Mormon Studies Collection

Page 10 of 12 (224 items) « First ... < Previous 8 9 10 11 12 Next >
This post has 223 Replies | 8 Followers

Posts 10177
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:18 PM

Not 'mocking or teasing'. Simply illustrating the problem of labels. One Sunday night, we had Bible class with an elder leading the study. For whatever reason the class was all ladies; maybe the guys had to work that night. In any event the elder was open to comments and before you know it, every single participant had commented about a core theological belief, and not a single one matched up. I've always remembered this, because the Bible class had worshipped together for years, never realizing they all held separate views. After the pastor joined us the next week, we ended up with one additional view but he had graciously spent some time on why so many views were possible.


Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:23 PM

George Somsel:
But if you get "agrees with me", i.e. George Somsel, then you KNOW you have the right answer.  Wink

Do you really have any books in your library that altogether "agree with you"?Devil

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:24 PM

DMB:

Not 'mocking or teasing'. Simply illustrating the problem of labels. One Sunday night, we had Bible class with an elder leading the study. For whatever reason the class was all ladies; maybe the guys had to work that night. In any event the elder was open to comments and before you know it, every single participant had commented about a core theological belief, and not a single one matched up. I've always remembered this, because the Bible class had worshipped together for years, never realizing they all held separate views. After the pastor joined us the next week, we ended up with one additional view but he had graciously spent some time on why so many views were possible.

I'm teasing, but I'm teasing Denise, not you, Andrew.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:47 PM

fgh:

George Somsel:
But if you get "agrees with me", i.e. George Somsel, then you KNOW you have the right answer.  Wink

Do you really have any books in your library that altogether "agree with you"?Devil

Unfortunately, not one.  All are in error.  Sad  Wink  Big Smile

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 579
Andrew Baguley | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:49 PM

George Somsel:

I'm teasing, but I'm teasing Denise, not you, Andrew.

Thanks, George.  I wasn't concerned for myself though.  I thought there was some miscommunication with John, especially given his response.  I can enjoy your sense of humour, Smile but I'm not sure everyone appreciates it.  I'm not even sure your initial comment was meant the way it was taken.  The problem is that you often write ambiguously.  I can see a number of ways to understand your opening comment.  

George Somsel:

Do you mean that you can only discern whether you will agree with something based on the source and not from what is said?  Remember, even the devil can quote scripture which doesn't invalidate scripture though that doesn't make the purpose of the quote desirable.

Questioning to encourage thinking? Correction? One-up-man-ship?  Slightly tongue-in-cheek?  Perfectly serious?  I don't think you meant harm, but I suspect you were already in a playful mood when you wrote this, but that's not easily expressed in the forums.  Even the odd smilie can seem to add sarcasm when they're meant well.

Whatever we might think of how John expressed his question, I think there's a point that's worth addressing there - hence the attempt to give him something worthwhile to work from.

The forums can be fun to read and participate in, but I sometimes feel sorry for the way the initial questioner gets lost, and potentially offended, in the banter.

Posts 579
Andrew Baguley | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:51 PM

George Somsel:

Unfortunately, not one.  All are in error.  Sad  Wink  Big Smile

You could write your own PB, Wink though I guess there would be a risk that you change your mind tomorrow.Big Smile

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:55 PM

Andrew Baguley:
Questioning to encourage thinking? Correction? One-up-man-ship?  Slightly tongue-in-cheek?  Perfectly serious?  I don't think you meant harm, but I suspect you were already in a playful mood when you wrote this, but that's not easily expressed in the forums.  Even the odd smilie can seem to add sarcasm when they're meant well.

Definitely playful.  Occasionally I like to have a bit of fun on the forum.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:57 PM

Andrew Baguley:

George Somsel:

Unfortunately, not one.  All are in error.  Sad  Wink  Big Smile

You could write your own PB, Wink though I guess there would be a risk that you change your mind tomorrow.Big Smile

Me change my mind?  When I'm right, I'm right.  Wink  Just because I was once a dispensationalist doesn't change anything.  Big Smile

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 12:57 PM

George Somsel:

fgh:

Do you really have any books in your library that altogether "agree with you"?Devil

Unfortunately, not one.  All are in error.  Sad  Wink  Big Smile

That's what I suspected...Big Smile

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 10545
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Sep 1 2012 6:17 PM

George Somsel:
Just because I was once a dispensationalist

But that was in a different dispensation Geeked

Sometimes you remind me of a reformed drunk Big Smile

Posts 116
John R. Weathersby | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 8:22 AM

Andrew - I must tell you I'm very disappointed in the type of 'banter' that happens in these forums - I simply asked if there is a way I can mark items as, apologetic in nature, IE Mormon commentary - if commentary from tagging comes up that's discussing a legitimate reference to a 66 book canonical reference however, from a point of view of the LDS I want to see that immediately rather than 'discerning it' through reading. Else, I don't want the works in my collection - digitally.    It is not something I'd like to be convinced of otherwise - its just how I land on the subject.

Maybe I'm thick and less scholarly or intelligent than the majority of people using Logos, I'm fine with that.  I did not seek to enter into debate regarding how much others agree about the use of this, rather, to find if it was possible. 

Thank you for working to redeem this forum with, actual assistance and thoughtful posting, but I think it's just far gone.

Grace and peace,

John
Ephesians 5:4

John Weathersby

Harrisburg, PA.

www.transcendchurch.org

Posts 10030
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 8:55 AM

John R. Weathersby:
I'm very disappointed in the type of 'banter' that happens in these forums - I simply asked if there is a way I can mark items as, apologetic in nature,

John,

I think one of the reasons your question fell into a bit of the banter her was that you joined an existing thread on page nine - a new post may have had only Andrews's reply (or some two or three additional helpful hints).

The other thing is, what was hinted at in the more humorous postings: one user's heresy may be another user's orthodoxy and vice versa. And a position may shift over time.

That said, I think you've been given the right answer: built Logos collections by usage of tags or rules, so you can include/exclude resources you only have for apologetic reasons. Now that hiding resources has somewhat matured: when Logos should introduce more user-friendly un-hide as well, you could use this feature to store away such resources.  

Mick

Running Logos 8 latest beta version on Win 10

Posts 10177
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 9:26 AM

John ... maybe you forgot your own question. Here it is; I bolded the key parts):

"That said, to other users or community / members, is there a function for flagging resources as apologetic in nature, currently?  

If not, are there other users interested in the same functionality?

Thanks a ton!

John "

We were speaking to both issues you asked about: (1) an apologetic flagging (thus my question back to you which you ignored, which is fine) and (2) Logos literally creating an apologetic flagging.

In both cases, defining 'apologetics' satisfactorially among multiple beliefs is hard to imagine. Each user would logically have to do it themselves for themselves (thus the challenge facing George).

 


Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 1:31 PM

DMB:
thus the challenge facing George
Hmm

But how can this be a challenge for George if he is correct?  FYI... Of course I agree with George (because he is correct).

Posts 26465
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 1:38 PM

DMB:

If not, are there other users interested in the same functionality?

I think it would be difficult to flag items as apologetic in nature. However, I would like the ability to build argument maps in which I linked to specifically apologetic resources as I personally use them. I would then like to package the argument maps and links in a way that I could share them. PB's are close to what I want in functionality. But if I could attach notes to multiple sources I'd be even closer.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 579
Andrew Baguley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 2:13 PM

John R. Weathersby:

Andrew - I must tell you I'm very disappointed in the type of 'banter' that happens in these forums - I simply asked if there is a way I can mark items as, apologetic in nature, IE Mormon commentary - if commentary from tagging comes up that's discussing a legitimate reference to a 66 book canonical reference however, from a point of view of the LDS I want to see that immediately rather than 'discerning it' through reading. Else, I don't want the works in my collection - digitally.    It is not something I'd like to be convinced of otherwise - its just how I land on the subject.

Maybe I'm thick and less scholarly or intelligent than the majority of people using Logos, I'm fine with that.  I did not seek to enter into debate regarding how much others agree about the use of this, rather, to find if it was possible. 

Thank you for working to redeem this forum with, actual assistance and thoughtful posting, but I think it's just far gone.

Grace and peace,

John
Ephesians 5:4

Hi John

Thanks for coming back to the forum to post again.  I'm not sure the issue is about how intelligent people on the forums are, so much as how much those who use the forums regularly like to entertain themselves with 'banter'.  Between regular forum users, it can be quite enjoyable, especially as they understand better what is being unsaid, as well as what is being said.  The personalities expressed on the forum can be quite strong at times and can be misunderstood out of context.

I remember when I was newer to the forums feeling that it was unfair to those who were new and just trying to get simple answers to their questions.  Your post has served to remind me that things haven't really changed.  It's just that I've got used to how things are, and grown to understand the regular forum users better.

NB.Mick is right that genuine questions are better on new threads, but it was an appropriate thread for your question, so I'd be happier if the regulars could try to help in a friendly way before the regular banter takes over.  Maybe the banter is often a bad thing and goes in negative directions, but it's a way for regular users to keep up their interest in the forums, and there aren't many regulars who don't offer help and good advice to people at other times.

I agree with a number of the suggestions that have been made, saying that it is hard for Logos to make a decision on what constitutes heresy or apologetic, with such a wide user-base, but I also think that it is easy to understand where you are likely coming from and feel that other forum users should respect that and answer the question accordingly.  I understand that some may want to question your view of heresy and/or apologetic, but I'm not sure the Logos forums are the right place to do that.  Ideally, others would simply help you see that Logos are unlikely to mark resources as heretical and that they have good reasons for not doing, as well as providing help on alternative ways to do what you are trying to do.

I'm sorry you've been disappointed and hope that you won't completely give up on the forums.  I also hope that the suggestions I gave before have proven useful.  It's good to hear that NB.Mick thought they were along the right lines.

Andrew

Posts 579
Andrew Baguley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 2:28 PM

DMB:

We were speaking to both issues you asked about...

DMB

You were speaking to both issues, I know, but if you don't match the tone of the original post, then there's a good chance that you'll be heading for miscommunication, or even offence, as here.  I'm not suggesting you intended to offend, but it seems that's what happened anyway.  I hope most of us can agree with John's wish for grace and peace in the forums.  I think we just need to work a bit harder at that sometimes.  I certainly wouldn't suggest that we avoid humour or banter, but we just need to be sure that the person we're communicating with sees it as humour or banter.

Posts 579
Andrew Baguley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 2:45 PM

MJ. Smith:
I think it would be difficult to flag items as apologetic in nature...

I'm not quite sure what you're describing here, MJ.  I haven't played with PBs, but can't we embed links to other Logos resources, which will open on anyone's computer, so long as they have the resource?

Question for MJ (or anyone else for that matter):

What's the biggest problem with Logos using 'theology tags'?  I'm fairly sure that a Mormonism tag would be uncontroversial here and I think it would go some way to solve John's problem.  I'm only suggesting tags go on resources that are self-proclaimed.  Some resources try to promote particular views, such as Wesleyan commentaries and Roman Catholic Missals.  So long as Logos is willing to market resources with labels, why not tag them as such as well?  Yes, we'll need to be sensible about how we use them.  (There's no such thing as an official Wesleyan view, for example.)  However, if we want to search just anabaptist resources for uses of the word martyr, for example, then I'm not sure why we should need to categorise all of our resources ourselves.

Posts 9946
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 2:59 PM

Andrew Baguley:
 I haven't played with PBs,

Umm … you don't play with PBs.  You create them and you read them.  Wink

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 26465
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 6 2012 6:12 PM

Andrew Baguley:
What's the biggest problem with Logos using 'theology tags'?

What seems obvious to some of us appears to consistently upset others. I've found that I can step on landmines in classifications it wouldn't occur to me could be controversial. As for Mormon with there being > 60 groups with roots in Joseph Smith, Jr. does "mormonism" capture accurately the beliefs presented in the resources? I suspect not. I know there are "mormon heritage non-CCLDS" members in the forum - perhaps they could speak with more authority on this particular case.

There are also the cases where the author claims to represent a group where the group considers him outside their norm. I'll not name the Catholic apologist whom I would place in this category ... he's not in Logos fortunately.

I prefer to do my own denominational tagging which places resources in categories that are useful to me. For example, I have a "mainline Protestant" category which includes a wide variety of views which for my purposes are interchangeable. However, Jewish materials I split into subgroups.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Page 10 of 12 (224 items) « First ... < Previous 8 9 10 11 12 Next > | RSS