Yeah, I don't disagree. Love is the key. But when we do speak this way, that is sometimes how the other side perceives it (that they're angry at them, etc.); even though love was the guiding principle.
Great question. I say it is only valid when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Efforts should always be made to avoid such, and when it's time to be sharp to do so with great care and prayer - with great effort to be in tune with the Holy Ghost.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 10:43 am
3.) So the question here may not be whether or not ad hominem is valid tool as obviously one cannot exercise the directness of the prophet's and Christ himself without being able to be candid in expression.
However, the question might better be asked how do we determine its appropriate use - for instance on a forum environment?
Is there a use for it in a forum environment?
Ammoron was a wicked murderous warlord bad guy.Alma 54:11 But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain; or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell; therefore I will close my epistle by telling you that I will not exchange prisoners, save it be on conditions that ye will deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner; if this be the case that ye will do it, I will exchange.
Zeezrom was even worse than Ammoron - Zeezrom was a lawyer.23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?
Well, I think once we've established that someone is a murderer because there is proof of such, then we can safely call someone a murderer. That isn't really an "ad hominem". For instance, once it has been demonstrated through evidence and proof that a person has murdered and killed innocent people then we can call them what they are and deal with them as they are: a psychopath and a serial killer. It is OK at that point to question certain assertions that they make, like they won't kill again, or they love people, etc.alaris wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 11:43 amGreat question. I say it is only valid when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Efforts should always be made to avoid such, and when it's time to be sharp to do so with great care and prayer - with great effort to be in tune with the Holy Ghost.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 10:43 am
3.) So the question here may not be whether or not ad hominem is valid tool as obviously one cannot exercise the directness of the prophet's and Christ himself without being able to be candid in expression.
However, the question might better be asked how do we determine its appropriate use - for instance on a forum environment?
Is there a use for it in a forum environment?
Moroni to Ammoron
Ammoron was a wicked murderous warlord bad guy.Alma 54:11 But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain; or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell; therefore I will close my epistle by telling you that I will not exchange prisoners, save it be on conditions that ye will deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner; if this be the case that ye will do it, I will exchange.
Amulek to Zeezrom
Zeezrom was even worse than Ammoron - Zeezrom was a lawyer.23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?
Finrock wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 1:35 pmWell, I think once we've established that someone is a murderer because there is proof of such, then we can safely call someone a murderer. That isn't really an "ad hominem". For instance, once it has been demonstrated through evidence and proof that a person has murdered and killed innocent people then we can call them what they are and deal with them as they are: a psychopath and a serial killer. It is OK at that point to question certain assertions that they make, like they won't kill again, or they love people, etc.alaris wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 11:43 amGreat question. I say it is only valid when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Efforts should always be made to avoid such, and when it's time to be sharp to do so with great care and prayer - with great effort to be in tune with the Holy Ghost.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 10:43 am
3.) So the question here may not be whether or not ad hominem is valid tool as obviously one cannot exercise the directness of the prophet's and Christ himself without being able to be candid in expression.
However, the question might better be asked how do we determine its appropriate use - for instance on a forum environment?
Is there a use for it in a forum environment?
Moroni to Ammoron
Ammoron was a wicked murderous warlord bad guy.Alma 54:11 But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain; or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell; therefore I will close my epistle by telling you that I will not exchange prisoners, save it be on conditions that ye will deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner; if this be the case that ye will do it, I will exchange.
Amulek to Zeezrom
Zeezrom was even worse than Ammoron - Zeezrom was a lawyer.23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?
An ad hominem has to do with trying to invalidate or validate a person's ideas based on who that person is or on other personal characteristics and traits. This applies even to the sociopath or murderer we referenced above. If Hilter talks and teaches about something it would be irrational to reject the ideas Hilter speaks to based solely on the fact that it is Hilter speaking the ideas and we know for a fact that Hilter is a murderer. We certainly shouldn't accept what he is saying without critically examining it, but rejecting his ideas based solely on who is speaking them would be irrational. Ad hominems are also used as a way to prevent ideas from being expressed, to prevent people from listening to ideas, or to believing ideas. Ad hominem is really a type of argument of irrelevance and there are many ways to commit this fallacy.
A perfect example of this is to look at anti-Mormon rhetoric. When discussing ideas and doctrines that Joseph Smith taught, many people will not even consider the ideas and the doctrines, but instead they will begin to discuss Joseph Smith's personal characteristics and completely reject or not even consider what Joseph Smith taught based on what they believe or what might even be true about Joseph Smith's characteristics and life choices.
I had a good friend of mine who investigated the Church for a bit and I had him over to my home to have him hear the discussions from the missionaries. The missionaries would teach an idea, etc., and then they gave some time over to my friend to have him ask any questions if he had any. My friend and his fiancé at the time had brought a list of things to ask. Instead of asking questions about the doctrine and what was being taught, they started asking questions about why did Joseph Smith marry a 14 year old girl? Or, why did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives? Didn't Joseph Smith use a peep stone? Didn't Joseph Smith take part in occult practices? They would say, the fact that Joseph married a 14 year old girl calls in the question the doctrine that Joseph taught. Or, God wouldn't use such a man to reveal his doctrine to.
As you can see, this was an ad hominem. My friend and fiancé completely ignored the doctrine and the lessons that were being taught and did not even attempt to judge the doctrine on the merits of the doctrine alone, but rather they refused to even consider it because of how they had judged Joseph Smith the person.
-Finrock
The idea that we show an increase of love afterwards, presupposes that love has been shown prior to the direct reproving. Meaning, there must have been a history and a relationship established prior to the reproving that demonstrated to the individual reproved that the person loves them and after the reproving, you show an increase in love to make sure they know that you still love them and that your love for them is stronger than the bonds of death.Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 11:25 amYeah, I don't disagree. Love is the key. But when we do speak this way, that is sometimes how the other side perceives it (that they're angry at them, etc.); even though love was the guiding principle.
On the other side, I'd much rather have someone chastise me with directness in love than someone feign love and be cordial.
You mean like Alma's relationship with Zeezrom?The idea that we show an increase of love afterwards, presupposes that love has been shown prior to the direct reproving. Meaning, there must have been a history and a relationship established prior to the reproving that demonstrated to the individual reproved that the person loves them and after the reproving, you show an increase in love to make sure they know that you still love them and that your love for them is stronger than the bonds of death.
How often do we see reproving on forums where this love and friendship has been established already?
Just to be clear, my comments are not limited to just situations where someone is a murderer. If someone is a cheat, they can be called a cheat, etc. My point isn't really about calling people names. There is a time when it is appropriate to apply a label because it is true. Again, it boils down to arguments of irrelevance when discussing ideas or considering ideas. As far as Korihor, his doctrine wasn't invalidated because of who Korihor was, but it was invalidated on the merits of what he was teaching.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 1:51 pmFinrock wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 1:35 pmWell, I think once we've established that someone is a murderer because there is proof of such, then we can safely call someone a murderer. That isn't really an "ad hominem". For instance, once it has been demonstrated through evidence and proof that a person has murdered and killed innocent people then we can call them what they are and deal with them as they are: a psychopath and a serial killer. It is OK at that point to question certain assertions that they make, like they won't kill again, or they love people, etc.alaris wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 11:43 amGreat question. I say it is only valid when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Efforts should always be made to avoid such, and when it's time to be sharp to do so with great care and prayer - with great effort to be in tune with the Holy Ghost.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 10:43 am
3.) So the question here may not be whether or not ad hominem is valid tool as obviously one cannot exercise the directness of the prophet's and Christ himself without being able to be candid in expression.
However, the question might better be asked how do we determine its appropriate use - for instance on a forum environment?
Is there a use for it in a forum environment?
Moroni to Ammoron
Ammoron was a wicked murderous warlord bad guy.Alma 54:11 But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain; or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell; therefore I will close my epistle by telling you that I will not exchange prisoners, save it be on conditions that ye will deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner; if this be the case that ye will do it, I will exchange.
Amulek to Zeezrom
Zeezrom was even worse than Ammoron - Zeezrom was a lawyer.23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?
An ad hominem has to do with trying to invalidate or validate a person's ideas based on who that person is or on other personal characteristics and traits. This applies even to the sociopath or murderer we referenced above. If Hilter talks and teaches about something it would be irrational to reject the ideas Hilter speaks to based solely on the fact that it is Hilter speaking the ideas and we know for a fact that Hilter is a murderer. We certainly shouldn't accept what he is saying without critically examining it, but rejecting his ideas based solely on who is speaking them would be irrational. Ad hominems are also used as a way to prevent ideas from being expressed, to prevent people from listening to ideas, or to believing ideas. Ad hominem is really a type of argument of irrelevance and there are many ways to commit this fallacy.
A perfect example of this is to look at anti-Mormon rhetoric. When discussing ideas and doctrines that Joseph Smith taught, many people will not even consider the ideas and the doctrines, but instead they will begin to discuss Joseph Smith's personal characteristics and completely reject or not even consider what Joseph Smith taught based on what they believe or what might even be true about Joseph Smith's characteristics and life choices.
I had a good friend of mine who investigated the Church for a bit and I had him over to my home to have him hear the discussions from the missionaries. The missionaries would teach an idea, etc., and then they gave some time over to my friend to have him ask any questions if he had any. My friend and his fiancé at the time had brought a list of things to ask. Instead of asking questions about the doctrine and what was being taught, they started asking questions about why did Joseph Smith marry a 14 year old girl? Or, why did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives? Didn't Joseph Smith use a peep stone? Didn't Joseph Smith take part in occult practices? They would say, the fact that Joseph married a 14 year old girl calls in the question the doctrine that Joseph taught. Or, God wouldn't use such a man to reveal his doctrine to.
As you can see, this was an ad hominem. My friend and fiancé completely ignored the doctrine and the lessons that were being taught and did not even attempt to judge the doctrine on the merits of the doctrine alone, but rather they refused to even consider it because of how they had judged Joseph Smith the person.
-Finrock
Branch out a little bit. Broaden the perspective. I think you are trying to force this to fit a personal paradigm. These are fine examples but they are not all that are available. Think through the scriptures how often are the ad hominems not being directed at murderers but just disobedient types for various and sundry issues of disobedience. How often are they called liars and cheats and whoremongers and we do not see that behavior as inappropriate. How badly did Alma "invalidate" Korihor's "ideas based on who that person is or on other personal characteristics". Today there are those that would toss out the ad hominem defense card and challenge Alma's "meanness". When I come back we can take a look at how many logical fallacies are in your response just to evaluate how they can alter good conversation and make it meaningless.
It may be a logical fallacy (the slippery slope example) to say abortion will lead to euthanasia, but common sense said it was a real concern and reality has proven it to be true in six states so far.brlenox wrote: ↑June 20th, 2017, 5:00 pm This is a very short list of the more popular logical fallacies I have highlighted a few that I think have value but can be obfuscators to justifying discussion concerning truth as it relates to the Gospel.
Any thoughts on how the ones I've highlighted or any others that I did not can be used to invalidate Gospel discussions?1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.
example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.
example: Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest sorority on campus.
example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.
3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization.
example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost.
example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!
4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects.
example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
example: Banning "head" shops from selling drug paraphernalia in order to curb drug abuse makes about as much sense as banning bikinis to reduce promiscuity.
5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."
example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.
example: The new form of experimental chemotherapy must be working; not a single patient has returned to complain.
6. BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy) assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is, something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some third category.
example: Either you favor a strong national defense, or you favor allowing other nations to dictate our foreign policy.
example: It’s not TV. It’s HBO.
7. FALSE DILEMMA: (a form of bifurcation) implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences.
example: Either you buy a large car and watch it guzzle away your paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of being injured or killed in the event of an accident.
example: You can put your money in a savings account, in which case the IRS will tax you on the interest, and inflation will erode the value of your money, or you can avoid maintaining a savings account in which case you will have nothing to fall back on in a financial emergency.
8. FAULTY SIGN: (also includes argument from circumstance) wrongly assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of another event or phenomenon.
example: the cars driving in the opposite direction have their lights on; they must be part of a funeral procession.
example: That guy is wearing a Raiders jacket and baggy pants. I’ll bet he’s a gang member.
9. DAMNING THE SOURCE / AD HOMINEM ( sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.
example: There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!
example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.
10. TU QUOQUE: (look who's talking or two wrongs make a right) pointing to a similar wrong or error committed by another.
example: Gee, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?
example: The United States has no business criticizing the human rights policies of the Third World nations, not as long as discrimination and segregation continue to exist in the United States.
11. EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).
example: Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.
example: No one who has the slightest acquaintance with science can reasonably doubt that the miracles in the Bible actually took place. Every year we witness countless new miracles in the form recombinant DNA, micro-chips, organ transplants, and the like. (the word "miracle" does not have the same meaning in each case)
12. BEGGING THE QUESTION: (petitio principii) entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. In question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.
example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.
example: Have you stopped beating your wife?
13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.
example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.
example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on this, it will only further prove what a disagreeable person you are.
14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered.
example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good enough for me.
example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.
example: Of course we have to play "pomp and circumstance" at graduation, because that's always been the song that is played.
example: Why do I make wine this way? Because my father made wine this way, and his father made wine this way.
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.
example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.
example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.
17. STRAW MAN: stating an opponent's argument in an extreme or exaggerated form, or attacking a weaker, irrelevant portion of an opponent's argument.
example: A mandatory seat belt law could never be enforced. You can't issue citations to dead people.
example: What woman in her right mind could truly desire total equality with men? No woman wants the right to be shot at in times of war, the right to have to pay alimony, or the right to have to use the same restrooms as men.
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.
example: If the Supreme Court allows abortion, next think you know they'll allow euthanasia, and it won't be long before society disposes of all those persons whom it deems unwanted or undesirable.
example: If I let one student interrupt my lecture with a question, then I'll have to let others and, before long, there won't be any time left for my lecture.
19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.
example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get one of your breasts!
example: Debtor to creditor: Hey, you've already repossessed my car and my television. Why don't you just draw a quart of blood or carve a pound of flesh from my heart too?
20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.
example: If you had only tasted the stewed snails, I'm sure you would have liked them.
example: If Hitler had not invaded Russia and opened up two military fronts, the Nazis would surely have won the war.
21. NON SEQUITAR: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense any argument which fails to establish a connection between the premises and the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in which irrelevant reasons are offered to support a claim.
example: I wore a red shirt when I took the test, so that is probably why I did so well on the test.
example: Mr Boswell couldn't be the person who poisoned our cat, Truffles, because when I used to take Truffles for walks he always smiled and said "Hello" when we walked by.
22. RED HERRING: attempting to hide a weakness in an argument by drawing attention away from the real issue. A red herring fallacy is thus a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated. The name of the fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when a herring was dragged across the trail of a fox in order to throw the dogs off the scent.
example: accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said you didn't like the color."
example: There's too much fuss and concern about saving the environment. We can't create an Eden on earth. And even if we could, remember Adam and Eve got bored in the Garden of Eden anyway!
23. INCONSISTENCY: advancing an argument that is self-contradictory, or that is based on mutually inconsistent premises.
Example: A used car salespersons says, "Hey, you can’t trust those other car salesman. They’ll say anything to gt you to buy a car from them."
Example: A parent has just read a child the story of Cinderella. The child asks, "If the coach, and the footmen, and the beautiful clothes all turned back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass slipper didn’t change back too?"
No, I mean like what it says in D&C.gclayjr wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 2:31 pm Finrock
You mean like Alma's relationship with Zeezrom?The idea that we show an increase of love afterwards, presupposes that love has been shown prior to the direct reproving. Meaning, there must have been a history and a relationship established prior to the reproving that demonstrated to the individual reproved that the person loves them and after the reproving, you show an increase in love to make sure they know that you still love them and that your love for them is stronger than the bonds of death.
How often do we see reproving on forums where this love and friendship has been established already?
Heresy is heresy. One doesn't have to be (soda) drinking buddies to call out a heretic for heresy.
I think this gets to the most frequent reason for you getting your panties in a twist so often. You consider confronting heresy as a personal ad hominem attack, and you feel sympathy for the person being confronted with their heresy, and you automatically jump to their defense. The problem is that in identifying with these people, you begin to take on their ideas, even if you don't realize it and deny it.
Regards,
George Clay
PS: for you guys in Utah, you can replace pop for soda
If you're referring to logical fallacies and all that manipulative mumbo jumbo, yes. I can relate. I have come to learn by experience (with children and with all kinds of adults whether work related or church related) that the only reason to engage in conflicts, jarrings, contentions, disputations, strifes, etc is to impose one's will on another, which ultimately means enforcing conformity. Jesus explicitly (not implicitly) taught us not to resist evil, agree with adversaries quickly, and do away with disputations and contentions. By doing what He commands us to do, and to keep His sayings, and not to do what He has commanded us not to do, we in effect begin to become as He is (Be ye therefore perfect...), which is perfect (greek: complete).Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 8:49 amThat's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
Well, no. I was meaning relate to the other side of the gentler love of "kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings."marc wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 3:32 pmIf you're referring to logical fallacies and all that manipulative mumbo jumbo, yes. I can relate. I have come to learn by experience (with children and with all kinds of adults whether work related or church related) that the only reason to engage in conflicts, jarrings, contentions, disputations, strifes, etc is to impose one's will on another, which ultimately means enforcing conformity. Jesus explicitly (not implicitly) taught us not to resist evil, agree with adversaries quickly, and do away with disputations and contentions. By doing what He commands us to do, and to keep His sayings, and not to do what He has commanded us not to do, we in effect begin to become as He is (Be ye therefore perfect...), which is perfect (greek: complete).Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 8:49 amThat's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
Children and adolescents tend to question parents in order to find loopholes out of their parents' will (clean room, don't stay up late, etc). The moment you give them a reason, they find excuses to manipulate their way out of doing your will and doing their own will. There is also the problem where parents exercise unrighteous dominion over their children (I'm your parent and you will do what I say). One of the biggest mistakes a parent can make is to match wits with their children. Joseph Smith advocated teaching others correct principles and letting them govern themselves. My boys constantly lied to me and manipulated me, despite all my efforts to be firm in teaching correct principles. By the time they left home, they clearly knew right from wrong and how all their bad choices affected them. You cannot protect them from themselves forever. The absolute best you can do is to point them to Jesus so they know ultimately where to turn to when Dad is no longer there to bail them out.
And that time inevitably comes sooner or later for every prodigal child. And even after they leave home, they still keep in touch because they need money or something. But how you raise them, or rather, if you do not exercise unrighteous dominion and love them unconditionally, they will remember that when they become parents. So you see, you not only raise children, you become the model by which they raise their children. So you really are raising grandchildren and great grandchildren, fostering either unconditional love and a desire to know Christ or fostering manipulative techniques to get your kids to bend to your will simply because you are the boss of the house.
All of this logical fallacy, straw man stuff is for people who engage in debates over issues that are meaningless to me. Just like all the religious revivalists in Joseph Smith's day. It's all manipulative mumbo jumbo. People would rather be right than ask God who gives to all men liberally. It's easier to manipulate people to agree with you than it is to get the God of heaven and earth to talk to you and to tutor you. This is why it doesn't matter if you succeed in winning an argument. You don't convince the person to turn to Christ and ask Him and foster a desire in others to seek Christ to open up as He has promised to do to those who ask, seek, and knock. Lehi had the truth because he sought the Lord and the Lord opened unto Lehi. Nephi believed his father, and even though everything his father said was true and he followed his father, that truth was not efficacious in Nephi's life until Nephi likewise sought the Lord until the Lord opened unto Nephi. And even though Nephi had the truth and it was efficacious in his life, teaching the same truth to Laman and Lemuel did no good to Laman and Lemuel, even though Laman and Lemuel had the truth and understood the truth only after Nephi explained to them. But understanding information isn't enough. That is why Nephi first asked them, "have ye inquired of the Lord."
This is why the veil is referred to as the "veil of unbelief" in the Book of Mormon. People simply don't believe the things they teach or understand to the point of inquiring of the Lord that He may open unto them as promised in James 1:5 and so many other places in the Book of Mormon. That leaves men their only recourse: becoming "learned." There are scholars at BYU who can explain all the literary devices in the scriptures, quote them backwards and forwards, know what the scriptures teach, and still be ignorant fools despite all their expert learning because they do not know God. They may know all about God, but they do not KNOW God.
Therefore all your (speaking generally and not to anyone specifically) degrees and certifications and diplomas and credentials amount to absolutely nothing except to pat each other on the back with praise and flattery. All your strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies and all the mumbo jumbo smart people come up with to one up each other is foolishness. And it is why God calls and appoints shepherd boys and plow boys to do His work and uses weak things to confound the so called wise. Learned men tend to make bigger messes of God's work than uneducated nobodies. So engaging in debates and academic discussions about how to be smart and all that mumbo jumbo to me is just noise.
I never did manage to get the streets out of my boys. They glorified the lifestyle portrayed in violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. They have both been in prison. One is still in prison. They are still learning to deal with the consequences of all their bad choices, which they did anyway behind my back. But they know that no matter what, I will always be there for them and will do anything I can for them that is within my power. They know very clearly what I believe and they know not to ask me to do something contrary to what I believe (Jesus' commandments, sayings, etc). It would take up volumes to write about it all.
As far as manipulative techniques goes, the way I see it, simply engaging in disputations is a manipulative technique to get others to conform to your beliefs or your will whether or not you are right. The best thing to do is to take a page out of Nephi's book and ask, "have ye inquired of the Lord?" because providing correct information isn't enough until you point them to Christ.
I think this is a good of time as any to reiterate the nature of the intent of this thread. If you refer to the OP I opened it with this quote:marc wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 3:32 pmAll of this logical fallacy, straw man stuff is for people who engage in debates over issues that are meaningless to me. Just like all the religious revivalists in Joseph Smith's day. It's all manipulative mumbo jumbo. People would rather be right than ask God who gives to all men liberally. It's easier to manipulate people to agree with you than it is to get the God of heaven and earth to talk to you and to tutor you. This is why it doesn't matter if you succeed in winning an argument. You don't convince the person to turn to Christ and ask Him and foster a desire in others to seek Christ to open up as He has promised to do to those who ask, seek, and knock. Lehi had the truth because he sought the Lord and the Lord opened unto Lehi. Nephi believed his father, and even though everything his father said was true and he followed his father, that truth was not efficacious in Nephi's life until Nephi likewise sought the Lord until the Lord opened unto Nephi. And even though Nephi had the truth and it was efficacious in his life, teaching the same truth to Laman and Lemuel did no good to Laman and Lemuel, even though Laman and Lemuel had the truth and understood the truth only after Nephi explained to them. But understanding information isn't enough. That is why Nephi first asked them, "have ye inquired of the Lord."Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 8:49 amThat's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
Most people, especially those educated within the past 28 years have been trained in concepts of critical thinking. For the most part and I think this thread bears it out, most can't even remember the types of logical arguments let alone properly identify them. However, periodically they come up when individuals want to shut down or complain about certain types of commentary. They use the arguments precisely for their intended purpose as a means of stifling certain types of conversation or to distract from other elements of a post that they consider incriminating. So that is one aspect that we are seeking enlightenment on.…new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles. (Grewal, Daisy, How Critical Thinkers Lose their Faith in God, Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises, May 1st 2012 accessed from this site: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... faith-god/.)
Whenever we base ethical conclusions on religious or cultural standards, we separate ourselves from those who hold contrary religious or cultural beliefs. It is critical, therefore, that we use shared ethical concepts and principles as guides in reasoning through common ethical issues. (Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
In short, theological beliefs cannot override ethical principles.(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)We must turn to ethical principles to protect ourselves from intolerant and oppressive religious practices.
Of course, another ethical principle that may be relevant to this issue is, ‘Life is good in itself and should be preserved.’ Most rational persons would argue that, all things being equal, life is good in itself and should be preserved. But that is a different matter from believing that ‘life should be preserved no matter what the circumstances.’ It seems that this absolute principle can be defended only by using theological claims (such as ‘God has absolutely forbidden suicide under any and all conditions’). But this theological belief is relevant only to those who accept the religious doctrines underlying it. It is not an ethical imperative as such and should not be confused with one. No one who rejects a theological belief system—and everyone has this right—need accept any assertions dependent on it.”(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
Members of religious groups often fail to recognize that “sin” is a theological concept, not an ethical one. (“Sin” is theologically defined.)(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)
Perhaps, you are not seeing this thread for it's intent. It is not to win any arguments. But to reveal certain tendencies that are not sustained by actual introspection into scripture that occur quite commonly in forum discussions. It is also to illustrate a possible contributing factor for why we are seeing so many of our youth leaving the church. I am convinced that if we see some of these possibilities it may help us in having conversations with those who have completely forgotten the details of a line of reasoning that has subtly minimized religious necessity in our lives. They don't remember the class but they may have retained thoughts and feelings formed by it's exclusive insinuations during the short period they were exposed to its tenants.That ethical judgment must trump religious belief is shown by the undeniable fact that many persons have been tortured and/or murdered by people motivated by religious zeal or conviction. Indeed religious persecution is commonplace in human history. Humans need recourse to ethics in defending themselves against religious intolerance and persecution..)(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)[/]
Oh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
This is one of those moments where we wonder if a bit of self introspection might alter understanding. In the past several responses you have noted a strong dislike for tough love mentalities. You have indicted that being critical of others is not a normal element of your personality. We get a clear picture that a comfort zone of existence is one without a sense of interactive disagreement with others. I have to ask myself are you a third child?marc wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 3:32 pmAs far as manipulative techniques goes, the way I see it, simply engaging in disputations is a manipulative technique to get others to conform to your beliefs or your will whether or not you are right. The best thing to do is to take a page out of Nephi's book and ask, "have ye inquired of the Lord?" because providing correct information isn't enough until you point them to Christ.Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 8:49 amThat's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
1 Nephi 15:10-11
10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord
11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.
As you state, Nephi is a wonderful example of a meek, humble, man of peace. He is everything we all should want to be. However, as a prophet of God he was once asked if he could subjugate his will to Gods sufficient that he could take another mans head off. He was inspired in this moment with Laman and Lemuel to be direct and challenge their comfort zones with a bit of direct conversation and they did not like it one bit.1 Nephi 16:2-3
2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.
3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.
I have to be honest and say I do not like to be in a position of using a tough love approach. I find that a little bit goes a long way. With each of our children as my wife and I grew more comfortable in our authority as parents we realized that we are the source of authority in our home. Our role as a Mother or a Father made us that and when you believe that deep inside there is little need to intimidate or bully into conforming behavior. Whether your children choose to be obedient or not it does not alter who you are.Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 4:25 pmOh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
Sometimes someone says something in just the perfect way that you wonder why it doesn't make perfect sense to everyone else. This sentence seems so completely practical and sensible: " I would prefer to get my "truths" from a source that doesn't constantly require me to be on guard."Michelle wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 2:56 pm
It may be a logical fallacy (the slippery slope example) to say abortion will lead to euthanasia, but common sense said it was a real concern and reality has proven it to be true in six states so far.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assiste ... ted_States
Don't be fooled by semantics: intentionally helping someone die, whether you call it "medical aid in dying", "physician assisted suicide" or "euthanasia" is really all the same thing= A person is alive, another person provides the means or performs an act to kill them.
As for Ad Hominem, Satan will tell a thousand lies to get you to believe one truth. I would prefer to get my "truths" from a source that doesn't constantly require me to be on guard. Maybe Hitler said some things that were true, but I'm convinced a much more honest source can be found. Why even waste my time sifting through his untruths? His personal failings do call into question everything else he said. Said differently, I'd rather get truth from a pure fountain of living water than a polluted one that has to be cleaned up, if it can. Do we listen to anti Mormon spekers to learn about the church? Common sense says: they may say something that is true, but their message is tainted by their intent.
Appeal to authority: ever heard a prophet or apostle or parent say something like : Trust me. Lean on my faith until yours is strong enough. Why would we do that logically? How can you share faith? But common sense says because they demonstate love for us and they have strewardship, and even authority, we can trust them to have our best interest at heart. Are there exceptions? Sure, but again, common sense.
Common sense seems more practical in a lot if instances.
Your comments were not even any where near that I just think it is funny to have a logical fallacy named after HitlerThe attempt to make an argument analogous with Hitler or the Nazi party. Hitler is probably the most universally despised figure in history, so any connection to Hitler, or his beliefs, can (erroneously) cause others to view the argument in a similar light. However, this fallacy is becoming more well known as is the fact that it is most often a desperate attempt to render the truth claim of the argument invalid out of lack of a good counter argument. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d_Hitlerum
I like how you say that you "manifest anger". That's exactly how I feel. I'm not angry at them, but I do manifest it. And very rarely do I use it outside my family.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 5:02 pmI have to be honest and say I do not like to be in a position of using a tough love approach. I find that a little bit goes a long way. With each of our children as my wife and I grew more comfortable in our authority as parents we realized that we are the source of authority in our home. Our role as a Mother or a Father made us that and when you believe that deep inside there is little need to intimidate or bully into conforming behavior. Whether your children choose to be obedient or not it does not alter who you are.Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 4:25 pmOh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
That said with my last three children I developed a process which may have just been me over thinking things but while they were still 6 or 7 years old, I would observe and wait for a moment to put on a mask of behavior in response to something that was appropriately dealt with with sharpness. I am not a loud person, I never raise my voice, I am much better at discussing behavior changes rather than forcing them. However on this occasion and I always knew exactly when it showed up, I would manifest anger at their behavior, I would be especially sharp and because of the stark contrast between my nearly exclusively peaceable nature and this moment it would instill upon them a certain level of concern about ever getting Dad mad at you. Afterwards, a few hours later, because I needed them to let the moment sink in would come the welcoming back into the sense of unwavering love and acceptance.
As they matured into adult mentalities after they turned 8, that one event would serve to always remind my children in their minds that they should be considerate of my role as father and that they did not want to do wrong. Because I did this in their childhood phase of life it imprinted differently than it does on an adult mentality. Sometimes by the time we can logically think ourselves out of a pre-adult impression we are adult enough to maturely perceive correctly what was the reality. Until then it served as deterrent. I practically never had to deal with unruly teens or disobedient youth. I only have one left under 18 at 16 and he is a near perfect human being. A pure joy to be around.
At work I was the same way. However there is always one or two that think nice guy is short for take advantage. It only happened twice that I can remember - start to take advantage of me because I am a nice guy and I'll let it go once, maybe twice, but the third time I come down like a ton of bricks. Never happens again after that.Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 5:48 pmI like how you say that you "manifest anger". That's exactly how I feel. I'm not angry at them, but I do manifest it. And very rarely do I use it outside my family.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 5:02 pmI have to be honest and say I do not like to be in a position of using a tough love approach. I find that a little bit goes a long way. With each of our children as my wife and I grew more comfortable in our authority as parents we realized that we are the source of authority in our home. Our role as a Mother or a Father made us that and when you believe that deep inside there is little need to intimidate or bully into conforming behavior. Whether your children choose to be obedient or not it does not alter who you are.Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 4:25 pmOh, I think Jesus definitely used tough love. They produce the same results as the gentle love, which I try to use the most. I hate doing tough love with my kids, and it's not often; but sometimes it's an appropriate means.
That said with my last three children I developed a process which may have just been me over thinking things but while they were still 6 or 7 years old, I would observe and wait for a moment to put on a mask of behavior in response to something that was appropriately dealt with with sharpness. I am not a loud person, I never raise my voice, I am much better at discussing behavior changes rather than forcing them. However on this occasion and I always knew exactly when it showed up, I would manifest anger at their behavior, I would be especially sharp and because of the stark contrast between my nearly exclusively peaceable nature and this moment it would instill upon them a certain level of concern about ever getting Dad mad at you. Afterwards, a few hours later, because I needed them to let the moment sink in would come the welcoming back into the sense of unwavering love and acceptance.
As they matured into adult mentalities after they turned 8, that one event would serve to always remind my children in their minds that they should be considerate of my role as father and that they did not want to do wrong. Because I did this in their childhood phase of life it imprinted differently than it does on an adult mentality. Sometimes by the time we can logically think ourselves out of a pre-adult impression we are adult enough to maturely perceive correctly what was the reality. Until then it served as deterrent. I practically never had to deal with unruly teens or disobedient youth. I only have one left under 18 at 16 and he is a near perfect human being. A pure joy to be around.
I seem to use it in anything safety related or in regards to their immediate danger. Sometimes I do it in relation to how they treat others.
At work, however, although I'm in a position of authority, very rarely I feel the need to use it.
I wasn't sure if ethics was outside the scope of your OP, I am so glad you brought it up.brlenox wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 4:17 pm
I think this is a good of time as any to reiterate the nature of the intent of this thread. If you refer to the OP I opened it with this quote:
Most people, especially those educated within the past 28 years have been trained in concepts of critical thinking. For the most part and I think this thread bears it out, most can't even remember the types of logical arguments let alone properly identify them. However, periodically they come up when individuals want to shut down or complain about certain types of commentary. They use the arguments precisely for their intended purpose as a means of stifling certain types of conversation or to distract from other elements of a post that they consider incriminating. So that is one aspect that we are seeking enlightenment on.…new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles. (Grewal, Daisy, How Critical Thinkers Lose their Faith in God, Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises, May 1st 2012 accessed from this site: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... faith-god/.)
However, the greater point and I think should be understood by all is that even though most have completely lost touch with the specifics of their critical thinking classes it still had the powerful effect of reducing "their tendency to believe in God." That semester of education has had a long lasting effect that was beyond the obvious of class criteria and instead provided a brief exposure to a manner of thinking that clearly taught them something far more insidious. The class is over but the effects linger on in entire generations of yound adults. Here are some of the things that are taught in Critical thinking classes:
Whenever we base ethical conclusions on religious or cultural standards, we separate ourselves from those who hold contrary religious or cultural beliefs. It is critical, therefore, that we use shared ethical concepts and principles as guides in reasoning through common ethical issues. (Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)In short, theological beliefs cannot override ethical principles.(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)We must turn to ethical principles to protect ourselves from intolerant and oppressive religious practices.Of course, another ethical principle that may be relevant to this issue is, ‘Life is good in itself and should be preserved.’ Most rational persons would argue that, all things being equal, life is good in itself and should be preserved. But that is a different matter from believing that ‘life should be preserved no matter what the circumstances.’ It seems that this absolute principle can be defended only by using theological claims (such as ‘God has absolutely forbidden suicide under any and all conditions’). But this theological belief is relevant only to those who accept the religious doctrines underlying it. It is not an ethical imperative as such and should not be confused with one. No one who rejects a theological belief system—and everyone has this right—need accept any assertions dependent on it.”(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)Members of religious groups often fail to recognize that “sin” is a theological concept, not an ethical one. (“Sin” is theologically defined.)(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)Perhaps, you are not seeing this thread for it's intent. It is not to win any arguments. But to reveal certain tendencies that are not sustained by actual introspection into scripture that occur quite commonly in forum discussions. It is also to illustrate a possible contributing factor for why we are seeing so many of our youth leaving the church. I am convinced that if we see some of these possibilities it may help us in having conversations with those who have completely forgotten the details of a line of reasoning that has subtly minimized religious necessity in our lives. They don't remember the class but they may have retained thoughts and feelings formed by it's exclusive insinuations during the short period they were exposed to its tenants.That ethical judgment must trump religious belief is shown by the undeniable fact that many persons have been tortured and/or murdered by people motivated by religious zeal or conviction. Indeed religious persecution is commonplace in human history. Humans need recourse to ethics in defending themselves against religious intolerance and persecution..)(Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder The Foundation for Critical Thinking)[/]
I will further clarify that this be nice to everyone mentality is one of many elements of Critical thinking indoctrination. It causes people to see only one manner of interaction and falsely reads evil intent to boldness, candidness, and honesty and so on. When really we see over and over in scriptures that certain categories of thought must be addressed with clarity. The challenge is and always has been that sometimes boldness, candidness, and honesty can be used abusively and to hurt and maim and that reinforces the overwhelming desire for everyone to just be nice. Most of the time, the just be nice mantra is suitable but if by the standards of Moroni 7 one can honestly determine something is evil then within acceptable patterns of integrity a straightforward approach is not without merit.
Ethical thinking as the oldest child of Critical thinking is definitely on the topic list. Not many think it through as well as you have though. They see the word ethics attached to something and just automatically consider it something to advocate. A well you have read it just as I do, as a means to train God out of the process of making decisions.Michelle wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 6:50 pm
I wasn't sure if ethics was outside the scope of your OP, I am so glad you brought it up.
Over the years I have come to the conclusion that ethics is the counterfeit to morality.
Morality is based on absolute truth. It is, in my opinion, inseparable from God because it is in fact God's laws that determine if something is moral or not. The 10 commandments are a great start. I think this can be expressed by the saying "The ends DON'T justify the means." There is no such thing as "moral relativism."
Ethics, however, is relativism defined. It can be used to justify all sorts of horror, through logic, of course. In ethics the ends ALWAYS justify the means and there are no absolutes. There is no God or lawgiver, just circular arguments that can lead to answers you know are wrong, but are hard to refute without an appeal to absolute truth and/or God.
Am I the only one that noticed most of the "ethical dilemmas" in classes were macabre extreme examples one was never likely to experience in real life?
Anyone remember this one? Your son is on one train track too far away to hear you shout. A full passenger train is on the other track and will fall off a cliff killing everyone on board if you, who happen to be standing near the lever, don't pull it and put them on the same track where your son is walking. If you pull the lever, he will surely be killed! Do you save the group or your son?
What purpose can such an insane scenario provide?
I think the purpose is to intentionally train people to believe there is no right answer. No right answer? "No right, no wrong, no rules for me?" (Yeah, that's a reference to Frozen. I hate hearing kids and Mormoms on YouTube sing that without a thought to what they were reinforcing in their own brains.) No right and wrong? No God, no Devil? No truth, no error?
Only one answer left: relativism and hedonism.
marc wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 3:32 pmIf you're referring to logical fallacies and all that manipulative mumbo jumbo, yes. I can relate. I have come to learn by experience (with children and with all kinds of adults whether work related or church related) that the only reason to engage in conflicts, jarrings, contentions, disputations, strifes, etc is to impose one's will on another, which ultimately means enforcing conformity. Jesus explicitly (not implicitly) taught us not to resist evil, agree with adversaries quickly, and do away with disputations and contentions. By doing what He commands us to do, and to keep His sayings, and not to do what He has commanded us not to do, we in effect begin to become as He is (Be ye therefore perfect...), which is perfect (greek: complete).Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 8:49 amThat's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
Children and adolescents tend to question parents in order to find loopholes out of their parents' will (clean room, don't stay up late, etc). The moment you give them a reason, they find excuses to manipulate their way out of doing your will and doing their own will. There is also the problem where parents exercise unrighteous dominion over their children (I'm your parent and you will do what I say). One of the biggest mistakes a parent can make is to match wits with their children. Joseph Smith advocated teaching others correct principles and letting them govern themselves. My boys constantly lied to me and manipulated me, despite all my efforts to be firm in teaching correct principles. By the time they left home, they clearly knew right from wrong and how all their bad choices affected them. You cannot protect them from themselves forever. The absolute best you can do is to point them to Jesus so they know ultimately where to turn to when Dad is no longer there to bail them out.
And that time inevitably comes sooner or later for every prodigal child. And even after they leave home, they still keep in touch because they need money or something. But how you raise them, or rather, if you do not exercise unrighteous dominion and love them unconditionally, they will remember that when they become parents. So you see, you not only raise children, you become the model by which they raise their children. So you really are raising grandchildren and great grandchildren, fostering either unconditional love and a desire to know Christ or fostering manipulative techniques to get your kids to bend to your will simply because you are the boss of the house.
i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.
All of this logical fallacy, straw man stuff is for people who engage in debates over issues that are meaningless to me. Just like all the religious revivalists in Joseph Smith's day. It's all manipulative mumbo jumbo. People would rather be right than ask God who gives to all men liberally. It's easier to manipulate people to agree with you than it is to get the God of heaven and earth to talk to you and to tutor you. This is why it doesn't matter if you succeed in winning an argument. You don't convince the person to turn to Christ and ask Him and foster a desire in others to seek Christ to open up as He has promised to do to those who ask, seek, and knock. Lehi had the truth because he sought the Lord and the Lord opened unto Lehi. Nephi believed his father, and even though everything his father said was true and he followed his father, that truth was not efficacious in Nephi's life until Nephi likewise sought the Lord until the Lord opened unto Nephi. And even though Nephi had the truth and it was efficacious in his life, teaching the same truth to Laman and Lemuel did no good to Laman and Lemuel, even though Laman and Lemuel had the truth and understood the truth only after Nephi explained to them. But understanding information isn't enough. That is why Nephi first asked them, "have ye inquired of the Lord."
This is why the veil is referred to as the "veil of unbelief" in the Book of Mormon. People simply don't believe the things they teach or understand to the point of inquiring of the Lord that He may open unto them as promised in James 1:5 and so many other places in the Book of Mormon. That leaves men their only recourse: becoming "learned." There are scholars at BYU who can explain all the literary devices in the scriptures, quote them backwards and forwards, know what the scriptures teach, and still be ignorant fools despite all their expert learning because they do not know God. They may know all about God, but they do not KNOW God.
Therefore all your (speaking generally and not to anyone specifically) degrees and certifications and diplomas and credentials amount to absolutely nothing except to pat each other on the back with praise and flattery. All your strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies and all the mumbo jumbo smart people come up with to one up each other is foolishness. And it is why God calls and appoints shepherd boys and plow boys to do His work and uses weak things to confound the so called wise. Learned men tend to make bigger messes of God's work than uneducated nobodies. So engaging in debates and academic discussions about how to be smart and all that mumbo jumbo to me is just noise.
I never did manage to get the streets out of my boys. They glorified the lifestyle portrayed in violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. They have both been in prison. One is still in prison. They are still learning to deal with the consequences of all their bad choices, which they did anyway behind my back. But they know that no matter what, I will always be there for them and will do anything I can for them that is within my power. They know very clearly what I believe and they know not to ask me to do something contrary to what I believe (Jesus' commandments, sayings, etc). It would take up volumes to write about it all.
As far as manipulative techniques goes, the way I see it, simply engaging in disputations is a manipulative technique to get others to conform to your beliefs or your will whether or not you are right. The best thing to do is to take a page out of Nephi's book and ask, "have ye inquired of the Lord?" because providing correct information isn't enough until you point them to Christ.
I've been trying to start a conversation about the Trolley Problem for ages. Don't tell me we're finally getting there. I feel like I should pinch myself.Michelle wrote: Am I the only one that noticed most of the "ethical dilemmas" in classes were macabre extreme examples one was never likely to experience in real life?
Anyone remember this one? Your son is on one train track too far away to hear you shout. A full passenger train is on the other track and will fall off a cliff killing everyone on board if you, who happen to be standing near the lever, don't pull it and put them on the same track where your son is walking. If you pull the lever, he will surely be killed! Do you save the group or your son?
Well, for one, we need to know how to program our self-driving cars.Michelle wrote:What purpose can such an insane scenario provide?
I think this is the part you inserted into my quote. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it was a big mistake. My boys came to church with me most Sundays, disturbed sacrament meeting with their rude behavior (which was patiently tolerated by most members), were an unruly element in their priesthood meetings, mutual activities, scouting events, etc. I was a very patient steward, never a boss (though I was their boss when they wanted to come work for me in my construction company). I never forced them to come to church with me, but I gave them choices and alternatives to coming along. As they got older, they would simply walk out the door and come home when they pleased. I got phone calls in the middle of the night from police officers. I can't even count how many times I had visits with their school teachers, principals, asst. principals, bus drivers, probation officers, etc. I had a neighbor visit me telling me such children should be shipped off to Africa. And she was in my ward. There was only ONE neighbor, no, wait, TWO neighbors, who exhibited genuinely love and patience for my family and they were also in my ward. So as I said before, as Joseph Smith advocated, teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the rebellious son had it all. And he wanted more. He wanted out. He wanted to do his own thing. Jesus knew what He was talking about in illustrating several principles, including and especially agency. The father gave his son according to his desires and let him do his thing. Otherwise enforcing your own will for his own good only delays the inevitable: consequences and repentance. And it strains the relationship, perhaps permanently.eddie wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2017, 9:17 pm i call it stewardship, not being the boss. I watched a family in the ward decide their older sons did not have to attend church because they chose not to, agency and all that. She openly admitted it was a big mistake, both boys have done prison time and struggled with life. In my house, I am teaching my children how I believe we should live, I go to church, you go to church. Do we really let them make decisions when they are not mature enough to make good ones? Stewardship. They are being led, not bending to my will. Stewardship, not manipulation. A loving parent does not manipulate, they lead.
