Of the 20 here, which ones do The Lord's Apologistointed use the most?
I think they are using Ad ignorantiam to death personally. This one is my vote.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

As a missionary, you followed that convoluted Biblical stuff "proving" the restoration of the church and the BoM. That was all pretty ignorant apologetic stuff which left me mortified years later that I could possibly be involved in its promulgation.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is the poster child for the ad ignorantium.

Ad hominems...especially against critics of Joseph Smith during his own time.

Argument from authority...constantly.

False Dichotomy...Hear this 'logic' in GC talks

Slippery Slope...especially regarding 'moral issues'

Special pleading and tautology...mental gymnastics in response to cognitive dissonance

This is not on the list you linked, but I think emotional reasoning should be at the top. You are supposed to avoid any attempt at any actual reason and trust the warm fuzzy feeling in your heart. Members ignore any and all evidence because they trust their feelings more than their brains. Children and investigators are *taught* that "Hey, you know that pleasant feeling you are experiencing? Whatever it is? Yeah, that. That is the spirit and it agrees with everything I just told you." Logic and evidence are always trumped by emotion. When presented with evidence that is contrary to the church the answer is something like, "Well, I don't know about that but I just know with every fiber of my being that this is true. I can feel it in my heart."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2011 09:18PM by pista.

Very good point. I wonder why it isn't on the list?

I used to feel guilty about this because my feelings were so fickle. I literally thought that God and Satan were at war within me and that Satan frequently won. Turns out I'm just human and have unreliable, irrational emotional responses to stimulus just like all people.

Oh, man. This one is so difficult--it's the end of any kind of productive conversation. Once any member of the fam finds themselves unable to answer my questions or explain any of the just plain weirdness of the morg, they resort to 'the feeling' as a fallback. God told them...so they are superior, and anything that goes against their feelings is wrong. What kind of thinking is this? It's enough to make me throw up my hands and give up any idea of having any sort of rational respect/conversation with them. Which ends up tainting the rest of the relationship.

Lol. Rant aside, I would definitely have to put this up at the top of the list. It's absolutely ridiculous.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the church is true. Everything hangs on the BofM.

This is such a logical fallacy, I wouldn't even know where to begin.


That's like saying if the Bible is true, then the Catholic church is the only true church.

Even if all the archaelogical claims of the BofM were born out to be true, it still wouldn't mean a thing as far as the church is concerned. It would prove that JS produced a book that matched the archaelogy, and that's it. It wouldn't prove that Brigham Young was a prophet, or that today's Corporation-led church is the only true church.

1. unstated major premise: they always assume faith is better than fact. It's implied in every argument, used as a way to invalidate lack of evidence and is the last resort to tell us it's god testing our faith.

2. Cherry picking evidence (not listed in the web page): they hone in on any small data that barely fits their premise while ignoring millions of data points invalidating their position.

3. Ad ignorantiam.

The hardest to spot (IMHO): affirming the consequent.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The hardest to spot (IMHO): affirming the
> consequent.

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

Am I getting this?

If the Book of Mormon is true it speaks of the Bible
The Bible is true
Therefore the Book of Mormon is true

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RPackham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The hardest to spot (IMHO): affirming the consequent.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
>
> Am I getting this?
>
> If the Book of Mormon is true it speaks of the Bible
> The Bible is true
> Therefore the Book of Mormon is true

Maybe a better example would be:

If the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, it will agree with the Bible.
The Book of Mormon agrees with the Bible.
Therefore the Book of Mormon is true.

Or: If the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, it will testify of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ.
Therefore the Book of Mormon is true.

Here are some more examples:

A church that is the "true church" will have prophets, apostles, etc.
The LDS church has prophets, apostles, etc.
Therefore the LDS church is the true church.

(Compare:
A true democracy will provide for equal rights in its constitution.
The Soviet Union provided for equal rights in its constitution.
Therefore the Soviet Union was a true democracy.)

A true history of ancient America would describe a complex civilization.
The Book of Mormon describes a complex civilization.
Therefore the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient America.
(Note: the same argument would apply to Solomon Spaulding's draft novel "Manuscript Found")
(Another note: this very argument is used by Rod Meldrum.)

Holders of the true priesthood can bless sick people and they recover.
Mormon elders bless sick people and they recover.
Therefore Mormon elders hold the true priesthood.

The only legitimate use of the premise "If A is true, then B is true" is either to show that A is false because B is false (that is called "denying the consequent") or to prove that B is true because A has already been shown to be true ("affirming the antecedent").

It pretty much sums up the entire history of the church.

You answer to your priesthood leaders, period.

A 12 yr old who jerks off and adolf hitler are both not going to the celestial kingdom, so their spiritual state is basically the same.

The whole premise of absolute truth on which the church is based, along with their dichotomous moral system of right and wrong.

The slippery slope may be similar to the false continuum in this case. But again, that relatively minor infractions of god's law will keep you from eternal salvation as unwaveringly as mass-murder.

The manipulative element of this one is that they appear to be restating what has been said, but with varying degrees of subtle distortion...Simon Southerton then noted they "incinerate" it; Will Bagley sarcastically described the act of "stuffing old clothes"; and elsewhere I recently I accused an ex-military and macho sort of using his creation as a punching bag...

The angry reactions were entirely predictable... Moving on...

Cabdriver philosophical observation: Logic is merely a tool--or toolbox, actually--for apprehending actual reality... It is not a reality in and of itself...

Consider what happens when one sits down against an expert poker player... That opponent will often make what appear to be illogical moves to conceal his or misrepresent his strength...

The only way to truly ascertain the actual reality is to pay to see the hole cards or get one's opponent to pay to see yours...

My advice on that one, as a result, is try to play for only small stakes as much as possible on one's quest for enlightenment...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My advice on that one, as a result, is try to play
> for only small stakes as much as possible on one's
> quest for enlightenment...

I just know that in the quest of apologists they place themselves in a position to reduction to truth assertion. Logic is great at dissecting their assertions.

They have the Ace-in-the-hole and they know it - faith. I just don't have the experience others here have with them.

Obfuscation for The Lord seems like such a fools errand for me personally. But people nowadays want to mix some logic with faith - thus the existence of apologists.

And here is another list of fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

and my favorite...a Taxonmoy of Fallacies http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2011 03:03PM by jw the inquizzinator.

I don't know the name of the fallacy but it's often used by mopologists regarding the BoM: Present "evidence" that even if they were valid wouldn't prove the conclusion. For example an Incan mummy, Aztec toy chariots or that the native americans had civilisations at all. They site the Incan or Mayan ruins as evidence of the BoM even though the two have no correlation whatsoever. We are supposed to pretend that evidence that points in one direction, and no further, is pointing in a completely other direction without limits.

Not sure where it is on the list or what the latin name for this is, but when apologists cite other "research", it's usually something along the lines of "As Hugh Nibley wrote..."
In other words, the recycling of in-house belief and misinformation feeds on itself, and while it may appear to be genuine scholarship, it simply perpetuates one big wank-fest.

If I understand what you are saying, this would probably fall under argument from authority and appeal to tradition.

This will be a very excellent list to use every time I read a GC talk. hee hee.