http://ldssmile.com/2015/03/06/4-things-anti-mormons-dont-want-you-to-know/

This is cute...

I gotta say, as apologetics go, it's really kind of cute. I especially liked this new logical fallacy, "The Big List Fallacy."

It seems the author is arguing that because anti Mormons can cite a massive volume of evidence against the church, it is little more than a ploy to show, um, there's a lot of things wrong with the church. We win by tiring them out. That's a really novel approach. Mormonism is now true because we found so many ways to demonstrate it's not true.

I get a kink in my brain just considering the depravity of this foolishness. I guess I can only suggest he invite me to his wedding after I offer him 100 good reasons why he shouldn't marry that woman who killed her last 99 husbands.

For those lazy exmo's who can't be bothered reading the whole thing, here is a short summary:

1. There is a big list of reasons why I am wrong, which I could not be bothered responding to, therefore I am right.

2. You haven't met anyone who can explain how I could be right, but you haven't met everyone, therefore I am right.

3. What I say doesn't work for you, but you don't represent the entire population, therefore I am right.

4. If you believe I am wrong then people will call you intellectually and emotionally honest, but that is a form of flattery, therefore I am right.


And here is an even shorter version for the exmo's that are even lazier:

1-4. I am right no matter what.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2015 06:31AM by The Invisible Green Potato.

That's not exactly what it is. The goal of apologists is not to prove the church is true (or that they're right), it's only to show that there's a POSSIBILITY it could be true, so they can continue to believe. Even if the possibility is 0.001%, that's all they need. That's why they make some arguments which seem ludicrous to those of us who assume they're trying to prove the church is true. But really, their arguments can be as ludicrous as they want, as long as they're actually possible.

For example, the Book of Mormon anachronisms like horses in America, apologists say it was a horse-like animal so Joseph just said it was a horse. This seems ludicrous if you're reading it under the idea that apologists are trying to prove the church is true (and rightly so, it wouldn't make any sense). But when you look at it from the perspective of them just trying to show there's a POSSIBILITY the church is true, it's not quite as ridiculous. Something like that could feasibly happen. It might be very, very, very unlikely, but as long as it's not impossible, it's good enough for apologists.

I probably haven't explained myself very well, and this isn't targetted specifically at you, as it seems most of us think apologists are trying to prove the church is true, which they're not. Their agenda is to counter arguments made against the church or provide alternative theories (however unlikely or far-fetched, as long as they're a tiny bit possible) that can justify their decision to continue believing.

Possibility like this? Ding ding ding....

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

Poin0 I am not sure why you brought up the term "apologist". I would reserve that word for someone a bit less amateur than whoever made the post the OP linked to.

poin0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... The goal of
> apologists is not to prove the church is true (or that they're right), it's only to show that
> there's a POSSIBILITY it could be true, so they can continue to believe. Even if the possibility is 0.001%, that's all they need. ... But really, their arguments can be
> as ludicrous as they want, as long as they're actually possible.

Which shows that they do NOT understand the way evidence works, or Occam's Razor.

While I don't disagree, every religion has to find a way to deal with the mounds of evidence against it.

One could argue that apologists (for everything, not just Mormons) understand evidence very well... which is why they strive so hard to obfuscate it.

There's no religion that can prove itself 'true.' The best its apologists can hope for is to either prove that it is possible (also difficult and rarely accomplished, in my opinion); or, increasingly more common, attempt to provide alternative explanations for the evidence against it.

This is a parody, right?

I got banned from LDSSMILE.COM. One comment, and one I thought was very respectful (but well-argued and evidence-backed), and I got banned. Probably made the cog-dis come bubbling up in a painful way.

He suggests "anti" Mormons, otherwise known for their PRO truth stand on most isssues make use of flattery to lure the faithful to their spiritual doom.

Flattery? Seriously?! If the writer has been in attendance for ANY length of time he has been the recipient of hundreds of sermons congradulating him for being such a valiant spirit in the preexistance and being accounted worthy to be born into the incredible blessing of a temple worthy family that because of their amazing faithfulness will be headed straight to the very EXCLUSIVE Celestial Kingdom which will most definitely EXCLUDE anyone and everyone who fails to be as amazingly, marvelously faithful.

And how do we know you're so darned special? Well, duh! You're smart enough to not be deceived by Satan's wiles like those foolish apostates who left just because they had "integrity" issues. Probably bitter, more like, when somebody hoovered up all those tasty little mini sausages before they could have a couple at the last church pot luck and they just couldn't get over it.

I just thought it was beyond irony the author would point to flattery as one of the devil's devices for getting one OUT of the Mormon church. Truth be told, empty flattery is one of the precious few rewards for being and staying IN the Mormon fellowship.

It wasn't funny enough to be satire. However, I couldn't resist clicking on his General Conference meme blog, which has so many meme's that scream "backfire", "derivative" and "cult" so that's my morning funnies....
http://ldssmile.com/2014/04/06/inspirational-spiritual-humorous-memes-lds-general-conference/

He obviously has a stalker-like affection for Holland.

So now LDS Living has picked this up and it is plastered all over FaceBook. I hate how they throw around the term "anti-mormon" like is is a sexually transmitted disease.

http://ldsliving.com/story/78255-4-argument-tactics-anti-mormons-dont-want-you-to-know-about

I like how they use the word "tactics" like WE'RE the ones with notebooks and talking points putting people through training and then going door-to-door trying to convince Mormons their cult isn't true. Pffttt.

So far, I haven't run across a mormon that has the courage to ask me why I left, let alone what I do or don't believe and why.

On my mission, many moons ago, I was faced with what I considered at the time, 'anti-mormons', (they were really just a group of christians trying to help a new member come to their senses and leave moronism). The experience of facing the real truth about Mormonism left me speechless and I was reduced to repeating my testimony over and over.... I know this church is true.... I am so embarrassed now. The Journal of Discourses kept coming up which I had never read or had access to. Crazy...

Dang. I didn't even know that I didn't want them to know that. I guess I'm guilty of making it "look like" there's a mountain of evidence against the church. Man. Can't get away with anything, can we? The anti-anti-mormon police are hot on our trail.

Oh, but in all fairness, I kinda have to give them number three. To a certain extent. It took me a long time to accept that just because I hated the mormon experience by about middle school but pretended otherwise, it doesn't mean everyone else is pretending.

There are people who TSCC works for. Especially for the social aspects. And that's fine. It's just not fine that it's so difficult for those who are pretending to come clean and not be vilified.

I think the argument made in statement three is a "red hearing" trying to take away focus on a true complaint against the church. The real problem with mormonsim isnt that its bad for everyone, its that mormons believe and actively teach that mormonsim is GOOD FOR EVERYONE. The churchs stated goal is to make the entire plantetary population 100% mormon. thats why the church has a massive missionary force in place. The church is wrong there. Being a mormon isnt the only good, healthy or happy way for people to live. It takes extreme arrogance of a small, American-centric judeo Christian offshoot to think its got the only true way to be happy.

The author is onto us and our blatant use of "ecological fallacies".

I assume that he meant "logical fallacies", but it's such a stretch for a tbm to use logic that he subconsciously couldn't bring himself to use the term.

procrusteanchurch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The author is onto us and our blatant use of
> "ecological fallacies".
>
> I assume that he meant "logical fallacies", but
> it's such a stretch for a tbm to use logic that he
> subconsciously couldn't bring himself to use the
> term.

No, he actually meant ecological fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

...and expertise in countering anti-Mormon claims.

For newbies: more than a decade ago, I pointed out to Jeff Lindsay that the "limited geography theory" of BOM locations is contradicted by the LDS doctrine which holds the Noachic flood to be literal and global. Jeff's response to me was to theorize that maybe the flood wasn't global after all, but rather just local to Noah & Co.'s region.

I replied to Jeff that if he didn't believe that the flood was global just as it's described in the Bible and affirmed by LDS church leaders since the beginnings of Mormonism, then there was no point in him defending the BOM as authentic either. On this basic, very important issue, Jeff had no credible explanation or defense. His only response was to question the veracity of one Mormon doctrine in order to defend another one. So Jeff's assertion that "anti-Mormon" arguments can be resolved using logic, the scriptures, etc., is not valid.

In Jeff's article cited by the LDS Smile guy, he recounts two incidents where Mormons came to him with "anti-Mormon" arguments---one, a recent convert, and the other, a couple who was leaving the church. Jeff didn't let on whether those people remained in the church or decided to leave it after Jeff shared his wisdom and intellect with them.

What other cult could come up with "shaken-faith syndrome"?

I hate the effing book!

I know I've said that before. Funny thing is, still hate it!

The writer pointed out four things he seemed to believe were tactics used to confuse and overwhelm Mormons unprepared to respond intelligently to legitimate points concerning the overall truthfulness of their churches' claims; any claim, pick one.

But in the entire article I did not see one thing listed that I specifically would not want a Mormon "to know." I think he is trying to suggest that so-called "anti" Mormons are being devious when trying to point out LOGICAL FALLACIES with a believer of Mormon doctrine, but Im not sure.

You may come away from this question thinking English is not my first language, but I'll ask anyway. According to this article, what exactly are we trying to keep a Mormon from knowing?

>> To those individuals who do believe in their hearts but due to various fallacious tactics by others, might be having issues reconciling those issues with their minds. <<


... might be having issues reconciling those issues ...


That's a lot of issues!


Then again, one might eventually develop issues about having issues reconciling those issues with their mind.

Hey man, I got issues over my issues about my issues.

Where does it stop? It's like an issue wormhole ... oh no!!

Hey, did you know if you say 'issue' enough, people will hand you a hanky because they'll think you're sneezing.

That's what I got out of this blog. Thanks for sharing it Dodger. Fascinating!

Zzzzzzzz.

The term "anti-mormon" annoys me. It's part of a protective persecution complex that immunizes them from outside information. The fallacy there is that a true "anti-mormon" hates or discriminates against Mormons. I don't know any "anti-mormons" and I never have. I know plenty of people who are "anti-mormonism" though. As has been pointed out already, if it is "anti-mormon"to point out the holes in Mormonism to a Mormon. Then Mormon's must be "anti-everyone" because they devote huge resources to field a sales force to go out and challenge everyone else's beliefs or lack thereof. It is maddening.

Do you think that they would take a medical drug based on this logic?

"Well, this drug seems to have harmed a whole heap of people and they've come up with a really long list of reasons that it's dangerous. But it would take too long to work through those list of objections so hey, why don't you try it and see if it works for you?"

Since nobody has pointed it out yet, I will assume the honors of mentioning the painfully obvious, ironic fact that engagement in fallacy number one (the big list fallacy), or related versions thereof, appears to be THE main tactic of FARMS, Daniel Peterson, and related others. It seems that ALL those people do is work to produce a volume of work large and complex enough that no one person could work through it all.

In talking about the "big list fallacy" it gives a link to
something by Jeff Lindsey. This has to be comedy gold, right?

All I could see was he is annoyed by four things he believes non-Mormons DO. I *STILL* don't know what four things he thinks non-Mormons don't want Mormons to KNOW. As in, " *Four things* they don't want you to know."

Either he didn't frame his essay with logic in mind, or I'm simply confused. Is it possible he reflexively uses the very tactics he accuses others of engaging in, namely deliberately creating confusion to distract from the real issues? In this case I think he knows there are no answers to the so-called critics that are both satisfying AND honest, and must content himself with a dizzying array of nonsense.