"When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."

[Rescued One]

I see. That's not a problem for me. I am not surprised that you may be unfamiliar with the terminology because there is some lack of standardization of logic terminology. The way I learned logic is that for an argument to be a good one it needs certain things. The supporting premises should be relevant to proving the truth of the conclusion and they should be acceptable. There should be sufficient support to prove its truth and it should anticipate and answer expected challenges. One of the areas of fallacies that has to do with acceptability is the area of Linguistic Confusion. One of the fallacies in that area is the fallacy of the Misuse of a Vague Expression. This happens when an expression is given a more defined meaning than available from the statement itself.

But logic doesn't really matter. A Christian is never instructed to depend on man's logic for answers to spiritual questions. You can logically tear apart a person's posts, make deroggatory remarks about those posts, say they are logical fallacies, and be the only one who cares. I've noticed that you seldom quote scripture. Why is that?

 

[Laterhosen]

But logic doesn't really matter. A Christian is never instructed to depend on man's logic for answers to spiritual questions. You can logically tear apart a person's posts, make deroggatory remarks about those posts, say they are logical fallacies, and be the only one who cares. I've noticed that you seldom quote scripture. Why is that?

The study of Logic provides for a way of keeping track of your point and recognizing flaws in a stated position. In a sense, it's not all that unlike when you learn to outline something you want to write. If someone wants to make a point, then it should be clear to both parties what that point is especially if it is a claim against another person or group. For it to be more than an arbitrary claim or opinion, they should provide acceptable, relevant and sufficient evidence to their claim if their intention is to be taken seriously. For someone to throw logic out the window indicates a level of intellectual dishonesty and susceptibility to flawed thinking. For example, Mormons are regularly accused of accepting the church as true on the basis of subjective feelings of spiritual confirmation. According to your statement above, you should be here defending Mormons if that is really true, otherwise you should be presenting your solid evidence and expecting them to defend their position against the strength of your arguments. The reason I have not had to quote scriptures is that I have not as yet seen anyone pose a tenable argument for any claim except Mr. Yekcimij(?) and that had to do with the Book of Abraham which I don't claim to be any sort of an expert about.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I see. That's not a problem for me. I am not surprised that you may be unfamiliar with the terminology because there is some lack of standardization of logic terminology. The way I learned logic is that for an argument to be a good one it needs certain things. The supporting premises should be relevant to proving the truth of the conclusion and they should be acceptable. There should be sufficient support to prove its truth and it should anticipate and answer expected challenges. One of the areas of fallacies that has to do with acceptability is the area of Linguistic Confusion. One of the fallacies in that area is the fallacy of the Misuse of a Vague Expression. This happens when an expression is given a more defined meaning than available from the statement itself.

In an effort to overcome linguistic confusion I began a thread entitled, Mormon Lexicon. The purpose was to allow LDS posters to provide definitions of commonly misunderstood terminology by non-LDS posters such as myself. Unfortunately, many LDS did not post on the thread and it has since languished. Barry also began a similar thread entitled Christian Lexicon with a similar purpose for non-LDS posters here. In invite you to visit both threads and feel free to offer clear, succinct definitions which, hopefully, will benefit us all.

Thank you.

 

[sk8Joyful]

there is some lack of standardization of logic terminology.

The way I learned logic is that for an argument to be a good one it needs certain things.
- The supporting premises should be relevant to proving the truth of the conclusion and they should be acceptable.
- There should be sufficient support to prove its truth and it should anticipate and answer expected challenges.

Fallacies include the area of Linguistic Confusion. One of the fallacies is the Misuse of a Vague Expression.

Foundationally underlying that:
1. People need a Common-experience base, for gaining Common-awareness , before a Common-language can be developed.
then
2. You can work towards Common-understandings, with "sufficient support, & acceptance".

First things first

(Until the above is achieved, 'vague-expressions, &
linguistic-confusions' fallacies inevitably continue.)
.

 

[Rescued One]

The study of Logic provides for a way of keeping track of your point and recognizing flaws in a stated position. In a sense, it's not all that unlike when you learn to outline something you want to write. If someone wants to make a point, then it should be clear to both parties what that point is especially if it is a claim against another person or group. For it to be more than an arbitrary claim or opinion, they should provide acceptable, relevant and sufficient evidence to their claim if their intention is to be taken seriously. For someone to throw logic out the window indicates a level of intellectual dishonesty and susceptibility to flawed thinking.

That is an opinion not mentioned in the Bible. As for my point, I'm not responsible for negative comments about it. People will respond according to what is in their hearts.

For example, Mormons are regularly accused of accepting the church as true on the basis of subjective feelings of spiritual confirmation.

Define regularly.

According to your statement above, you should be here defending Mormons if that is really true, otherwise you should be presenting your solid evidence and expecting them to defend their position against the strength of your arguments.

This is more opinion.

The reason I have not had to quote scriptures is that I have not as yet seen anyone pose a tenable argument for any claim except Mr. Yekcimij(?) and that had to do with the Book of Abraham which I don't claim to be any sort of an expert about.

Not defending one's position with scripture merely shows that scripture is not that important to the defendant.

 

[sk8Joyful]

An important note—Church leadership is part of the membership, too, and
while they are less likely to make big mistakes or be lazy,
than the members at large, it is not unheard of. They're only mortal, too.

aah, the Standard 'excuse' right there: "but
Jesus, I'm only human, what more can you expect??"

IF the 'Church leadership' (while on one hand making continual-claims of DIVINE-inspiration),
would in fact live like this, they'd have accurate facts-in-hand; and speedily & decisively act. - They act alright, but
selfishly defending their own interests. Thus church leadership has been known making seriously-consequential & GRAVE-mistakes,
relative to people's Wellbeing.

Relatedly, I could also find a dozen members who view inappropriate contentography,
cheat their fellow men and women, etc., etc.
Some might even try to find ways to justify their disobedience.
Stupid things the members do or believe is,
in my opinion, a poor measure for what our Church stands for.

IF the mormon-church really were GOD's church, they'd do a much better job protecting Christ's flock,
from criminals of all ilks, especially repeat & persistent offenders. - They'd start by ceasing DENIALs,
that directly foster, & encourage such activities.

Aside those dilemmas, the mormon-church, never has - nor does it now - stand for what God, or Christ wants His church to stand for.

 

[Rescued One]

The study of Logic provides for a way of keeping track of your point and recognizing flaws in a stated position.

Yet LDS who have no knowledge of Plato and Socrates post to these forums all the time. I saw no instruction in any of the Four Standard Works that advised people to study philosophy in order to win an argument. Instead, the scriptures tell individuals to rely on the Holy Spirit. When Christ was tempted, He quoted scripture. When man wants to do God's will, he studies scripture. When questions arise as to doctrine, we look to the scriptures.

Latter-day Saint parents recognize the tremendous importance of scripture study in the family. Not only does learning the gospel together stimulate feelings of family harmony and appreciation, but it establishes a foundation of truth upon which children can build throughout their lives.
“Family Scripture Study,” Ensign, Sept. 1987, p. 42

LDS scripture says:

Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:20

For me, the study of scripture provides for a way of knowing God's will and recognizing false doctrine.

You like to challenge us, but remember we are not in a courtroom setting. We don't need lawyers or law degrees to communicate.

 

[Moodshadow]

Hmmm...all this oh-so-erudite talk of philosophy reminds me of something I used to hear quite a bit. See if this phrase sounds familiar:
"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. "

Now - I have a great suggestion, people: How about we just get back to the OP? Thanks.

 

[Laterhosen]

In an effort to overcome linguistic confusion I began a thread entitled, Mormon Lexicon. The purpose was to allow LDS posters to provide definitions of commonly misunderstood terminology by non-LDS posters such as myself. Unfortunately, many LDS did not post on the thread and it has since languished. Barry also began a similar thread entitled Christian Lexicon with a similar purpose for non-LDS posters here. In invite you to visit both threads and feel free to offer clear, succinct definitions which, hopefully, will benefit us all.

Thank you.

That is a great idea. Something like that should help alleviate some of the semantical ambiguity that must exist.

 

[Laterhosen]

Yet LDS who have no knowledge of Plato and Socrates post to these forums all the time. I saw no instruction in any of the Four Standard Works that advised people to study philosophy in order to win an argument. Instead, the scriptures tell individuals to rely on the Holy Spirit. When Christ was tempted, He quoted scripture. When man wants to do God's will, he studies scripture. When questions arise as to doctrine, we look to the scriptures.

Latter-day Saint parents recognize the tremendous importance of scripture study in the family. Not only does learning the gospel together stimulate feelings of family harmony and appreciation, but it establishes a foundation of truth upon which children can build throughout their lives.
“Family Scripture Study,” Ensign, Sept. 1987, p. 42

LDS scripture says:

Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:20

For me, the study of scripture provides for a way of knowing God's will and recognizing false doctrine.

You like to challenge us, but remember we are not in a courtroom setting. We don't need lawyers or law degrees to communicate.

What's to challenge? If you don't clearly make and defend your point, then, from where I stand, I don't see that we have anything to challenge. That seems to be a strange approach for the enemies of Mormonism, who must sincerely believe they are justified in their position, to avoid being challenged by the avoidance of making a valid argument. Mormons are taught that it is a good thing to receive an education, read good books, and not only pray but to ponder. Some of the best and most useful parts of my education are those parts that gave me tools that help plan and organize my thoughts. Why would an intellectually honest person be afraid to clearly make and support their position if they knew it was valid?

 

[Laterhosen]

Hmmm...all this oh-so-erudite talk of philosophy reminds me of something I used to hear quite a bit. See if this phrase sounds familiar:
"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. "

Now - I have a great suggestion, people: How about we just get back to the OP? Thanks.

I haven't proposed teaching logical fallacies or the principles of how to construct a good argument as a spiritual concept or doctrine.

 

[Moodshadow]

I haven't proposed teaching logical fallacies or the principles of how to construct a good argument as a spiritual concept or doctrine.

Please do explain what this has to do with the OP.

 

[Laterhosen]

Please do explain what this has to do with the OP.

I was responding to this statement-
Hmmm...all this oh-so-erudite talk of philosophy reminds me of something I used to hear quite a bit. See if this phrase sounds familiar:
"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. "

If this statement was not in reference to me, please accept my deepest apologies.

 

[Moodshadow]

I was responding to this statement-
Hmmm...all this oh-so-erudite talk of philosophy reminds me of something I used to hear quite a bit. See if this phrase sounds familiar:
"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. "

If this statement was not in reference to me, please accept my deepest apologies.

You're not the first person to assume "This is about me."

No, it was in reference to something an endowed Latter-day Saint should recognize instantly.

 

[sk8Joyful]

so the OP was: "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."

Did someone mention "a study in logic", because
mormon-prophets thinking might defy logic? :o
but really,
What else that hasn't already been said, is there to say to satisfy the OP? - ideas?

I saw no instruction in any of the Four Standard Works
that advised people to study philosophy in order to win an argument.
Instead, the scriptures tell individuals to rely on the Holy Spirit.
When Christ was tempted, He quoted scripture.

When man wants to do God's will, he studies scripture.
When questions arise as to doctrine, we look to the scriptures.

Seeing as how Christ, was God in the flesh, how could HE have been tempted?
That passage was another where Jesus set the example for us to follow...

How many, when sick, study scriptures - with the Intent
of finding words to back-up their beliefs that "Sickness is God's will"
when that erroneousness is not "doing God's will".

For me, the study of scripture provides for knowing God's will and recognizing false doctrine.

Yes,
and much of what's been taught thruout history, was false doctrine
as people don't understand the Original-contexts,
the Original-language & its nuances, nor what God meant to communicate for our benefit.

Too, too many foolishly traded-in their God-created relationship with Him, &
especially how Wonderfully God created us, for enjoying! His created Abundant lfe...

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Thread closed at OP request.
​