A Quickie About Historical Church Threads

[pushka]

I just want to make a comment regarding all the recent threads that deal with historical facts about the church and some of the beliefs of past GAs and such.

I just want to say that, in my opinion, the people who are making these threads do not appear to be doing so in order to shake anybody's testimony.

The subjects of these recent threads are known by many people to have existed in one form or another, and as one poster mentioned...Isn't it best that these subjects are debated within this LDS forum rather than on 'anti' sites...then both the LDS and Non-LDS can fully understand where these beliefs came from, and what the attitude of the Church in general is towards those beliefs now?

I find the historically based threads interesting to read, and feel good that people on this site can offer good interpretations of the beliefs/events so that if any of us come across posts on 'anti' sites dealing with this subject matter, we can refer to the explanations on this forum, to supply us with possible responses to the posts on the other site.

I think some LDS on here are being a little too thin skinned with regard to the recent posts, and hope that they will just continue to debate the subjects without resorting to assuming that the authors of the threads are 'anti' and have an agenda.

[BenRaines]

Pushka,

I agree that we can all be a little more kind in our words to each other in postings. Te idea of debate to me is to post your belief or understanding of something and then have others share their beliefs or thoughts. The idea of posting links to multiple articles about something that happened or was believed by others or even taught some years ago, to me, is not sharing your beliefs but looking to cause discord. If someone wants to post saying "I read this article and this is how I feel about this teaching then there would be a discussion of their feelings of the teaching or belief.

That is my opinion.

Ben Raines

[Elphaba]

Pushka,

I agree that we can all be a little more kind in our words to each other in postings. Te idea of debate to me is to post your belief or understanding of something and then have others share their beliefs or thoughts. The idea of posting links to multiple articles about something that happened or was believed by others or even taught some years ago, to me, is not sharing your beliefs but looking to cause discord. If someone wants to post saying "I read this article and this is how I feel about this teaching then there would be a discussion of their feelings of the teaching or belief.

That is my opinion.

Ben Raines

So I have a question Ben.

If you are involved in a debate, at some point someone is going to ask for proof of your position. How is one supposed to provide this proof?

In a debate, proof comes in many forms, but it is always a portion of written material containing information that prooves the person's argument. There's no getting around that.

So if you do not like this type of "proof," and I get it that you're not the only one, how else do you suggest the "proof" be provided?

Thanks,

Elphaba

[FrankJL]

<div class='quotemain'>

Pushka,

I agree that we can all be a little more kind in our words to each other in postings. Te idea of debate to me is to post your belief or understanding of something and then have others share their beliefs or thoughts. The idea of posting links to multiple articles about something that happened or was believed by others or even taught some years ago, to me, is not sharing your beliefs but looking to cause discord. If someone wants to post saying "I read this article and this is how I feel about this teaching then there would be a discussion of their feelings of the teaching or belief.

That is my opinion.

Ben Raines

So I have a question Ben.

If you are involved in a debate, at some point someone is going to ask for proof of your position. How is one supposed to provide this proof?

In a debate, proof comes in many forms, but it is always a portion of written material containing information that prooves the person's argument. There's no getting around that.

So if you do not like this type of "proof," and I get it that you're not the only one, how else do you suggest the "proof" be provided?

Thanks,

Elphaba

Chicago/Turabian style footnotes please

[Elphaba]

Chicago style footnotes please

I thought we agreed on MLA!

Elphaba

[BenRaines]

My idea would be along the idea of "I read an article" "I heard a story" "I read a journal" and this is how I felt or what I understood. I am not talking about a political debate where budget numbers are being discussed and proof needs to be shown. Many of the writings that are quoted are interpretations of what someone read that someone said or heard. Even first person accounts of events often differ. An example would be the different recountings of the events around the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. There are hundreds if not thousands or stories about what happened no that day.

I would think that the same is true of most history.

Again my idea would be to share individual feelings of events or thoughts or opinions and then to discuss.

I am reminded of the five blind men who were trying to describe an elephant only by feel. One was touching the trunk, another an ear, another a leg, another the tail, etc. Each had a different belief of what the elephant was based on where they were standing at the time. They all could argue until they ran out of breath and each would be right for all they knew.

Just some of my thoughts. I don't know that there is a right or wrong to sharing opinions.

Ben Raines

[Elphaba]

I am reminded of the five blind men who were trying to describe an elephant only by feel. One was touching the trunk, another an ear, another a leg, another the tail, etc. Each had a different belief of what the elephant was based on where they were standing at the time. They all could argue until they ran out of breath and each would be right for all they knew.

Well, actually what you describe with the elephant is not proof.

Here is how proof works with the five blind men. You bring them together and explain to them "This is the trunk." You have all five of them have a turn to touch the trunk, as long as they want until the have a good sense of it. You describe it to them. You have them each ask questions about it, and you answer them, until they all understand the trunk as well as they possibly can. Your "explanations" and the "trunk" are the "proof."

You repeat this with the ear, the leg, the tail, etc. Then listen to them describe the elephant. There will still be some minor disagreements, as is usually the case with debate, but there will also be some major consensus. That is what proof does.

In debate on the board, the "proof" would be in written form, provided by the person making the claim, that everyone involved could have, as long as they want, until they get a good sense of it. This "proof" then helps the other debaters determine whether the person's argument is credible or not.

Additionally, in debate, one's "opinion" will rarely suffice.

However, maybe board members are not wanting any debates for a while. They seem to have caused a lot of conflicts. In that case the whole "proof" illustration is moot.

Elphaba

[Annabelli]

I find it very indolent for someone to simply type: This is what I believe and then print/cut-paste articles.

And when enough response has been made about the articles and the thread title, the original poster becomes frustrated calling all the responses unintelligent and indifferent and does not post further to the thread title or subject but instead post more articles.

BenRaines said:

Again my idea would be to share individual feelings of events or thoughts or opinions and then to discuss.

Having five responses to such articles where the intention of the cut/paste artist is not volunteered is similar to the elephant story. Because no one who posted the articles is leading a discussion.

I would very much like it if LDSTalk.com would limit the amount of text per post.

[Snow]

I just want to make a comment regarding all the recent threads that deal with historical facts about the church and some of the beliefs of past GAs and such.

I just want to say that, in my opinion, the people who are making these threads do not appear to be doing so in order to shake anybody's testimony.

The subjects of these recent threads are known by many people to have existed in one form or another, and as one poster mentioned...Isn't it best that these subjects are debated within this LDS forum rather than on 'anti' sites...then both the LDS and Non-LDS can fully understand where these beliefs came from, and what the attitude of the Church in general is towards those beliefs now?

I find the historically based threads interesting to read, and feel good that people on this site can offer good interpretations of the beliefs/events so that if any of us come across posts on 'anti' sites dealing with this subject matter, we can refer to the explanations on this forum, to supply us with possible responses to the posts on the other site.

I think some LDS on here are being a little too thin skinned with regard to the recent posts, and hope that they will just continue to debate the subjects without resorting to assuming that the authors of the threads are 'anti' and have an agenda.

They say that a mark of genius is recognizing patterns. :) I strongly think I am seeing legitimate patterns in what some people post. The patterns are sometimes subtle but I think they are there.

For example, there was a recent MMM thread. The opening post had no apparent axe to grind. However, I had already observed the pattern elsewhere, so as a private little test, I said nothing and wondered how long it would be until the poster turned it into some sort of indictment of the Church or Church leadership.

Needless to say I didn't have to wait long until my private prediction became a reality. I'll be the first to admit that I don't always get the patterns right but I usually do.

[Snow]

I find it very indolent for someone to simply type: This is what I believe and then print/cut-paste articles.

And when enough response has been made about the articles and the thread title, the original poster becomes frustrated calling all the responses unintelligent and indifferent and does not post further to the thread title or subject but instead post more articles.

BenRaines said:

Again my idea would be to share individual feelings of events or thoughts or opinions and then to discuss.

Having five responses to such articles where the intention of the cut/paste artist is not volunteered is similar to the elephant story. Because no one who posted the articles is leading a discussion.

I would very much like it if LDSTalk.com would limit the amount of text per post.

I don't always mind long posts - especially if the poster actually wrote it. Long cut and pastes are a waste of bandwidth. Long posts rarely get read but they are fine for some reasons.

For example - some of post our Sacrament Meeting talks and some of us enjoy reading what others talked about.

[Moksha]

<div class='quotemain'>Chicago style footnotes please

I thought we agreed on MLA!

Elphaba

How about APA style: (Elphaba, 2007)

or

Moksha style: (I think somebody once said...).

[Elphaba]

How about APA style: (Elphaba, 2007)

or

Moksha style: (I think somebody once said...).

Do you have a "Moksha Stylebook" to which I can refer? (That ought to be a hoot!)

If not, to heck with all this. I'm just going to settle for Associated Press!

hehehehe

Elphaba

[FrankJL]

<div class='quotemain'>

How about APA style: (Elphaba, 2007)

or

Moksha style: (I think somebody once said...).

Do you have a "Moksha Stylebook" to which I can refer? (That ought to be a hoot!)

If not, to heck with all this. I'm just going to settle for Associated Press!

hehehehe

Elphaba

I have friend that is a journalism major, she was showing me the AP style book. Forget that...its crazy....talk about political correctness run amuck..

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

How about APA style: (Elphaba, 2007)

or

Moksha style: (I think somebody once said...).

Do you have a "Moksha Stylebook" to which I can refer? (That ought to be a hoot!)

If not, to heck with all this. I'm just going to settle for Associated Press!

hehehehe

Elphaba

I have friend that is a journalism major, she was showing me the AP style book. Forget that...its crazy....talk about political correctness run amuck..

Bummer!

Elphaba

[Alaskagain]

I don't expect to see on this forum a full fledged National Forensic League approved thread. When some are talking about "debate" here, that is what they want, a formal debate, point for point. I'm generally not very interested in that, and I don't think that's why this forum exists. Not that I don't like to think, I try to do that a couple of times a day. :) (If I want to read debate, I'll go to MADB.)

I prefer friendly discussions of ideas, articles, etc., with a link to appropriate articles that I can go to if I desire. I don't want to have to wade through lengthy cut-and-pastes. If you have a point, get to it.

If you have a personal opinion you want to make public, it's certainly ok to do it - but don't complain about it if it evokes an emotional response from someone else.

I like learning more about church history, the development of doctrine, etc., and appreciate the sharing of knowledge in a variety of areas, as long as the ultimate goal is not to tear down, but to uplift.

[Dr T]

<div class='quotemain'>Chicago style footnotes please

I thought we agreed on MLA!

Elphaba

APA not MLA

[Elphaba]

APA not MLA

It appears you and Moksha have caught me out.

APA it is!

Elphaba

[Jason]

I prefer MLA or Chicago Style. I find APA too pretensious.

[pushka]

Thanks for your replies, and the little bit of humour injected into them.

I can't really think of anything profound to post about this, however I find it difficult to focus only on one's opinion about past 'doctrine' or historical events, without having to link to articles that spell out those things more clearly..proof, as Elphie said. Proof is supplying documents that give you the recorded 'facts' about a subject, rather than the person's own interpretation of them...I don't think you can disregard them. I do agree that sometimes cut/paste articles can be too long for some readers, however I don't mind reading some of them myself...perhaps providing a snippet of the article, which we sometimes do, would be preferable, with the link provided for the full texts..

I just hope that we can overcome the habit of mistrusting people rather than initially giving them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously if further posts from them become 'flaming' then our attitude towards them would alter...but I feel that we must not try to encourage flaming by our own responses too, wherever possible.