.jpg) |
| Photo by Manuel bonadeo on Unsplash Commercial Use Allowed |
Introduction
The issue at hand revolves around the misrepresentation of historical context and the cherry-picking logical fallacy, where specific quotes are taken out of their original setting to serve a predetermined narrative. Understanding how critics utilize these tactics sheds light on the complexities of engaging with critiques of the LDS Church.
The prevailing issue facing many critics today is the misguided belief that Latter-day Saint Christians lack independent thinking abilities and are merely brainwashed followers. This misconception stems from a lack of understanding and a refusal to acknowledge the genuine intelligence and critical thinking skills that members of this faith possess. It is vital to recognize that individuals within the Latter-day Saint community are capable of forming their own opinions, making informed decisions, and engaging in thoughtful discourse. Dismissing their autonomy and intelligence based on misconceptions only serves to perpetuate ignorance and hinder meaningful dialogue. Embracing diversity of thought and respecting the cognitive abilities of all individuals, including Latter-day Saint Christians, is essential for fostering mutual understanding and cooperation in today's society.
BECOME A PATREON SPONSOR TO VIEW REST OF THE ARTICLE
A wee bit of respect would spell my name correctly yet all through your discourse you continue with the incorrect spelling.
ReplyDeleteNow, your complaint isn't with me, it's with the citation I published.
When I was a Mormon and came across LDS teachings that I was yet to be aware of (like the LDS god having sex with Mary) and went to the leadership, I was told to ignore the lies of the "anti-Mormons," and every time I brought something else weird to them I was blown of with just listen to your leaders; i.e., don't think for yourself. After a few months of that I realized one wasn't supposed to have independent thoughts in the LDS and so renounced them. I never said Mormons couldn't think for themselves, only that they are dissuaded from doing so. But thanks for sending people to my blog-- there's a lot of exposing Mormonism vs REAL Christianity there.
Indeed, while acknowledging the citation of the source in your post, it's paramount to address a different set of concerns that have emerged, not from the act of citation itself, but from the manner in which the cited material has been employed. The central issue at hand is the repurposing of a quote in a way that qualifies as hearsay. This is a significant concern because it involves using a secondary source without diligent efforts to verify the accuracy and the context of the quoted material. This method of utilizing information bypasses the critical step of engaging with the original source to ensure that the quote is accurately representing the intended claim.
DeleteIn my extensive experience, which is grounded in thorough research and the application of rigorous critical thinking skills, I've observed a recurring pattern where critics and those distancing themselves from the teachings of the LDS Faith, often employ such methods. This involves cherry-picking information from secondary sources to bolster their arguments, without a careful consideration of the context or the integrity of the source material. This approach leads to a significant distortion of the original message and intent, undermining the credibility of the argument being presented.
The specific instance you mentioned, involving the use of a quote without presenting it in its original context, is a classic example of this issue. It's crucial to recognize that extracting a quote devoid of its surrounding context can lead to misconceptions and errors in interpretation. The original context in which a statement was made often contains nuances and additional information that are essential for a full understanding of the subject. By bypassing this, the argument falls into the logical fallacy of cherry-picking, which selectively highlights information that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring other relevant data.
Furthermore, the reliance on a secondary source without attempting to engage with the primary material reflects a broader issue of intellectual diligence. It raises questions about the effort made to understand and represent the source material accurately. This approach not only undermines the validity of the argument but also demonstrates a lack of commitment to honest and transparent discourse.
This leads to a deeper issue of intellectual honesty. When information is manipulated or misrepresented, whether intentionally or due to a lack of diligence, it erodes trust and credibility. In this specific case, the failure to present the quote within its original context and the reliance on a flawed method of argumentation suggest a disregard for the principles of honest discourse. Such methods are dishonest, manipulative, and ultimately, detract from the credibility of the argument being made.
In conclusion, it is imperative to approach the use of quotes and secondary sources with a commitment to accuracy, context, and intellectual honesty. Only through such rigorous standards can we ensure that our arguments are credible, valid, and contribute positively to the discourse surrounding the teachings of the LDS Faith and other topics of importance.
Sorry, I forgot to change from anonymous. Still, you have a nice cop-out. The man meant what he said. I gave where I found the citation to relieve me from looking for material I had no idea where to find. But you make out as if this quote was out of some sort of context, but there is no context which would change the meaning of the citation. As I noted from my personal experience, I was continuously told to NOT look outside the LDS faith for answers. I've met many ex-Mormons who have similar experiences. Your dissertation/comment does not change the meaning of the citation I provided.
DeleteThe characterization of my response as a "cop out" strikes me as an oversimplification and, frankly, a misrepresentation of the depth and intent behind my analysis. This perspective not only undermines the scholarly effort put into dissecting and understanding complex topics but also veils the earnest quest for truth under the guise of a dismissive critique.
DeleteThe assertion made regarding the quote from Sharon Lindbloom's article in the January/February 2024 edition of the Mormonism Research Manual serves as a prime example that the quote was cherry-picked to serve a false narrative disregards the thoroughness with which I approached the source material. Specifically, the referenced quote, as it appears in the cited publication, is presented devoid of its fuller context, which significantly alters its perceived meaning and intent.
In my response article, I sought to rectify this by providing the entire quote as it originally appeared in the June 1945 Improvement Era Ward Message article titled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church." This was not an exercise in pedantry but an essential step in ensuring that the discourse surrounding these topics remains anchored in truth and accuracy. By comparing the original quote with the truncated version provided, my aim was to highlight discrepancies that could mislead or misinform.
The inclusion of additional sources, such as the linked FAIR LDS article that contains the full teaching message from June 1945 and a subsequent letter addressing the statement in question, further underscores the lengths to which I go to ensure a comprehensive and balanced presentation of information. These efforts starkly contrast with the approach of presenting information out of context, which unfortunately only serves to obfuscate and complicate the pursuit of understanding.
The critique that my response constitutes a "cop out" overlooks the depth of research and critical analysis that informs my work. It is precisely my dedication to overcoming confirmation bias and engaging with materials and arguments objectively that allows for a more nuanced and enlightened discussion. Instead of resorting to dismissiveness or unfounded assertions, I invite a substantive engagement with the content and context of my analysis. Should any errors on my part be convincingly demonstrated, I am wholly committed to addressing and rectifying them. Conversely, if the critique fails to hold up under scrutiny, it is an opportunity for growth and reassessment on the part of the critic.