The McClellan White Debates

[_maklelan]

Despite that, in my other posts I showed rather conclusively that White (1) based his conclusions regarding who is Christian on petty sectarianism and nothing more...

LOL. OK. Link?

My most recent post on the topic (here) has links to all the earlier ones.

[_maklelan]

I didn't ask you, Mak. I asked Stemelbow.

If you don't want other people responding then put it in a PM.

He was kind enough to helpfully clarify that he didn't understand what you two were discussing, but that he nonetheless felt (or intuited?) that you'd managed a "landslide" victory nonetheless. Sure is interesting, isn't it? I bet you're thankful to have your "victory" celebrated in this fashion.

Oh, and you've got Simon, too, I suppose. How is it, I wonder, that Simon came to learn about your "battle" with White? Do you think he just stumbled upon it by chance? Or is he a regular reader?

So rather than engage my comments you will engage in your own little meta-argument. You and White certainly do respond the same way to discussions that are over your head.

[_Kishkumen]

Categories are tools for understanding. If the tools mislead us or fail to help us understand they are heuristically useless, irrespective of how much they are used. I don't see how the internet/chapel dichotomy helps anyone better understand anything about Mormonism. I don't personally know anyone who thinks the dichotomy serves any purpose other than to marginalize debate opponents. It's an artificial dichotomy. That certainly impedes understanding. I don't believe it helps us at all to better understand Mormonism. It's thus heuristically worthless.

Any category will be artificial inasmuch as all models do not reflect reality with 100% accuracy. You have not argued or demonstrated how it is useless. As far as this thread goes, you have simply declared it so. I would argue that it is useful, inasmuch as it draws attention to differences in Mormonism that have been facilitated by a digital divide. Internet discourse on Mormonism is sometimes markedly different from chapel discourse on Mormonism, and those whose views tend to reflect one species of discourse over another might rightly be tagged by the appropriate term. Your contention that it is only a term of marginalization is bogus, just like the idea that the term TBM is only derogatory.

[_stemelbow]

So you're saying that you were "sarcastically" claiming that the arguments sailed over your head, even while you fail to clarify (and, now, defer to Mak) why you think the arguments constituted a "landslide" victory?

Just read my comments. i think it was pretty clear. Now...as it is you have Mak himself here to tangle with on the matter. Why in the world would you desire to discuss it all with me when you can engage the very man himself? Indeed, I'll defer to Mak on this debate. He's currently posting. if you're interested it appears he'll take you up on any points you wish to discuss (well not "any", I'm sure).

You think he did, anyhow. Despite not understand the "how's" and "why's" of it, apparently. I'm sure he's delighted to have fans like you cheering him on.

Luckily for him, he has supporters that carry far more weight than I do in the realm of intelligensia. Hopefully you realize my intrigue on this is not worth much to anyone. I will conceed that point to anyone who wishes to inquire. But, again, to be clear, if you are truly interested by all means Mak, himself, is here.

It sure is.

I think I've just experienced what it's like for Peterson for a brief second. Wow...that was exhiliarating.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Categories are tools for understanding.

Oh goody, we have to use the word "category" for mak to give us credit, can't possible use the related word "heuristic." Let the word games begin.

I don't see how the internet/chapel dichotomy helps anyone better understand anything about Mormonism. I don't personally know anyone who thinks the dichotomy serves any purpose other than to marginalize debate opponents.

Which say a lot about what company you keep, and very little about the value of the heuristic/category.

[_Kishkumen]

Which say a lot about what company you keep, and very little about the value of the heuristic/category.

I predict that you have anticipated the effective outcome of any further discussion with mak on this issue.

[_maklelan]

Any category will be artificial inasmuch as all models do not reflect reality with 100% accuracy.

True, but I specifically referred to the dichotomy, which does not seem to me to exist at all. I think that's artificial enough for the characterization to stand despite the vagaries of our models.

You have not argued or demonstrated how it is useless. As far as this thread goes, you have simply declared it so. I would argue that it is useful, inasmuch as it draws attention to differences in Mormonism that have been facilitated by a digital divide. Internet discourse on Mormonism is sometimes markedly different from chapel discourse on Mormonism, and those whose views tend to reflect one species of discourse over another might rightly be tagged by the appropriate term. Your contention that it is only a term of marginalization is bogus, just like the idea that the term TBM is only derogatory.

How are you categorizing "Internet discourse" over and against "chapel discourse" if both kinds of discourse are found on the internet? We have just as many fundamentalist Mormons arguing on the internet as liberal Mormons. Why is the discourse of one categorized as "Internet discourse," while the other is not? Do you mean the style of discourse rather than the degree of liberalness? If so, shouldn't it be recognized that an internet message board is not nearly the same dialogical context as a chapel? Am I an "Internet Mormon" right now but a "Chapel Mormon" on Sunday when I call people "brother so-and-so" and don't bring up the Deuteronomistic history in my Sunday school lesson? Don't both fundamentalist Mormons and liberal Mormons appeal to the same "species of discourse" depending on the context? What of my friends who absolutely refuse to deal with internet discussions at all but have the same approach as me to Mormonism and dealing with its detractors?

I simply do not see a circumstance where that dichotomy does anything to help anyone better understand Mormonism.

[_maklelan]

Oh goody, we have to use the word "category" for mak to give us credit, can't possible use the related word "heuristic." Let the word games begin.

I honestly don't understand what your comment here means. Both words are perfectly acceptable.

Which say a lot about what company you keep, and very little about the value of the heuristic/category.

You know absolutely nothing about the company I keep, so leave the assumptions out of this.

[_stemelbow]

Oh great, this thread descended into the abyss fast.

[_malaise]

Does this seem at all familiar to anyone?

Well Simian, I have noticed that you and the the nehor run away from a debate once you start to lose it.