressuring you or pushing bullshit arguments on you.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-24957830668733092342016-01-12T16:28:46.145-08:002016-01-12T16:28:46.145-08:00That's because the argument from authority is ...That's because the argument from authority is (nearly) always miscast as an informational argument, as a means to acquire knowledge of truth.<br /><br />It's not.<br /><br />It's a tool of manipulation, a method of applying social pressure on someone to adopt a position without having to demonstrate that the position is according to reality - the purpose is not to find truth, but produce conformity.<br /><br />The reason for the "6 conditions" is to try to give a veneer of plausibility to the pronouncements of the authority, to mitigate the (correctly) perceived risk of otherwise blindly trusting anyone in matters one is not competent to know the truth for oneself in. In other words, these "6 conditions" are an attempt to mitigate the inherent insecurity one feels in accepting authoritative pronouncements.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-35892982747465368732016-01-12T15:51:37.994-08:002016-01-12T15:51:37.994-08:00Gary's criteria for the validity of argument f...Gary's criteria for the validity of argument from authority:<br /><br />1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.<br />2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.<br />3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. <br />4. The person in question is not significantly biased. <br />5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.<br />6. The authority in question must be identified.<br /><br />Let's take a concrete, actual example:<br /><br />1. My mother's doctor is an expert in wound care.<br />2. The gash in my mother's leg was within the area of his expertise.<br />3. He was following the procedures taught to him at an accredited medical school. <br />4. He was not biased against my mother or her leg gash. <br />5. Wound care is a legitimate area of expertise.<br />6. My sister met him.<br /><br />According to this authority my mother needed her leg amputated. My sister (not an authority) searched on line, found a would care salve and started applying it to my mother's leg. The leg got better, no amputation was needed.<br /><br />The argument from authority would have been that amputation was necessary but it was obviously fallacious. Authorities, as Log says, are only probably (and I would down grade that to maybe) right.<br /><br />Also, your claims about the validity of argument by authority are based not on logic (since there are counter examples) but on the authority of the Nizkor Project, and why should we trust that? Because it was written by an authority? It's turtles all the way down.<br /><br />Craig Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17895653046447172310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-30599691222157070442016-01-12T14:05:51.548-08:002016-01-12T14:05:51.548-08:00Yeah, Log I agree with you there. It was just cert...Yeah, Log I agree with you there. It was just certain sentences of your's that I didn't agree with and I talked about them above. Any way, it seems you've had enough of it. Allow me to change the subject. How about books?<br /><br />What I would like in a book, is that it would contain what I've been searching for online. That is, it details what was taught by the Lord through Joseph Smith, during the time of the restoration, versus what is taught today. Along with that would be, how the church was organised then, versus how it is now. Robert Smith's book, from what I hear in this blog, contains my first matter. Denver Snuffer's one might include the second one, or at least with his discussion on building a Zion society it has the essence and purpose of the church organisation. But I've been intrigued by what the Lord revealed in doctrine and covenants about how the different church authorities all have the same authority, instead of the apostles telling the seventy and the stake presidents and bishops what to do (how to run their meetings, what clothes must be worn for them, etc.) Who has elaborated on this and described how the church implemented this style of church governance? Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51096374610365475572016-01-12T13:24:34.628-08:002016-01-12T13:24:34.628-08:00I've been crunching on this for a little bit. ...I've been crunching on this for a little bit. <br /><br />Inasmuch as the argument from authority is characterized as either a deductive or inductive argument, it is always and everywhere fallacious: deductively because the conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premises, and inductively because it is a matter of pure subjective, emotional whim as to argument "strength." As I mentioned, the probabilistic language deployed to manipulate an audience into accepting the "conclusion" has the form of numeric justification while denying the content thereof.<br /><br />The proper, actual, and true form for the argument from authority is this:<br /><br /><b><i>X says Y is true.<br />Therefore, you have a social obligation to believe Y is true.</i></b><br /><br />It is to be noted that's merely an implication of the leader principle.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-43578497538163486472016-01-12T08:58:36.248-08:002016-01-12T08:58:36.248-08:00"If one could find an authority X such that i..."If one could find an authority X such that if X says Y, then Y is true, then appeals to that authority would technically be valid as deductive arguments. No mortal human, nor set thereof, fulfills that condition that I know of."<br /><br />The mortal human will fulfill that condition when he/she proves that what they're saying is correct. Once Y is proven correct, then authority X is correct. So appealing to X wouldn't be fallacious. That doesn't mean X won', in the future, say some other Y which will be incorrect.<br /><br />But anyone can have a correct Y, whether they are an authority on the subject or not. I'm not an authority on mathematics but I know that 2 + 2 = 4. An authority on mathematics will know more than me. Sure they will make mistakes from time to time, but they can demonstrate that they are correct more often than an amateur.<br /><br />An appeal to authority can be an appeal to someone who knows more on the subject and demonstrate their knowledge. It doesn't mean they're right because they are an authority.Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-36271390805396951892016-01-11T18:30:26.260-08:002016-01-11T18:30:26.260-08:00This is as simple as I can make it.
1. As a dedu...This is as simple as I can make it.<br /><br />1. As a deductive argument, the argument from authority is invalid.<br />2. As an inductive argument, it is functionally an appeal to personal credulity, or an appeal to the bandwagon.<br /><br />While the argument from authority may deploy probabilistic language in terms of "probably," "likely," "unlikely," and whatnot, it is strictly psuedo-statistical, not actually statistical - no concrete, calculable numbers attach to these descriptors - therefore characterizing the argument from authority as a statistical syllogism is a category error; the probabilistic language is simply an expression of bias or credulity on the part of the one making the argument.<br /><br />You're free to accept such arguments. I reject them.<br /><br />If one could find an authority X such that if X says Y, then Y is true, then appeals to that authority would technically be valid as deductive arguments. No mortal human, nor set thereof, fulfills that condition that I know of.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-81519582316255644032016-01-11T17:17:15.006-08:002016-01-11T17:17:15.006-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-10995923263073199272016-01-11T16:40:37.455-08:002016-01-11T16:40:37.455-08:00My comment above isn't in reference to authori...My comment above isn't in reference to authorities in the church, but those in general. Those in the church have to fulfill the criteria of not making stuff up.Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-26482775323584113132016-01-11T16:33:38.525-08:002016-01-11T16:33:38.525-08:00If I could referee a little here, Log: Gary said i...If I could referee a little here, Log: Gary said it was rude to make five comments without him being able to respond, not that you were rude for not providing an example of deploying the argument from authority.<br /><br />You were talking about Gary accepting an authority and so was he. The argument wasn't about you accepting an authority. Since Gary accepts Nizkor as an authority, he's being true to his argument. I would say it is a valid argument, but people on the internet these days seem to think an argument becomes invalid when it is proven wrong. I don't see why that is. I thought it would become invalid, if it clearly makes no sense or contradicts itself. Gary hasn't contradicted himself.<br /><br />Since you find an appeal to authority to be fallacious, then you won't agree with his basis for seeing that an authority could be right. The key points in Gary's argument is that an authority can be wrong but it is valid to appeal to one as long as he fulfills those criteria. I see that when one fulfills these criteria he does not fall under the fallacious appeal to authority, according to the Wikipedia article you cited.<br /><br />I wish you both a fantastic evening. Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-27931667523131086832016-01-11T15:58:56.850-08:002016-01-11T15:58:56.850-08:00Gary,
For me to accept Nizkor as an authority on ...Gary,<br /><br />For me to accept Nizkor as an authority on the argument from authority would be for me to commit the fallacious appeal to authority, as well as begging the question, as you have done. That you don't see the delicious irony in your own position is interesting.<br /><br />Once again: show me an example of me deploying the argument from authority.<br /><br />If I haven't, then it's not me being rude, is it? And it's not me being insincere, is it?<br /><br />Have an awesomely interesting evening.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-82108896024810118092016-01-11T15:52:04.694-08:002016-01-11T15:52:04.694-08:00Log,
Since my last comment you have posted five c...Log,<br /><br />Since my last comment you have posted five comments. Two before I finalized my post and three after. In argumentation it is customary to allow the opponent time to respond to the last comment before going on with more. What you are doing is argumentum ad infinitum, which is a logical fallacy and quite frankly is rude. <br /><br />Let me put my argument as simply as possible. Arguing from authority can be legitimate if the following standards are used. These come from www.nizkor.com and are explained in greater detail on their website. You can substitute authority<br /><br />1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.<br />2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.<br />3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. <br />4. The person in question is not significantly biased. <br />5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.<br />6. The authority in question must be identified.<br /><br />From what you have written, it is obvious to me that you misunderstand my premise. You think I am saying that something is true because an authority says it. This is false because even authorities can be wrong. All I am saying is, in argumentation it is valid to use authorities if the above six standards are followed.<br /><br />This debate has gotten to the point of argumentum ad nauseam. This is my last comment on this subject. <br /><br />Have a wonderful evening.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Gary Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02648931560066073491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-66653791415541282342016-01-11T15:15:39.426-08:002016-01-11T15:15:39.426-08:00The problem is, however, that people do not interp...The problem is, however, that people do not interpret church authorities as the "arm of flesh." People who think this are sort of half-right. If the counsel from the man in authority came from God, and we heed it, we are trusting in God. If it did not come from God, then we are trusting in the arm of flesh.<br /><br />It's like a Schroginger's cat situation. If the authority delivers counsel, and it came from God, then he is right. But if it did not come from God, he is wrong. Since he won't reveal that it is the word of God, we won't know. So he is both right and wrong at the same time, until we find the answer to the question of divine origin to his statement, in which case we can then accept one of the two possibilities.<br /><br />Or maybe I've been thinking a little too much about it.Steak Presedenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11145688976336741401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-11140608729480295192016-01-11T14:57:27.819-08:002016-01-11T14:57:27.819-08:00And, I have to stress, Gary, this is not a subtle ...And, I have to stress, Gary, this is not a subtle distinction, which makes me wonder if you're sincere.<br /><br />Argument from authority<br />-----<br />Authority X says Y.<br />Therefore, Y is [probably] true.<br />-----<br /><br />Argument from Log<br />-----<br />You agree with Authority X when he says Y.<br />Y logically entails Z.<br />Therefore you either agree with Z, or else you were mistaken or lying in claiming to agree with Y, or in taking X as an authority.<br />-----<br /><br />This isn't hard. There's no fallacy in my "argument."Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-14511945734275078392016-01-11T14:44:23.790-08:002016-01-11T14:44:23.790-08:00Gary, I have answered you fully and completely.
...Gary, I have answered you fully and completely. <br /><br />If you can't perceive the difference between me asserting something is true because an authority says it, and me saying if you agree something is true because an authority says it then you must agree with certain conclusions, then I can't help you.<br /><br />Have a good day.Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-22811281148050982762016-01-11T14:39:04.271-08:002016-01-11T14:39:04.271-08:00Or, in fine, my "arguments" are of the f...Or, in fine, my "arguments" are of the following form.<br /><br />If you agree that X is true, and if X has necessary implication Y, then your agreement with X necessarily implies your agreement with Y.<br /><br />Assuming you agree with X, and if X implies Y is sound, your disagreement with Y means you are not consistent - so you either made a mistake in agreeing with X, or you're a liar.<br /><br />Again, this is not an argument from authority. Your belief that X is true might, itself, hinge upon your acceptance of a statement from authority, but that's not my problem, is it?Jared Liveseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10309044282039536254noreply@blogger.com