The Logos wiki Almanac of the Christian World has never really taken off; It has five listings for Mennonites, one for Mormons. (Just noticing; no real point)
It is worth obtaining the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, either in Logos or in print (now quite affordable). As an sample, the entry for Baptists.
Baptists. One of the largest Protestant and Free Church communions, to be found in every Continent. [JACK, SOME HISTORIANS SAY YOU CANNOT BE BOTH, CITING PERSECUTION OF FREE CHURCH COMMUNIONS BY CALVIN AND ZWINGLI. THESE HISTORIANS WOULD LIKELY PLACE BAPTISTS IN THE FREE CHURCH OR RADICAL REFORMATION FAMILY OF DENOMINATIONS]. Its total membership in 2002 was over 45 million, with a much larger community strength. The origins of the Baptists in modern times have been traced to the action of John *Smyth, a *Separatist exile in Amsterdam who, in 1609, reinstituted the Baptism of committed believers as the basis of fellowship of a gathered Church. But Smyth was under *Mennonite influence, and Baptist beginnings have also been traced back to the *Anabaptist wing of the Continental *Reformation (esp. in Zurich), to the protests of medieval sects against prevailing baptismal theory and practice, and to the period of the early Church and the NT. Smyth and his associates were concerned to reestablish the Baptism of believers according to its NT meaning, in the interests of a true doctrine of the nature of the Church.
The first Baptist Church in England consisted of certain members of Smyth’s Church who returned to London in 1612 under the leadership of Thomas *Helwys. From this a number of other Churches sprang in Stuart and Commonwealth times. *Arminian in theology with a connectional polity, they came to be known as ‘General Baptists’. In 1633 the adoption of believers’ Baptism by a group of *Calvinistic London Separatists, who were members of the Church which had Henry Jacob as pastor, led to the rise of ‘Particular Baptist’ Churches in many parts of the country. About the same time *immersion became their usual mode of Baptism, instead of *affusion or sprinkling, again in obedience to the NT. These Particular (Calvinistic) Baptist Churches were independent or congregational in polity but gave regular expression to their inter-Church relationships through Associations, which have continued to be a vital part of Baptist Church life.
Many Baptists were associated with the more radical spiritual and political movements of the 17th cent. They were pioneers in the quest for freedom of conscience and religious liberty. After the *Restoration they moved close to the *Presbyterians and *Independents and became recognized as one of the *Three Denominations of Protestant Dissenters. John *Bunyan was an outstanding figure among them and was important not only for his writings but because he encouraged a pattern of local Church membership which could include Baptists and Paedobaptists. From the mid-17th cent. there were Baptist Churches in the American colonies. The settlement of Roger *Williams at Providence, Rhode Island, and the Church formed there in 1639 on Baptist principles is generally regarded as the beginning of American Baptist history. A small 17th-cent. group who became known as Sabbatarian or Seventh Day Baptists, and whose descendants are still represented in both England and North America, regarded the Fourth *Commandment as requiring rest and worship on the seventh, not the first, day of the week.
In the 18th cent. many of the General Baptist Churches in England came under *Unitarian influences and ultimately ceased to maintain their witness to believers’ Baptism. But Dan Taylor (1738–1816), under the stimulus of the Evangelical Revival, in 1770 formed a ‘New Connexion’ among them, which maintained a vigorous life, and a century later united with the main stream of Baptist witness. The *Baptist Missionary Society, formed in 1792 by ministers of the Northamptonshire Association of Particular Baptists at the call of William *Carey, initiated the modern movement of missionary expansion among Protestant Churches. Northamptonshire Baptists had been stirred by reports of the *Great Awakening in New England. This revival quickened the Baptist Churches of America and led to the beginnings of the rapid and spectacular growth of Baptists in that continent. Baptist preachers were in the van as the frontier was carried westwards. As a result of their missionary zeal Baptists became the largest religious community in many of the southern States, and among the *Black Churches of the USA about two-thirds of the members are Baptists. By 2002 there were over 33 million Baptists in North America. They are organized in several Conventions, the Southern Baptist Convention being the largest and most conservative. American Baptists have been noted for their vigorous missionary work, Adoniram *Judson of Burma being their pioneer. Other notable American Baptists have included the historian K. S. Latourette (1884–1968), Martin Luther *King, and Billy *Graham. In South America there are nearly 1.4 million Baptists with another 449,000 in Central America and the Caribbean.
The rigid Calvinism of the 18th cent. was gradually modified not only in America, but also in England, though not without some protests. There remained in England a number of ‘Strict Baptist’ Churches, strongly Calvinist in theology, where Communion was, and indeed still is, restricted to baptized believers. In the 19th cent. most other Baptist Churches welcomed all believers to Communion, many also adopting ‘open membership’ after the Bunyan pattern. The increase in their numbers more than kept pace with the growth in population, and from their ranks came outstanding preachers such as Robert *Hall, C. H. *Spurgeon, Alexander *Maclaren, and John *Clifford. The Baptist Union, formed in 1813, was gradually transformed into the Baptist Union of Great Britain. Its modern development owed much to the leadership of J. H. *Shakespeare, who was secretary for over 25 years (1898–1924). In Britain there are some 195,000 Church members. Baptists in England and three Baptist Associations in Wales shared in the Free Church movement and are members of the *Free Churches Group, Churches Together in England, the *Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland (as they were of the *British Council of Churches), and of the *World Council of Churches. The Baptist Union of Wales is a member of CYTUN (Churches Together in Wales). The Baptists of *Scotland were much influenced by the life and teaching of Archibald McLean (1733–1812). He and his followers kept close to the NT in both doctrine and practice and were at one time known as ‘Scotch Baptists’ or ‘*Sandemanian Baptists’. Their work provided one of the sources of the *Disciples of Christ. Baptists have been numerous in *Wales since John Myles (or Miles, 1621–84) organized the first Church at Ilston (1649) and Vavasour Powell (1617–70) acted as the leader of a band of itinerant evangelists. Their most famous preacher was Christmas Evans (1766–1838). There has been a considerable emigration of Baptists from Wales to the USA. Baptists in *Ireland trace their roots back to Churches founded by Baptist officers and chaplains in Oliver *Cromwell’s army and by settlers who remained there after the Restoration. These Churches, mainly of Particular Baptists with a leavening of General Baptists, survived through the 18th cent., later receiving support from English Particular Baptists.
In 1834 a Baptist Church was formed in Hamburg under the leadership of J. C. Oncken (1800–84) and from this came an extensive Baptist movement in Europe, spreading to Slavic-speaking people. Baptists were generally persecuted in Tsarist *Russia. They increased in numbers during the early years of the Soviet regime but later suffered from the general restrictions on religious freedom. In recent times their numbers have grown significantly, and they form the largest Protestant community in the countries of the former USSR, with some 332,000 Church members.
Baptist Churches were formed in *Australia and *New Zealand in the early 19th cent., and in the 20th cent. Baptist work expanded throughout Asia, Africa, and South America. Recent growth in Africa has been notable, with a membership of over 5.2 million. In 1905 the Baptist World Alliance was formed at a congress in London as a forum for international co-operation. It has several Commissions which deal with a variety of denominational concerns, including ecumenical relations. Its present headquarters is in McLean, Virginia.
In spite of their variety and individualism, most Baptists have remained strongly attached to the truths of evangelical Christianity. In their worship they follow in general the Reformed tradition. Their polity is a modified form of independency, with Churches held together in associations. Their ministers, or pastors, receive, in most countries, a careful training. Their oldest college in Britain (Bristol) traces its history back to the 1679 bequest of Edward Terrill. Regent’s Park College, of which H. Wheeler *Robinson was principal from 1920 to 1942, is now a Permanent Private Hall of *Oxford University. Many colleges and universities in America and elsewhere are under Baptist auspices. In ecumenical relationships Baptists have been hesitant about schemes for organic union, partly because of their concern to preserve their witness to believers’ Baptism and the freedom of the local Church from external rule as the ‘gathered community’; but they have been eager for partnership and co-operation with other Christians. Although only about 20 Baptist Conventions or Unions are members of the World Council of Churches, they comprise nearly 40 per cent of the world Baptist constituency.
[Bibliography Omitted.]
Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (155–156). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Mormon Studies Collection
Comments
-
Interesting article, but it does contain a few inaccuracies. Since that is not the purpose of this thread, I will refrain from pointing them out—except for one.
Dennis Parish said:Their ministers, or pastors, receive, in most countries, a careful training.
Not true in the US among SBC & IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist) Churches. Some have extensive training, but anyone at any time can rent a store front, invite in a few friends, adopt a constitution (or not), and become a new Baptist Church. [8-|]
0 -
Ben said:
Checking against primary sources is laudable and necessary, but there's also the question of worldview. When crossing major cultural/religious/linguistic lines, we always need to be careful to ask how an insider understands this. I can pull some quote from a source, have it be accurate, and still completely misunderstand its meaning within the community it belongs to. Much apologetic material fails to do so. An interesting article on this is Mosser and Owen, "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It", Trinity Journal (Fall '98, p179-205), and imo, all of the Mormon material published by Logos falls to their criticism.
.
Jack Caviness, you have a point, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is more than a church, it’s a culture, it can be hard at times to un-tangle church doctrine from church culture. It can be hard for an outsider to really understand some unique doctrines of the LDS church.
To be clear Mormon is a nickname that was picked up on from the Book of Mormon. For anyone that is interested on how to use the word Mormon, just click here0 -
If you are interested in apologetics and you have friends who are mormon and you want to discuss the "real" Jesus with them - not what is taught in mormonism. Then anything you can get your hands on to guide you and the converation is most helpful. I had electronic versions in L3 that would be great in L4.
Anything more on Jehovah Witnesses would be great to. I already have what is currently available.
In Christ,
Ken
Lenovo Yoga 7 15ITL5 Touch Screen; 11th Gen Intel i7 2.8Ghz; 12Gb RAM; 500Gb SDD;WIN 11
0 -
Searching Vyrso for Mormon finds four books => http://vyrso.com/products/search?q=mormon
Searching Logos for Mormon finds 37 results => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Mormon including Mormon Studies Collection (45 vols.) whose appearance started this thread.
Searching Logos for Jehovah Witness finds 24 results => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Jehovah+Witness
By the way, searching Logos.com for other search terms finds many more results (e.g. pray, peace, luther, jew, counsel, protestant, catholic, calvin, worship, hope, reformed, spirit, love, baptist, journal, doctrine, preach, evangelical, Jesus, seminary, commentary, testament, pastor, God, christian, theology) with theology having 4,029 results => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=theology Searching Logos by lowest price finds 7,595 results => http://www.logos.com/products/search?start=&sort=pricelo&pageSize=30 that currently has 21 resources for $ 0.00 (Free)
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
This may be too soon to ask, but will the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have page numbers?0 -
I would like to see more bidders on this collection.
http://www.logos.com/product/16021/mormon-studies-collection
0 -
Is it worth emphasising that as these works are out of copyright, purchasing these works will not be giving money to Mormonism? I suspect that the low number of bids reflects the low number of Mormons who use Logos and the low number of people who are not Mormons but can see the usefulness in having this set.
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
Is it worth emphasising that as these works are out of copyright, purchasing these works will not be giving money to Mormonism? I suspect that the low number of bids reflects the low number of Mormons who use Logos and the low number of people who are not Mormons but can see the usefulness in having this set.
I'm not convinced that the Mormons are that bad. Yes, they have an extra book and some strange ideas, but how does that make them so very different from dispensationalists?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Stoking the fires of controversy again, George?
So long as you didn't take my post as indicating that Mormons are bad, I'll walk away now. I hope that wasn't implied in what I wrote, even if I suspect that some Logos users will hold that belief...
Note to all: Logos forums aren't for theology debates or putting others down...
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
Stoking the fires of controversy again, George?
I don't stoke anything since I don't even have a shovel to stoke with.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I'm not convinced that the Mormons are that bad. Yes, they have an extra book and some strange ideas, but how does that make them so very different from dispensationalists?
How is that not engaging in theological debate?
Andrew Baguley said:I suspect that the low number of bids reflects the low number of Mormons who use Logos and the low number of people who are not Mormons but can see the usefulness in having this set.
Fairly narrow interest (among Logos' customers) CP's like Catholic ones tend to go for $3-6/volume.
Really popular ones can go around $1/volume.
You're trying to get a very narrow interest bundle through CP at $0.67/volume! Possibly the lowest we've ever seen. There's no way that's going to succeed in the next 2-5 years unless you find someone to walk the streets of Salt Lake City and get people to bid on the spot. At that price even getting as far as you have must have taken a considerable amount of bidders.
Those of you who really want this should move your bids to the far right. That's still less than $2/volume. I'd be delighted if the CP's I want went for that.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
fgh said:
unless you find someone to walk the streets of Salt Lake City
You're recommending that we resort to street walkers? [;)] [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
Yes, they have an extra book and some strange ideas, but how does that make them so very different from dispensationalists?
Now that's funny [:D]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
0 -
Paul Golder said:
Yes, that is funny. I am not a dispensationalists either. But Mormons do not just have an extra book. They have extra books, including the "Pearl of Great Price" and other writings of Joseph Smith that are regarded as Scripture. More importantly, they have extra Gods. In fact, they teach that God was once a mere man, and you have the potential to become a God, too. So they have a very different understanding of the nature of God.
I am not arguing pro or con about their theology. But Momon theology is a little different from my dispensational friends, who are just a little wierd, but still within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
And I have bid on the Mormon collection. With the publicity this election is giving the Church of Latter Day Saints, it is important that we be prepared to guide our congregations about the Mormon faith. People are interested in them, and will be more so if a member of that church becomes President. If you have not bid on this collection, I urge you to do so.
I am not trying to attack the Mormon Church or theology. I would not let theology keep me from voting for a Mormon. I share many values with Mormons. By and large they are great people. Just saying.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
-
Listen - I did not read through the 9 pages of comments here, however I'd like to toss my hat in:
I would love a way to categorize text(s), both collections and individual works, as apologetically interesting, only. Mitigating the risk of reading something and thinking it's from a collection or work I agree with. This is relevant to this collection - that's a LOT of indext'd materiel that I'd like parsed away from my normal searches and visibly flagged, I'm not certain that Prioritization will do all that I'd need in order to add this collection to my library.
What are your thoughts, all?
John Weathersby
Harrisburg, PA.
www.transcendchurch.org
0 -
John R. Weathersby said:
I would love a way to categorize text(s), both collections and individual works, as apologetically interesting, only. Mitigating the risk of reading something and thinking it's from a collection or work I agree with.
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.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George, you're the superior person.
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
John Weathersby
Harrisburg, PA.
www.transcendchurch.org
0 -
John R. Weathersby said:
George, you're the superior person.
You're trying to give me a swollen head. Don't do that. I have enough of a problem with such tendencies without your help.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
John ... how exactly would your apologetic flagging work? If you put a 100 people in a room and ask their theological opinions, you're going to get at least 100 different views. I think that's what tagging, short titles and long-title edits are for, along with collections, etc?
Here are some I use: Agrees-with-Me, Said-It-Better-Than-I-Could-Have, Lost-in-Space, Why-Isn't-This-in-Hidden-Resources, Nutty-Author, Nutty-AuthorTimes2 and so forth.
This way, I simply put 'Agrees-with-me' in the library filter or search filter, and I always get the right answer. Can any OTHER software do that??
Kind of joking ... I'm trying hard to figure out what it is you're recommending.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
There are probably better ways to do this, but this is one possibility.
Set up a collection of apologetic resources.
-- This will depend on what you consider 'Apologetic Only'. See the wiki for ideas on rules (http://wiki.logos.com/Example_Collections), or drag the resources you want into the Plus These Resources section.
-- Rename the collection 'Apologetic Only'
Set up a collection of everything except the Apologetic collection.
-- Open a new collection using the rule Rating:>=0
-- Click Open and drag 'Apologetic Only' to the Minus These Resources section
-- Rename the collection 'Everything But Apologetic'
When you search, search the 'Everything But Apologetic' collection.
0 -
DMB said:
John ... how exactly would your apologetic flagging work? If you put a 100 people in a room and ask their theological opinions, you're going to get at least 100 different views.
Same with opinions on bottled water. "Apologetic flagging" for anyone other than one's self is useless. That is true unless you are doing the thinking for others who are mindless......[:|]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
DMB said:
John ... how exactly would your apologetic flagging work? If you put a 100 people in a room and ask their theological opinions, you're going to get at least 100 different views. I think that's what tagging, short titles and long-title edits are for, along with collections, etc?
Here are some I use: Agrees-with-Me, Said-It-Better-Than-I-Could-Have, Lost-in-Space, Why-Isn't-This-in-Hidden-Resources, Nutty-Author, Nutty-AuthorTimes2 and so forth.
This way, I simply put 'Agrees-with-me' in the library filter or search filter, and I always get the right answer. Can any OTHER software do that??
Kind of joking ... I'm trying hard to figure out what it is you're recommending.
OF COURSE "agrees with me" MUST BE "agrees with me" (not you or anyone else) to be of value. [;)] [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George, that's not likely to work well. If I put your 'Agrees-with-me' in with my 'Agrees-with-Me' then they're going to get all mixed up, thereby risking not always getting the right answer.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John R. Weathersby said:
I would love a way to categorize text(s), both collections and individual works, as apologetically interesting, only.
Have you ever found your interests or needs in study subjects change? The objects of my study focus in 1975 are markedly different from those that piqued my interest in 1985 or in 1995. Today I study things I never would have found interesting in previous decades.
You can also fine tune the scope of your searches. You can include or exclude resources. If a Baptist preacher refers to a Pope or President of the Mormon Church without knowing who he is quoting there may be interesting consequences. Although I am not a monk, I found myself quoting one after I read his words in the "Medieval Preaching & Spirituality Collection" currently in Pre-Pub. There are some times you can find jewels in the words of people you otherwise disagree with.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
...
-- This will depend on what you consider 'Apologetic Only'. See the wiki for ideas on rules (http://wiki.logos.com/Example_Collections) ...
I'm not sure if George and DMB are deliberately mocking or teasing, though it comes across that way from here.
Among other things, they're trying to point out that different people will have different ideas of what would be in 'Apologetic Only', so Logos cannot mark sets to help here. A long time ago I suggested that Logos added theology tags, so that we could search just Arminian works, Calvinist works, pre-millennialist works, etc., but this seemed too controversial at the time. I suspect that this would help you here but, in the absence of such fields, you would have to add your own tags.
Some users get confused by the word 'Collection' being used in two different ways by Logos. The collections they sell are just groups of resources that sometimes don't actually have that much in common, so they are not specially tagged in your library. Collections within the Logos application cannot be created by referring to a collection as it is sold. Therefore, you would need to create your own rules for collections like this one. In this case, the most promising fields are publisher and author, since anything published by 'Deseret News' or authored by 'Brigham Young' is likely to fall into this category and there are a limited number of publishers and authors within this collection. Of course, if there is another author also called Brigham Young that you particularly like, then their works will also be included in the 'Apologetic Only' collection, so popular sounding names may lead you to manually add resources to a collection.
Hope that helps.
0 -
DMB said:
George, that's not likely to work well. If I put your 'Agrees-with-me' in with my 'Agrees-with-Me' then they're going to get all mixed up, thereby risking not always getting the right answer.
But if you get "agrees with me", i.e. George Somsel, then you KNOW you have the right answer. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Super Tramp said:
Have you ever found your interests or needs in study subjects change? The objects of my study focus in 1975 are markedly different from those that piqued my interest in 1985 or in 1995. Today I study things I never would have found interesting in previous decades.
Well, since I'm soon to turn 39, I haven't been around that many decades. [;)] [;)] [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
George Somsel said:
But if you get "agrees with me", i.e. George Somsel, then you KNOW you have the right answer.
Do you really have any books in your library that altogether "agree with you"?[6]
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
DMB said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
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, [:)] 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 said: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.
0 -
George Somsel said:
Unfortunately, not one. All are in error.
You could write your own PB, [;)] though I guess there would be a risk that you change your mind tomorrow.[:D]
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
You could write your own PB,
though I guess there would be a risk that you change your mind tomorrow.Me change my mind? When I'm right, I'm right. [;)] Just because I was once a dispensationalist doesn't change anything. [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
-
George Somsel said:
Just because I was once a dispensationalist
But that was in a different dispensation [8-|]
Sometimes you remind me of a reformed drunk [:D]
0 -
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 5:4John Weathersby
Harrisburg, PA.
www.transcendchurch.org
0 -
John R. Weathersby said:
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
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
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).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB said:
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 Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John R. Weathersby said:
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 5:4Hi 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
0 -
DMB said:
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.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
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.
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
I haven't played with PBs,
Umm … you don't play with PBs. You create them and you read them. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Andrew Baguley said:
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 Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
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.
I assume that would be "Orthodox, Conservative and Reform." It might be more appropriate, however, to place "Messianic Judaism" under "Christian", probably Protestant, though that might be questioned.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
