Are we born perfect?

[Finrock]

Nice try, CaptainFearnot. You did engage in ad hominem attack & I demonstrated clearly how. And you did it again when you attacked my character because you disagree.
I even suggested what to express instead of that but you didn’t apply it.
I’m done.
Thanks for the exchange.

Butting my nose in and offering what is likely an unwanted third party perspective: I saw no ad hominem in Captainfearnot's posts to you.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

Nice try, CaptainFearnot. You did engage in ad hominem attack & I demonstrated clearly how. And you did it again when you attacked my character because you disagree.
Notice in this explanation of “ad hominem” what you told me (“you don’t know what you’re talking about” is listed as part of an example. http://iidebate.org/10-common-logical-fallacies/
I even suggested what to express instead of that but you didn’t apply it.
I’m done.
Thanks for the exchange.

[Serragon]

As CaptainFearnot and I discussed earlier in this thread, there are great differences in the substantive issues between the churchs historical viewpoints on those of African descent and the historical view about homosexuality.

But to captain's point, this does not mean that the church will not deal with the issues similarly. The church might even perceive them to be much the same type of issue even though I do not.

We have already seen the attitude towards same sex attraction change from Pres. Kimball stating that the idea you are born that way is a lie from Satan to our current position which is at least somewhere on the path to acceptance of the born this way position.

And brenelox.. I think your previous post is in poor taste. Funny, but poor taste.

[brlenox]

As CaptainFearnot and I discussed earlier in this thread, there are great differences in the substantive issues between the churchs historical viewpoints on those of African descent and the historical view about homosexuality.

But to captain's point, this does not mean that the church will not deal with the issues similarly. The church might even perceive them to be much the same type of issue even though I do not.

We have already seen the attitude towards same sex attraction change from Pres. Kimball stating that the idea you are born that way is a lie from Satan to our current position which is at least somewhere on the path to acceptance of the born this way position.

And brenelox.. I think your previous post is in poor taste. Funny, but poor taste.

You'll get no argument from me on that observation (my poor taste), but I must add that every time I see someone head on into the ad hominem argument it becomes fast and clear that someone has reached the end of their capacity to intelligently discuss their points of view and they succumb to the defense which they think will obscure their defeat. When in reality there is no defeat when one simply acknowledges a better case or perspective. To a fault, I have yet to see anyone use this defense except when they feel pushed into a corner of their own making and they are attempting to shut down the discourse. Every single time...

As to your point, I believe you mistake a change of course with a change in emphasis. However, born this way as a gay defense is not President Kimball's observation. What you are referring to I believe is this statement:

God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker. (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng

Sufficiently different from your observation as to merit correction. However, perhaps you have a clearer quote that is of his that states what you claimed of which I am not familiar. If so please feel free to correct. I promise you will never see me claim ad hominem as I have no need to do so.

However, I will state that there has been a shift in emphasis. Few others sins engender the immediate unrighteous judgment of hellfire and damnation as does the status of LGBTQW within many of the LDS community. As we have approached it in the past in the church there has been a tendency to focus on it's Sodom and Gomorrah pre-destruction, evil condemnation of a wicked and perverse generation behavior...and surely the behavior is all of that. Sometimes it seems like we speak higher of adultery than we might these sins of Sodom. However, because of the exclusive nature of the condemnation, I feel that we as Saints have morphed into a behavior that fails to reflect on our role as members of God's church and this partially because of the sense of disgust and the nature of the condemnatory presentation over the years.

What I see now is a proper emphasis of we all are sinners and regardless of our sin we deserve to be treated with charity and a hope of inclusion into the body of the saints. I see a position where in the past the membership might have become comfortable condemning themselves through unrighteous judgment of an abomination of behavior, but now we are changing the emphasis to a proper role of repent and join with God's children. We are now better realizing that as we judge them harshly, we are binding our Father to judge us harshly.

I do not see this change as a move to acceptance of their (LGTBQW) mistaken talking points. However I do see it as a better acceptance of proper behavior of those who hope to crawl from beneath the burden of their own sinfulness along with others of differing sinfulness, that we might all someday be counted the children of God together.

[Thinker]

You'll get no argument from me on that observation (my poor taste), but I must add that every time I see someone head on into the ad hominem argument it becomes fast and clear that someone has reached the end of their capacity to intelligently discuss their points of view and they succumb to the defense which they think will obscure their defeat. When in reality there is no defeat when one simply acknowledges a better case or perspective. To a fault, I have yet to see anyone use this defense except when they feel pushed into a corner of their own making and they are attempting to shut down the discourse. Every single time...

You've got it backwards. When someone has nothing better to say, they call names (engage in ad hominem attack).
The reason I backed out is because it was starting to go in circles - and he was repeatedly engaging in ad hominem attack.

It's not a question of feeling picked on as much as wanting to discuss logically rather than have to deal with circular/repeated logical fallacies.
If we were in a court of law and CaptianFN repeatedly said, "You don't know what you're talking about" as his rebuttle - it will not only be overruled but he'll likely be laughed out of the courtroom & asked not to return.

And guess what, brlenox?
This forum has just 1 rule now and it includes NOT engaging in ad hominem attack...
"#1: Be kind and respectful.
“And see that there is no iniquity [on LDSFF], neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking” (D&C 20:54)
- No personal attacks (ad hominem) or threats. No defamation of character, libel, slander, etc."

[brlenox]

You'll get no argument from me on that observation (my poor taste), but I must add that every time I see someone head on into the ad hominem argument it becomes fast and clear that someone has reached the end of their capacity to intelligently discuss their points of view and they succumb to the defense which they think will obscure their defeat. When in reality there is no defeat when one simply acknowledges a better case or perspective. To a fault, I have yet to see anyone use this defense except when they feel pushed into a corner of their own making and they are attempting to shut down the discourse. Every single time...

You've got it backwards. When someone has nothing better to say, they call names (engage in ad hominem attack).
The reason I backed out is because it was starting to go in circles - and he was repeatedly engaging in ad hominem attack.

It's not a question of feeling picked on as much as wanting to discuss logically rather than have to deal with circular/repeated logical fallacies.
If we were in a court of law and CaptianFN repeatedly said, "You don't know what you're talking about" as his rebuttle - it will not only be overruled but he'll likely be laughed out of the courtroom & asked not to return.

And guess what, brlenox?
This forum has just 1 rule now and it includes NOT engaging in ad hominem attack...
"#1: Be kind and respectful.
“And see that there is no iniquity [on LDSFF], neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking” (D&C 20:54)
- No personal attacks (ad hominem) or threats. No defamation of character, libel, slander, etc."

It is no surprise to me that you will defend the use of the ad hominem. However, I think there are certain mindsets who tend to these claims and to a fault it is always in the manner in which you used it. In addition, I am sure you probably have never researched the origins of the modern interpretations of logical fallacies and the intent of creating this false criteria for ending the commentary of those who disagree with you. Sure there is some truth to the analysis that justified developing the logic behind the multitude of logical arguments however, who benefits from using them?

The critical thinkers and ethical thinkers, or those who claimed to espouse these notions of logical thinking as if on a higher plain of conversation and intellect than others are for the most part atheists and agnostics. The developed an entire line of reasoning designed to appeal to the easily manipulated which was proposed to improve upon their skills of thinking in an objective fashion. However, long story short, I will provide for you the results of a study which analyzed a specific impact of the critical thinking dogma:

…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/.)

Do you suppose you will be able to ferret out of these results the author of the reasoning techniques that you find so appealing. Perhaps so perhaps not, I do not know, but I always find it interesting that it is always the ones proclaiming false principles who get pushed into a corner who all of the sudden start pleading the ad hominem defense. It is no different than any other false claim for preference such as race or gender or other preference of dubious validity. Yes there are times when perhaps the claims may be validly made, but the usual cause is to justify errant behavior under a supposedly mitigating standard.

[Thinker]

Brlenox,
Have you discussed your disagreement with the ONE SINGLE rule that Brian has for this forum?
Maybe while you're at it, you ought to go to the American Bar Association and explain to them your belief that personal attacks are logical and should be allowed in courts of law - and also have them take it off the list of logical fallacies.
You seem to believe you know so much more than all of these people - enlighten them!

[BruceRGilbert]

.

[BruceRGilbert]

.

[captainfearnot]

If we were in a court of law and CaptianFN repeatedly said, "You don't know what you're talking about" as his rebuttle - it will not only be overruled but he'll likely be laughed out of the courtroom & asked not to return.

And if we were in a spelling bee you would have just lost the contest with your rendition of "rebuttle." But of course we are not in a spelling bee, nor are we in a courtroom.

Besides, I don't know where you're getting the notion that logical fallacies aren't allowed in court. Here it is again:

Brlenox,
Maybe while you're at it, you ought to go to the American Bar Association and explain to them your belief that personal attacks are logical and should be allowed in courts of law - and also have them take it off the list of logical fallacies.

Where do you get the idea that the ABA maintains a list of logical fallacies, or that they are some kind of authority on the matter? Do you think that logical fallacies are like legal objections? That a lawyer trying a case would stand up and say "Objection! No True Scotsman!" and the judge would rule on the logical soundness of the argument?

I can assure you this is not the case. Litigation is basically sales, it's all about who can sell their version of the law and the facts to the jury. And as such it full to the brim with logically fallacious arguments. Sure, if one lawyer pursues a fallacious line of reasoning, the opposing counsel is certainly free to point it out and try to explain why it's bogus. But sometimes this won't be the most persuasive tactic when dealing with a jury that isn't likely to be made up of the most logical thinkers.

I think what you have in mind is a list of trial objections. Not that there is a formal list, maintained by the ABA or anyone else. What exists is evidence law, or the rules of evidence, and the trial objections are a kind of shorthand that has emerged to refer to them in trial. Stuff like "argumentative," "hearsay," "asked and answered," etc. Those aren't logical fallacies, they're violations of the rules of evidence. Nobody gets thrown out of court and "asked not to return" for breaking those rules, they just have to regroup and make their argument in a way that complies with the rules of evidence. It's not like the judge is tallying up the number of sustained objections and whoever has the most loses the case or something. It's not a scoreboard.

Maybe you're thinking of something like a high school debate class? I don't have any experience with that kind of thing but it wouldn't surprise me if they use logical fallacies that way, as a teaching tool.

[JohnnyL]

Please consider; however, the following:

Exodus 20:
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Numbers 14:
18 The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

It would seem that there can be "carry-over" of iniquity . . . be it "genetic" predispositions or "learned" behaviors that could be characterized as the "traditions" of the fathers. These things beg us to arrive at some type of understanding as to what this mortal "probation" is really all about and what it means to be "perfect."

We were not born perfect, we were born innocent.

Children are born innocent and "generally" naive. (I must make exception for those children who are called "home" prematurely - whose virtues I cannot fully know. I only speak of those who endure into "accountability.") These children bring with them "talents and gifts," as well as predisposed weaknesses - be they mental, emotional, physical, or circumstancial - based on race, creed, or socio-economic conditions. (And I am sure that all are aware of the relevant references.)

Doctrine and Covenants 46:
11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

We are born innocent, but we are not born without what our spirits brought with them.

[JohnnyL]

If we were in a court of law and CaptianFN repeatedly said, "You don't know what you're talking about" as his rebuttle - it will not only be overruled but he'll likely be laughed out of the courtroom & asked not to return.

And if we were in a spelling bee you would have just lost the contest with your rendition of "rebuttle." But of course we are not in a spelling bee, nor are we in a courtroom.

Besides, I don't know where you're getting the notion that logical fallacies aren't allowed in court. Here it is again:

Brlenox,
Maybe while you're at it, you ought to go to the American Bar Association and explain to them your belief that personal attacks are logical and should be allowed in courts of law - and also have them take it off the list of logical fallacies.

Where do you get the idea that the ABA maintains a list of logical fallacies, or that they are some kind of authority on the matter? Do you think that logical fallacies are like legal objections? That a lawyer trying a case would stand up and say "Objection! No True Scotsman!" and the judge would rule on the logical soundness of the argument?

I can assure you this is not the case. Litigation is basically sales, it's all about who can sell their version of the law and the facts to the jury. And as such it full to the brim with logically fallacious arguments. Sure, if one lawyer pursues a fallacious line of reasoning, the opposing counsel is certainly free to point it out and try to explain why it's bogus. But sometimes this won't be the most persuasive tactic when dealing with a jury that isn't likely to be made up of the most logical thinkers.

I think what you have in mind is a list of trial objections. Not that there is a formal list, maintained by the ABA or anyone else. What exists is evidence law, or the rules of evidence, and the trial objections are a kind of shorthand that has emerged to refer to them in trial. Stuff like "argumentative," "hearsay," "asked and answered," etc. Those aren't logical fallacies, they're violations of the rules of evidence. Nobody gets thrown out of court and "asked not to return" for breaking those rules, they just have to regroup and make their argument in a way that complies with the rules of evidence. It's not like the judge is tallying up the number of sustained objections and whoever has the most loses the case or something. It's not a scoreboard.

Maybe you're thinking of something like a high school debate class? I don't have any experience with that kind of thing but it wouldn't surprise me if they use logical fallacies that way, as a teaching tool.

It depends on which court you are in.

[gardener4life]

We still carry the tendencies we had before this life with us. I have a brother who was a hellion before he was born and you can tell. Even from just 3 years old he was always a storm of anarchy all around him. If he'd had different parents he would still be the same. The question of if a person would have had different parents, would they still have certain traits I think helps to analyze this question in part.

This life still is a great gift to have a clean slate and start over. We sometimes don't see that because we see that we can't remember and have part of our identity hidden from us. But it's a huge gift to be able to start over and have a clean slate. Then we get the same chance to have a clean slate and new identity when we are baptized!

A natural man will be changed into a new person (put off the natural man and become a Saint, Mosiah 3:18-19) This is like becoming a new person.
There's also Paul's experience. I am no longer Saul but a new person in Christ. Now I am Paul.
Become as little children --> become the children of Christ --> become humble and meek, teachable so that we can become the Church of the Firstborn

Mosíah 5:7
And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ
Romans 8:16–17 (D&C 84:38), also Romans 4:13

While we aren't necessarily born perfect. if you think about this idea that the clean slate means a new chance to become a new person and a new special identity with Christ it becomes amazing to us that the disadvantages of this life are giving us more than we can comprehend right now.

Hope that helps.