The LDS Church in a nutshell.

[_Themis]

I think he did. What makes him any different from Warren Jeffs?

Joseph was an innovator who started the whole thing. Warren Jeffs just grew up in it's very secluded world that Joesph was very responsible for creating.

[_DrW]

No, you're trying to insist that a flimsy appeal to a dictionary is how one reduces a complex set of actions to simple and convenient little boxes for rhetoric effect. You're playing a children's game and trying hard to assert it's for adults.

The only one who is being childish here is you. You are the one here who is trying your best to sound academic while defending a worldview based on childish magical thinking*, and who spends his time trying to defend a religion that is readily recognized as massively fraudulent by the overwhelmingly vast majority of individuals who have ever come in contact with it.

With activity rates of less than 40%, and the growing population of NOMs among those who do attend, it would even be reasonable to claim that most Mormons don't really believe it. And yet, here you are.
_____________________________________________________

*In case you were unaware, magical thinking is common in the normal development of children and is most often apparent in toddlers. Most kids grow out of it by the time they are four or five.

[_maklelan]

The only one who is being childish here is you. You are the one here who is trying your best to sound academic while defending a worldview based on childish magical thinking*,

I'm not defending a worldview, I'm criticizing your rhetoric. Be critical of the worldview all you want, just be informed about it.

and who spends his time trying to defend a religion that is readily recognized as massively fraudulent by the overwhelmingly vast majority of individuals who have ever come in contact with it.

Now this is just textbook ad hominem. Rather than attempt to defend your rhetoric, you're just outright calling me childish and nothing more.

With activity rates of less than 40%, and the growing population of NOMs among those who do attend, it would even be reasonable to claim that most Mormons don't really believe it. And yet, here you are.

Yes, and yet here you here, unable to defend your rhetoric.

*In case you were unaware, magical thinking is common in the normal development of children and is most often apparent in toddlers. Most kids grow out of it by the time they are four or five.

I hope this made you feel better about not being able to defend your uninformed rhetoric. It has certainly made me feel justified in my assessment of your judgment.

[_DrW]

Mak,

In spite of our stark differences in worldview, contrasting beliefs as to what is important in life, and even the occasional mutual ad hominem attack, I do want you to know that, as I have stated on this board several times, I do think you are bright young man.

While it is my view that you still have some growing up to do, I believe that you will probably do very well in life, and hope that it will be so.

Now, back into the ring.

(Just kidding - you can have the last word in this exchange. I have said my piece.)

[_canpakes]

Hi, Mak - this exchange piqued my interest -

As soon as you "defend or support something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people"* , as you have done on this and many other threads, you are, by definition, an apologist.

And as soon as you appeal to dictionary semantics to try to overrule my self-identification, you expose your ignorance.

This would have me ask of you: How would you describe an apologist?

And since you often do so in defense of the LDS Church, you can reasonably be considered to be a Mormon apologist.

So how many of the other threads in the Celestial Forum in which I'm currently participating are you following? What do you have to say about my "defense" of the LDS Church in those threads?

I've seen a few of those threads myself, although Mittens is usually the originator and that makes for some arduous reading at times. You state (or nearly so) in one of them (the 'serious inquiry' thread) that you consider part or all of the Book of Mormon to have been created in the 19th century as opposed to being an actual ancient record, but that you remain in the Church because you believe that "it is the Word of God". I don't interpret this as a defense of the Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham as opposed to a defense of your own faith in it as a conduit to Godly truth (although I personally see a difference between Godly truth and 'the Word of God').

Is this why you reject the label 'apologist'?

You later reply to Servant, "Word of God" does not mean "unilaterally historical". Again, there are some subtle distinctions in play given that definitions of 'the Word of God' are ambiguous, so this in and of itself is not apologetics as I'd interpret it.

What does the dictionary definition have to do with how I define myself?

I understand this sentiment, but there needs to be 'yardstick' available to the general society in order to define common elements within it. If everyone were to self-define any item of interest (including themselves or their actions) then communication and order becomes a bit impossible. That system may not be perfect, but it is necessary. Does not your own self-identification rely on common 'book definitions' in order to be formed and held valid by yourself?

As I'm an infrequent visitor and have not read all of the 'Celestial' threads, I'll straight-out ask this: Even if using a definition regarded as semantically incomplete (for lack of a better way to put it), have you ever acted as an apologist in previous threads? This is not asked to brand you as an apologist, but because I'm curious if you have never 'defended' any aspect of Mormonism.

[_maklelan]

This would have me ask of you: How would you describe an apologist?

I'll respond to your whole post here, and I'll begin be addressing the problems with dictionary semantics. We categorize things most commonly and naturally according to conceptual proximity to a prototype or prototypes. There are generally constellations of features that characterize broadly prototypical members of a given category, and membership is generally measured by how closely aligned the arrangement of the more salient features of a given member are to those of the prototypes. These kinds of categories have fuzzy boundaries that overlap with other boundaries, and borders are generally produced ad hoc for rhetorical purposes. They are not natural to most categories, as categories tend develop with the focus on the centers, not the edges.

Dictionary semantics, on the other hand, presumes an Aristotelian notion of categories as nice little boxes delineated by necessary and sufficient features and characterized by 100% inclusion or exclusion from the category. The trick to defining a concept or entity is thus as simple as identifying the necessary and sufficient features. This presupposes a conceptual substructure that has never been shown to have anything to do with the way categories develop. It also turns subjective notions of boundaries into concrete borders, and almost always just for rhetorical effect. How would you define the word "furniture" so as to include all entities commonly referred to as furniture and exclude all entities not referred to as furniture? Give it a shot. It's impossible. Look up the word in the dictionary and you find a definition so broad and useless that virtually anything within a building falls within the definition. Dictionary semantics simply cannot accommodate the word. A similar challenge was famously put forth regarding the word "game."

When one says someone who defends X is an apologist for X, they are appealing to a rather simplistic dictionary definition of the category in an effort to cast the rhetorical net as wide as possible and include those who might otherwise escape inclusion in the category. It's a rhetorical game, not an informed or objective observation.

So how might we describe (not define) a prototypical apologist? I'll let you take that one.

[_Ceeboo]

Sup Mak!

I'll respond to your whole post here, and I'll begin be addressing the problems with dictionary semantics. We categorize things most commonly and naturally according to conceptual proximity to a prototype or prototypes. There are generally constellations of features that characterize broadly prototypical members of a given category, and membership is generally measured by how closely aligned the arrangement of the more salient features of a given member are to those of the prototypes. These kinds of categories have fuzzy boundaries that overlap with other boundaries, and borders are generally produced ad hoc for rhetorical purposes. They are not natural to most categories, as categories tend develop with the focus on the centers, not the edges.

Dictionary semantics, on the other hand, presumes an Aristotelian notion of categories as nice little boxes delineated by necessary and sufficient features and characterized by 100% inclusion or exclusion from the category. The trick to defining a concept or entity is thus as simple as identifying the necessary and sufficient features. This presupposes a conceptual substructure that has never been shown to have anything to do with the way categories develop. It also turns subjective notions of boundaries into concrete borders, and almost always just for rhetorical effect. How would you define the word "furniture" so as to include all entities commonly referred to as furniture and exclude all entities not referred to as furniture? Give it a shot. It's impossible. Look up the word in the dictionary and you find a definition so broad and useless that virtually anything within a building falls within the definition. Dictionary semantics simply cannot accommodate the word. A similar challenge was famously put forth regarding the word "game."

When one says someone who defends X is an apologist for X, they are appealing to a rather simplistic dictionary definition of the category in an effort to cast the rhetorical net as wide as possible and include those who might otherwise escape inclusion in the category. It's a rhetorical game, not an informed or objective observation.

So how might we describe (not define) a prototypical apologist? I'll let you take that one.

An extremely valuable contribution, mak!

Brilliant!
Profound!

And concerning a lot of what is posted on this very board, spot-on-accurate.........in my opinion!

Well done, friend!
Very well done!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_malkie]

Mak,

As soon as you "defend or support something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people"* , as you have done on this and many other threads, you are, by definition, an apologist.

And as soon as you appeal to dictionary semantics to try to overrule my self-identification, you expose your ignorance.

And since you often do so in defense of the LDS Church, you can reasonably be considered to be a Mormon apologist.

So how many of the other threads in the Celestial Forum in which I'm currently participating are you following? What do you have to say about my "defense" of the LDS Church in those threads?

Surely someone as learned as yourself must be aware of the definition of the term apologist.

What does the dictionary definition have to do with how I define myself?

I know that Dr W is quite capable of making his own arguments, but I'm curious here, Mak.

If you say Dr W and his arguments are sophomoric, and if Dr W declines to define himself and his arguments as sophomoric, where do we go from here, since you've already explained how ignorant it is to appeal to dictionary semantics to try to label people?

by the way, have you ever had this "categories as nice little boxes delineated by necessary and sufficient features and characterized by 100% inclusion or exclusion from the category" discussion with, say, Bill Hamblin?

Also by the way, I recognise that I'm far from being in the same intellectual "category" (if you'll excuse the usage) as you and Dr W. I'm sure that you can demolish my questions, observations and allusions quite easily.

But I suspect that most of the members of the church, and most members of society simply do not operate at the intellectual levels as you, Dr W, and a number of the other 'pro' and 'anti' members of this board.

Can you please explain clearly, in non-expert terms and levels of abstraction, what you believe makes your arguments so much better than those of Dr W? Or do you completely disfavour "the dictionary definition" for the purposes of your argument?

[_maklelan]

I know that Dr W is quite capable of making his own arguments, but I'm curious here, Mak.

If you say Dr W and his arguments are sophomoric, and if Dr W declines to define himself and his arguments as sophomoric, where do we go from here, since you've already explained how ignorant it is to appeal to dictionary semantics to try to label people?

First, self-definition is relevant for the self, not for the argument. Second, I don't need to appeal to dictionary semantics to judge his argument as sophomoric.

by the way, have you ever had this "categories as nice little boxes delineated by necessary and sufficient features and characterized by 100% inclusion or exclusion from the category" discussion with, say, Bill Hamblin?

No. Why?

Also by the way, I recognise that I'm far from being in the same intellectual "category" (if you'll excuse the usage) as you and Dr W. I'm sure that you can demolish my questions, observations and allusions quite easily.

But I suspect that most of the members of the church, and most members of society simply do not operate at the intellectual levels as you, Dr W, and a number of the other 'pro' and 'anti' members of this board.

Can you please explain clearly, in non-expert terms and levels of abstraction, what you believe makes your arguments so much better than those of Dr W?

Sure. Dr W's case appears to me to be nothing more than an assumption that began and ended within his own head. I doubt he's seen any data anywhere that actually directly supports his description of the population dynamics leading to what he believes to be an inevitable cultural diluting of LDS relevance. My position is based on a number of different academic publications in the fields of history, social memory, cognitive linguistics, and the psychology and sociology of religion.

Or do you completely disfavour "the dictionary definition" for the purposes of your argument?

I disfavor dictionary semantics for most concepts. If you want some more background on my position on this, you can read a segment of my second master's thesis that examines cognitive linguistics and prototype theory here.

[_canpakes]

This would have me ask of you: How would you describe an apologist?

I'll respond to your whole post here, and I'll begin be addressing the problems with dictionary semantics. We categorize things most commonly and naturally according to conceptual proximity to a prototype or prototypes. There are generally constellations of features that characterize broadly prototypical members of a given category, and membership is generally measured by how closely aligned the arrangement of the more salient features of a given member are to those of the prototypes. These kinds of categories have fuzzy boundaries that overlap with other boundaries, and borders are generally produced ad hoc for rhetorical purposes. They are not natural to most categories, as categories tend develop with the focus on the centers, not the edges.

Dictionary semantics, on the other hand, presumes an Aristotelian notion of categories as nice little boxes delineated by necessary and sufficient features and characterized by 100% inclusion or exclusion from the category. The trick to defining a concept or entity is thus as simple as identifying the necessary and sufficient features. This presupposes a conceptual substructure that has never been shown to have anything to do with the way categories develop. It also turns subjective notions of boundaries into concrete borders, and almost always just for rhetorical effect. How would you define the word "furniture" so as to include all entities commonly referred to as furniture and exclude all entities not referred to as furniture? Give it a shot. It's impossible. Look up the word in the dictionary and you find a definition so broad and useless that virtually anything within a building falls within the definition. Dictionary semantics simply cannot accommodate the word. A similar challenge was famously put forth regarding the word "game."

When one says someone who defends X is an apologist for X, they are appealing to a rather simplistic dictionary definition of the category in an effort to cast the rhetorical net as wide as possible and include those who might otherwise escape inclusion in the category. It's a rhetorical game, not an informed or objective observation.

I do get this. And this is a nice synopsis of what you are explaining in greater detail in the portion of your second masters thesis that you linked to for Malkie (thank you for posting).

You do posit the alternative concept of 'encyclopedia semantics' as being more complete, and I completely agree. However, we (collectively) do seem stuck with having to rely most upon 'dictionary semantics' for reason of commonly understandable if not somewhat expedient conversation. It would seem that your own statement from p.18 hints at this: "Shared understandings can only be based on communicable concepts".

So how might we describe (not define) a prototypical apologist? I'll let you take that one.

Most folks would probably take the route that DrW did, because there isn't a very manageable alternative. When we begin to expand out to capture all encyclopedia semantics, we are going to end up with a fairly unmanageable definition that attempts to capture every nuance suggested by the word. That's why folks tend to resort to pared down (boxed-in? : ) 'dictionary semantics'.

In any event, I'll remove my question to you regarding a definition of 'apologist'. But I am still interested in your answer as to if you have ever, by your own definition, 'defended' the Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham. And I'm asking not to trap you into an 'apologist' box (which even an affirmative answer might not do) but to get a better handle on your personal relationship with these texts.