Citing GAs to win an argument

[SoonerCoug]

So a Mormon post-doc came up to me the other day and started talking about Obamacare. I said that I was for Obamacare, and he criticized my position. I defended my position with facts. He responded by telling me that he had "researched hundreds of conference talks from the past 50 years" and that multiple general authorities were clearly opposed to health care reform, especially Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay.

I responded by telling him that it makes no difference to me what Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay think about health care reform. He said: "When something is said over the pulpit, then you need to just accept it." I said: "Why are you making this about the Church? You're a scientist for Pete's sake. Aren't you able to think independently without having to read the opinion of a prophet who lived 40 years ago to form an opinion? If GAs have taken a public stand against health care reform, then I happen to think those GAs are wrong." I think he was quite shocked to find that I am such an apostate.

Then I proceeded to cite the fact that I have multiple GA relatives with whom I don't agree on everything, and that I don't appreciate him citing GAs and implying that I'm a bad Mormon in order to win an argument. I'll be damned if someone has to cite a GA in reference to a political or social issue to claim that I'm not a good Mormon. There are plenty of other ways to make that argument.

[Indy Coug]

So a Mormon post-doc came up to me the other day...

[TripletDaddy]

I have noticed that once you have your mind made up, there is no changing it. So I am going to simply follow the oft-repeated counsel of Ezra Taft Benson: "Agree with thine adversary, quickly."

[Solon]

I have noticed that once you have your mind made up, there is no changing it. So I am going to simply follow the oft-repeated counsel of Ezra Taft Benson: "Agree with thine adversary, quickly."

This reminds me of my mother trying to The Work and the Glory to argue with me about early LDS history (this has happened to me).

[smokymountainrain]

So a Mormon post-doc came up to me the other day and started talking about Obamacare. I said that I was for Obamacare, and he criticized my position. I defended my position with facts. He responded by telling me that he had "researched hundreds of conference talks from the past 50 years" and that multiple general authorities were clearly opposed to health care reform, especially Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay.

I responded by telling him that it makes no difference to me what Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay think about health care reform. He said: "When something is said over the pulpit, then you need to just accept it." I said: "Why are you making this about the Church? You're a scientist for Pete's sake. Aren't you able to think independently without having to read the opinion of a prophet who lived 40 years ago to form an opinion? If GAs have taken a public stand against health care reform, then I happen to think those GAs are wrong." I think he was quite shocked to find that I am such an apostate.

Hilarious.

This guy obviously doesn't know the SoonerCoug I know. I'm surprised you didn't just stand there laughing in his face.

FWIW, I agree with you. Whether you are from the "if a GA said it, it must be right" crowd or not, it is stupid to use that to win an argument.

[Mr Incredible]

Hilarious.

This guy obviously doesn't know the SoonerCoug I know. I'm surprised you didn't just stand there laughing in his face.

FWIW, I agree with you. Whether you are from the "if a GA said it, it must be right" crowd or not, it is stupid to use that to win an argument.

Where is grapevine when you need him?

[Jeff Lebowski]

So a Mormon post-doc came up to me the other day and started talking about Obamacare. I said that I was for Obamacare, and he criticized my position. I defended my position with facts. He responded by telling me that he had "researched hundreds of conference talks from the past 50 years" and that multiple general authorities were clearly opposed to health care reform, especially Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay.

I responded by telling him that it makes no difference to me what Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay think about health care reform. He said: "When something is said over the pulpit, then you need to just accept it." I said: "Why are you making this about the Church? You're a scientist for Pete's sake. Aren't you able to think independently without having to read the opinion of a prophet who lived 40 years ago to form an opinion? If GAs have taken a public stand against health care reform, then I happen to think those GAs are wrong." I think he was quite shocked to find that I am such an apostate.

Then I proceeded to cite the fact that I have multiple GA relatives with whom I don't agree on everything, and that I don't appreciate him citing GAs and implying that I'm a bad Mormon in order to win an argument. I'll be damned if someone has to cite a GA in reference to a political or social issue to claim that I'm not a good Mormon. There are plenty of other ways to make that argument.

I had a similar (but shorter) conversation the other day. Citing GA's at then end of a discussion is often a hail Mary attempt to rescue a failing argument. Drives me nuts, too.

[Indy Coug]

I had a similar (but shorter) conversation the other day. Citing GA's at then end of a discussion is often a hail Mary attempt to rescue a failing argument. Drives me nuts, too.

It's almost as bad as pulling out a Hitler/Nazi comparison.

[TripletDaddy]

This reminds me of my mother trying to The Work and the Glory to argue with me about early LDS history (this has happened to me).

I remember having a conversation with my in-laws about the WAG series. My MIL said she didn't know how much she would enjoy the "historical fiction" genre until she started reading the WAG books.

I asked her why she liked the books so much.

She said that she really loved learning about LDS history.

I asked her why she just didn't read actual LDS historical books, journals, essays, etc.

She said that the real history books aren't as interesting.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I have noticed that once you have your mind made up, there is no changing it. So I am going to simply follow the oft-repeated counsel of Ezra Taft Benson: "Agree with thine adversary, quickly."

That was definitely Ezra Taft Benson's approach to Krushchev.

[FMCoug]

She said that the real history books aren't as interesting.

Well this really nails the popularity of the genre (not just for LDS but in general). For casual reading, fiction always trumps non-fiction for most people.

I'd even argue that a big reason David McCullough's books (1776 and John Adams) are so popular is that they are written in a very conversational voice.

[Pheidippides]

Well this really nails the popularity of the genre (not just for LDS but in general). For casual reading, fiction always trumps non-fiction for most people.

I'd even argue that a big reason David McCullough's books (1776 and John Adams) are so popular is that they are written in a very conversational voice.

Not to pile on and threadjack all at the same time, but some of the "literature" choices in ward book clubs SHW has been a part of have been scandalously crappy, and I suspect it's for the same reason.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well this really nails the popularity of the genre (not just for LDS but in general). For casual reading, fiction always trumps non-fiction for most people.

I'd even argue that a big reason David McCullough's books (1776 and John Adams) are so popular is that they are written in a very conversational voice.

Huh? What does that have to do with fiction vs. non-fiction? You post is kind of an insult to David McCullough.

His books are the prime example of how real history is superior to historical fiction. They aren't popular because he "dumbed it down". They are popular because he is such a gifted writer.

[SteelBlue]

So a Mormon post-doc came up to me the other day and started talking about Obamacare. I said that I was for Obamacare, and he criticized my position. I defended my position with facts. He responded by telling me that he had "researched hundreds of conference talks from the past 50 years" and that multiple general authorities were clearly opposed to health care reform, especially Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay.

I responded by telling him that it makes no difference to me what Russell M. Nelson and David O. McKay think about health care reform. He said: "When something is said over the pulpit, then you need to just accept it." I said: "Why are you making this about the Church? You're a scientist for Pete's sake. Aren't you able to think independently without having to read the opinion of a prophet who lived 40 years ago to form an opinion? If GAs have taken a public stand against health care reform, then I happen to think those GAs are wrong." I think he was quite shocked to find that I am such an apostate.

Then I proceeded to cite the fact that I have multiple GA relatives with whom I don't agree on everything, and that I don't appreciate him citing GAs and implying that I'm a bad Mormon in order to win an argument. I'll be damned if someone has to cite a GA in reference to a political or social issue to claim that I'm not a good Mormon. There are plenty of other ways to make that argument.

The funniest thing about his argument is how much health care has changed/reformed in the 40 years since the talks he's been reading. Kind of a ridiculous argument whether he's citing GA's or not.

[FMCoug]

His books are the prime example of how real history is superior to historical fiction. They aren't popular because he "dumbed it down". They are popular because he is such a gifted writer.

I agree with you that his books are a prime example. And I'm not saying he dumbed it down. But his books are written in such a way that he is telling a story rather than just reciting facts. What I'm saying is that, in my experience, this is fairly uncommon for non-fiction.