Homosexual marriage...

[tooblue]

ANY question about ANY church policy could invariably come back to your argument that it is actually about whether the church is wrong (and whether the leaders are smarter than the person questioning the church).

Well of course, to be totally intelectually honest with ourselves, ultimately we must admit to posing that question!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You stated they were wrong, I stated they were slow to react, I did not say they were right, only that they are less fallible!

By summarily stating the church was wrong you introduce the idea that there is a correct answer, I contend that there are answers ...

My argument is no more circular than yours … you just happen to take longer to get back to where you began ;-)

Furthermore we are not talking about any other groups that one might introduce as capable of contending with twelve –I am talking about you verses a body of twelve men!

I can't tell if you are just playing games trying to get me to respond! Well, one last time...

If you are saying that any group of 12 is always more correct than any individual, I say that is absurd. In fact, decisions of 12 frequently do not reflect the entire wisdom of the group since within the group there can be dissent leading to a watering down of what the "right" answer might be (assuming there is one) or to a bad answer overall. Your statement about 12 being better than 1 also implies that any group of 13 would be better than the group of 12. The US House of Representatives has 535 members. Are they always wiser than the Senate with 100? Is the Senate 100 times wiser than the executive? Is the House 44.6 times smarter than the quorum of 12? Is California the most correct state on every issue? Is China the most correct country?

The issue has nothing to do with fallability. If you make the issue about relative intelligence of groups, then inevitably you must conclude that one group is always going to be right and everyone else is always going to be wrong.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Well of course, to be totally intelectually honest with ourselves, ultimately we must admit to posing that question!

I completely disagree. If you are asking that question, you are already on the way to believing that the church is infallible (yet they say they are not- how can an infallible person say something that is wrong?).

Absurd example for illustration: The church approves official first presidency letterhead that contains a typo. Is the church right because they have 12 very smart people who approved the letterhead? Am I wrong if I say they made an error? You could certainly reach that conclusion with your line of argument.

[Indy Coug]

To tie this statement in with the subject of this thread, are you saying that the fallibility of the 12 has led to the Church possibly being wrong on its stance against gay marriage?

[outlier]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If you are saying that any group of 12 is always more correct than any individual, I say that is absurd.

Clearly this is not absurd, but, rather, is true. 2 > 1, see? Or really, it's about combined intelligence. If you have two people with 80 IQs and one person with a mere 140:

2 * 80 > 140

Therefore the two people, taken together, are smarter. You need to further factor in the age. Essentially, intelligence must be weighted by age, since age and experience are more important than an ability to think rationally or well. So, if you take a couple of 50 year olds with 80 IQs and compare that to a 30 year old with a 140, you get:

(50 * 80) + (50 * 80) > (30 * 140)

No, when you take into account that the bretheren have relatively high IQs, let's go with 120 on average, and an average age of, what, 75?, then you also take into account that 140 IQs are rare anyway and 120 is a better number to use on the other side of the equation, you get:

(12 * 75 * 120) > (30 * 120)

A less conservative and arguably more reasonable approach assumes that groups have a far greater influence. This is called the groupthink synergy factor. It explains that the actual group intelligence is equal to the mean IQ multiplied by the mean age and this product then raised to the power of the number of individuals in a group. Synergy! So in the case of the Q12, you get:

(75 * 120) ^ 12.

When you compare that to our "bright" individualist 30-year-old, well...

(75 * 120) ^ 12 > (30 * 120) ^ 1

And really, this makes a lot of sense. This is why all great novels are written by groups of people. This is why all great businesses have dozens of CEOs, all calling the shots unanimously. This is why any project that requires the approval of 30 or more people always turns out at least 30 times better than a project that has to meet the approval of merely one person who really knows what he's doing.

And if this wasn't all true, then why would I have bothered writing it? Further incontrovertible evidence.

Individualism delenda est.

Pax vobiscum.

o

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by outlier

Clearly this is not absurd, but, rather, is true. the 2 > 1, see? Or really, it's about combined intelligence. If you have two people with 80 IQs and one person with a mere 140:

2 * 80 > 140

Therefore the two people, taken together, are smarter. You need to further factor in the age. Essentially, intelligence must be weighted by age, since age and experience are more important than an ability to think rationally or well. So, if you take a couple of 50 year olds with 80 IQs and compare that to a 30 year old with a 140, you get:

(50 * 80) + (50 * 80) > (30 * 140)

No, when you take into account that the bretheren have relatively high IQs, let's go with 120 on average, and an average age of, what, 75?, then you also take into account that 140 IQs are rare anyway and 120 is a better number to use on the other side of the equation, you get:

(12 * 75 * 120) > (30 * 120)

A less conservative and arguably more reasonable approach assumes that groups have a far greater influence. This is called the groupthink synergy factor. It explains that the actual group intelligence is equal to the mean IQ multiplied by the mean age and this product then raised to the power of the number of individuals in a group. Synergy! So in the case of the Q12, you get:

(75 * 120) ^ 12.

When you compare that to our "bright" individualist 30-year-old, well...

(75 * 120) ^ 12 > (30 * 120) ^ 1

And really, this makes a lot of sense. This is why all great novels are written by groups of people. This is why all great businesses have dozens of CEOs, all calling the shots unanimously. This is why any project that requires the approval of 30 or more people always turns out at least 30 times better than a project that has to meet the approval of merely one person who really knows what he's doing.

And if this wasn't all true, then why would I have bothered writing it? Further incontrovertible evidence.

Individualism delenda est.

Pax vobiscum.

o

LOL! Now why didn't he just say that!

[All-American]

I applaud your application of less commonly known latin phrases. I also submit that along with Carthage and Individualism, poor logic delenda est.

To say that any group of twelve is ALWAYS more correct than any individual is taking things too far. A simple examination of Joseph Smith v. World shows the fallacy of that assumption.

Were the majority always correct, there would be no need for the assurances of individual rights in a Democratic society. However, they aren't, and there is. The fear of majority rule was one of the guiding ideas that shaped the constitution of the country-- avoid placing too much power in any one person or group, but also avoid placing too much power in the people and creating a tyranny of the majority.

A group will GENERALLY make better decisions than one "bright" individualistic 30 year old, it is true, but there is nevertheless sense in safeguards. One of the more important safeguards is, of course, personal revelation. Brigham Young said one of his greatest fears was that the saints would stop questioning what he said, rather than seek the spirit in interpreting his words. I think that has less to do with screening for errors than it does with understanding the intent and the doctrine behind the policy, but is nevertheless noteworthy.

At any rate, I will still argue that somebody who follows the counsel of the brethren when he does not understand it, or when they are wrong, will still be blessed for it. Examples include the Martin Handcart company-- nobody can argue that it was not a mistake to send a company out in August, yet we've all heard the story of the guy who protested that the suffering was a price he felt privelaged to pay.

Juggling acknowledgement of fallacy with belief of inspiration is a tricky proposition. Ultimately, the best thing to do may be to follow their admonition while trying to understand it. One may disagree, but I don't believe it is appropriate to publicly oppose the direction coming from the leaders of the church.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Your arguments are circular.

Under your premise, any person questioning whether or not the church is right or wrong on any issue is actually questioning the intelligence and inspiration of the church leaders. To resolve whether or not I am right in questioning them, you simply look to my intelligence and ability to receive inspiration (undoubtedly lower). After that comparison, you claim that they must be right because they are, as a whole, smarter and more open to inspiration.

Answer me this: what group in the world would you consider to be more intelligent and more receptive to inspiration than the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency? If you name a group, you are indicating that only that group is qualified to question the church. You are also indicating that since they are smarter and more receptive to inspiration, the church actually has no grounds to question that group, and that group becomes infallible. If you don't name a group (and I imagine you won't) then you are saying that no group or person is qualified to question the church. If no group is qualified to question the church, then the church is infallible. If the church is infallible (i.e. we should blindly follow).

You aren't focusing on the actual issue. The issue isn't (as you have characterized it) whether or not the church is wrong. The issue is whether or not the church should be involved in pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

ANY question about ANY church policy could invariably come back to your argument that it is actually about whether the church is wrong (and whether the leaders are smarter than the person questioning the church).

You haven't identified a concrete downside, instead a vague, amorphous and abstract downside to the Church leaders pushing for a constitutional amendment recognizing the historical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

In a nutshell, the only argument you've made is somebody might propose legislation against our morals, and we would be "morally" or perhaps "politically" precluded from arguing against it, by virtue of the precedence of supporting one form of positive law. If you don't see a bunch of wild assumptions there, nobody here can help you.

Just because one group might in the future put forth some law which we might oppose, there really isn't any legal proclusion to our opposing it, no political preclusion and certainly no moral preclusion to opposing it. We will have to agree to disagree.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by outlier

Clearly this is not absurd, but, rather, is true. 2 > 1, see? Or really, it's about combined intelligence. If you have two people with 80 IQs and one person with a mere 140:

2 * 80 > 140

Therefore the two people, taken together, are smarter. You need to further factor in the age. Essentially, intelligence must be weighted by age, since age and experience are more important than an ability to think rationally or well. So, if you take a couple of 50 year olds with 80 IQs and compare that to a 30 year old with a 140, you get:

(50 * 80) + (50 * 80) > (30 * 140)

No, when you take into account that the bretheren have relatively high IQs, let's go with 120 on average, and an average age of, what, 75?, then you also take into account that 140 IQs are rare anyway and 120 is a better number to use on the other side of the equation, you get:

(12 * 75 * 120) > (30 * 120)

A less conservative and arguably more reasonable approach assumes that groups have a far greater influence. This is called the groupthink synergy factor. It explains that the actual group intelligence is equal to the mean IQ multiplied by the mean age and this product then raised to the power of the number of individuals in a group. Synergy! So in the case of the Q12, you get:

(75 * 120) ^ 12.

When you compare that to our "bright" individualist 30-year-old, well...

(75 * 120) ^ 12 > (30 * 120) ^ 1

And really, this makes a lot of sense. This is why all great novels are written by groups of people. This is why all great businesses have dozens of CEOs, all calling the shots unanimously. This is why any project that requires the approval of 30 or more people always turns out at least 30 times better than a project that has to meet the approval of merely one person who really knows what he's doing.

And if this wasn't all true, then why would I have bothered writing it? Further incontrovertible evidence.

Individualism delenda est.

Pax vobiscum.

o

te he he ... of course they are not writing the next (oh, sorry, typed too fast I meant to say great novel) novel silly!

Oh yah, great tactic -make fun of the premise in stead of countering it ... you could have atleast called me absurd for thinking that 12 men ordained of God are indeed more knowledgable and inteligent than one uninspired man.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

te he he ... of course they are not writing next (oh, sorry, typed too fast I meant to say great novel) novel silly!

Oh yah, great tactic -make fun of the premise in stead of countering it ... you could have atleast called me absurd for thinking that 12 men ordained of God are indeed more knowledgable and inteligen than one uninspired man.

Furthermore I never stated 12 are always smarter than one ... rather I am stating that the twelve in question are smarter than the one who started this thread -nothing absurd about that :wink: