tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post6982453289304279034..comments2024-03-24T03:21:55.744-06:00Comments on Life On Gold Plates: Who Speaks For Mormons?BHodgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-57282165232787183472015-04-23T15:37:59.032-06:002015-04-23T15:37:59.032-06:00solusi tepat untuk menggugurkan janinsolusi tepat untuk menggugurkan janinObat Penggugur Kandunganhttp://www.obataborsihaid.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-49724902608795108322010-01-14T15:22:59.664-07:002010-01-14T15:22:59.664-07:00I wanted to add a few of my other notes here so I ...I wanted to add a few of my other notes here so I can remember them for future reference. They are tangentially related to my comments about understanding the view of the other. These points are from Barry Kroll, “Arguing About Public Issues: What Can We Learn from Practical Ethics?” <i>Rhetoric Review,</i> 16:1 (Autumn 1997), pp. 105-119.<br /><br />Arguments about controversial issues easily slide into disputes with a ethical edge. Thinking about moral philosophy and applied ethics can help improve the quality of these arguments. <br /><br /><b>Top Down Approach:</b> Establish principles first, then apply to practice. Principle dictates, practice adjusts. This method overlooks complexity or appeals to authority only. Inappropriate for ethical questions. <br /><br /><b>Two alternate approaches:</b> <br />Causist: (Aristotle, case reasoning), or Pragmatist: (Dewey). <br /><br />Work against the tradition of demonstrative, deductive, closed fist. Start from the particulars, go from the bottom-up. “...for causists and pragmatists, ethical analysis begins by attending to the particular issues and values at stake in a dispute, describing (and re-describing) problems in ways that enlarge our vision and direct our attention to all that is at stake in controversies” (107). <br /><br /><b>Casuist=</b> develop skills of interpretive perspicuity (clarity and precision) so they can see the importance of morally relevant details and apprehend how they relate in human affairs. <br /><br /><b>Pragmatist=</b> develop skills of reflective analysis so a person scrutinizes an issue, not contests. <br /><br />Priority in the discussion is given to inquiry and analysis, not right and wrong. In their zeal to argue, some might rush in to support their side without patiently considering alternatives, or minding “...the responsibility to consider ideas or studies that do not support whatever potential conclusion he or she may intend to reach” (107). “One way to encourage this kind of fair-minded inquiry is by asking students to describe—without assessing or advocating—the claims and issues involved in an argument” (107). <br /><br />Focus on cooperative rather than adversarial approach. The goal is changed; not to win but to arrive at solution or understanding acceptable to both sides. Coalescent Arguments: joining together in exploration. Picture them beside me not against me.BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-60925856498203642512009-12-11T14:57:28.005-07:002009-12-11T14:57:28.005-07:00By the way, I stumbled across this "response&...By the way, I stumbled across this "response" of sorts to my piece by Bob Betts, something of a professional anti-Mormon. His response is a great example of a person who has no intention of trying to understand my religion, and as a result, would not make for a fruitful exchange:<br /><br /><i>Too bad, Blair didn't answer the question. He defined the problem, quoted a few people with their opinions, then suggested that "the most practical way to discover 'who speaks for Mormons' is to develop an awareness of the diversity itself." <br /><br />As soon as the Mormons discover who will speak for them, then the first topic they should speak on is the unsubstantiated legitimacy of Joseph Smith's prophet-hood. There is no sense discussing doctrine, if that cannot be established.<br /><br />As I've said to many, "If Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then we should all be Mormons. But, if he wasn't, then nobody should be." As Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Mormonism...must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith."<br /><br />So, not only does Blair Hodges reveal the lack of a spokesman for the Mormon religion, but, apparently would like to skip over the fact that Mormonism is not even an established Christian church among most evangelical Christians. Fundamentally, Joseph Smith is the stumbling block. The dominant reason Mormons leave the Mormon religion is disbelief in Smith's legitimacy. <br /><br />Blair starts off with a perspective that "respectful religious dialogue" is need in this world. He favors "a respectful engagement that seeks first to understand and respect the beliefs of the other." Well, many, many evangelicals like myself have diligently sought understanding of the Mormon religion. But, I have no intention of respecting Mormon beliefs, as taught by a false prophet, which are unsound doctrine in every biblical respect. Smith was not who he proclaimed himself to be, and the Bible must be ignored for anyone to believe that he was a true prophet.<br /><br />If the Mormon religion is a false, counterfeit religion, then what basis is there for respect for beliefs, or dialogue about doctrines? Until dialogue should establish Smith as a true prophet, there is no basis for dialogue.<br /><br />Whoever is decided upon to be the spokesman for Mormons needs to start with Joseph Smith. If Smith cannot be legitimized, end of dialogue.</i>BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-42614800637654678772009-10-08T09:41:57.892-06:002009-10-08T09:41:57.892-06:00Adding my late "applause"...Adding my late "applause"...Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-73722196341296895822009-06-26T22:55:57.495-06:002009-06-26T22:55:57.495-06:00Good post, Blair, and plenty of food for thought.Good post, Blair, and plenty of food for thought.rickenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-6416613401369114472009-06-25T11:42:05.497-06:002009-06-25T11:42:05.497-06:00Kent, thanks for taking the time to read this stuf...Kent, thanks for taking the time to read this stuff. It's really nice to hear feedback, and it feels less like speaking into the void.BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32960447.post-86332889817544153862009-06-25T11:36:17.986-06:002009-06-25T11:36:17.986-06:00Blair, I agree with everything you wrote. I'm ...Blair, I agree with everything you wrote. I'm glad you are out there to shape public opinion on these issues.Kent (MC)http://www.mormonconferences.orgnoreply@blogger.com