Here's one of my favorites...

It always comes after the discussion of all the Church's dirty laundry that's now & has been available on the Internet for some time & when the TBM ultimately asks, "So do you believe everything you read on the Internet?"

My response...

So what if "God" actually created the Internet to assist lazy learner Mormons in making it easier for them to know what they think they know is demonstrably false & absolute nonsense?

BTW...frequently I get the "deer in the headlights" look...most of the time they just say "this conversation is over" & walk away...other times they just walk away!!!

Any other user-friendly questions, suggestions or ideas please feel free to share.

Am still searching for that magical "silver bullet" question that prompts their curiosity to want to know more.

Since Mormonism's claims ain't true wouldn't they want to know after all???

Or so it seems to me...

> Since Mormonism's claims ain't true wouldn't they
> want to know after all???

For the overwhelming majority of Mormons the answer is absolutely not.

In fact, your question gives humans in general vastly more credit than they deserve. People prefer to be comfortable than to know the truth.

Words don't have the logical depths of thinking. They are just words. No mantra or magic questions take people out of their comfort zones in my opinion.

Truth for many people requires thinking time, ponderizing was the concept a leader gave it.

You don’t think the Socratic method is still effective at getting people to think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2023 12:31AM by schrodingerscat.

It's easy to induce momentary discomfort; it's a lot harder to make it stick.

An example: I was talking with a member friend many years ago about the church and I said something like, "In the world I've grown to know, angels don't visit young boys in their bedrooms at night."

He reacted as if it were pie in the face. But he quickly recovered with one of the worst justifications: "But what if it did happen?" And that's all it took to assuage the discomfort. He's still an active member.

Mormonism is all about the stress and anxiety of balancing cognitive dissonance. It really doesn't take much to trigger another bout of tharn. You could simply start talking about panties and get em to freeze up.

Here's mine. This actually happened to me.

After my divorce from gay husband, I met with the bishop. I had one question. I wanted a temple divorce. "The church doesn't do that anymore", he said. "why not?" I asked. "Because it will all be worked out in the eternities." he replied. "So, my ex is going to turn straight then?" And there it was. Then, hand wringing, and, finally, a feeble "I don't know".

He actually said he didn't know twice. The thing about eternities is that same answer.

About four years ago when my daughter was getting married, I ended up talking to three women who I know quite well. Every one of them said something about it is too bad my "husband" chose to be gay or live the gay lifestyle. I've found they seem to think they know better than I would.

I told them all there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle and he didn't choose to be gay. We had longer discussions, but I know that none of them had a change of heart. Maybe when their kids come out as gay they'll take a second look.

I always get that look of they know better than I do. I haven't talked to a bishop about the boyfriend/husband being gay since we got married. Nobody here knew until he left. I chose to have as little interaction with the leaders as possible once we were married and I refused to ever talk to them again and, like I just said, they didn't know until he left.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2023 11:18AM by cl2.

There is one thing I have learned about Mormanism and most Christian religions is general.

They only believe what is spoon fed them, nothing else. That applied to me for the first 2 decades of my life, then as the years passed I learned how to feed myself.

I have several in-laws, co-workers, and people I deal with on a regular occassion who are gay. But to me they are a person, nothing else, I interact with them no differently than anybody else. Now it never occurs to me that they are gay, unless they bring up the subject, of which they never do, so it does not matter to either of us.

Religion is way past its prime, and will probably never grow up.

If the profit told you to kill me would you do it ?

"Why do you believe in a religion that is demonstrably untrue?"


HH =)

(To my father): Why did you put the church first and me last?

Ouch

Many many hugs for you.

I like to ask why Masonic stonecutting symbols are stitched into the temple garments. I didn't know they were Masonic symbols when I was an active temple garment wearing Mormon. I think there are still many Mormons who don't about the origins of the symbols. It wasn't something I learned in the temple prep class. From there ask if they know what else was copied from the Masons for the temple ceremony. If they bring up nonsense about ancient temples, tell them there is no evidence of that. Freemasonry originated with the stonemasons' guilds in the Middle Ages.

I also like to ask why Emma didn't join Brigham Young and "the saints" on their trek to Utah. Why didn't she trust Brigham Young? And why did she start The Reorganized CoJCoLDS she said was more aligned with what Joseph started, minus the polygamy?

I fear that when one brings up a rhetorical question like that, Mormons disengage. Only someone who is already well on the way out would entertain doubts about such things.

I like to ask those questions because they're not challenging the doctrine. You can talk in circles about doctrine but not so much why stonemason symbols are stitched into garments. Same with questions about LDS history. I don't think it was ever explained to me why Emma stayed behind.

I asked two separate TBMs those questions. Neither had an answer.

Anyway, the topic was to list favorite questions to ask TBMs. Those are two of mine. What are yours?

I don't use questions or statements when dealing with Mormons. I just listen.

Usually that leads nowhere, but sometimes I find that someone trusts me enough to confide her doubts. Then I might ask a few questions--not rhetorical ones to make a point, just giving the person a chance to explore and clarify her thinking. My goal is to give the person a safe space in which to reach her own conclusions.

Few Mormons have safe places. That's part of the control apparatus.

I generally don't try to engage in discussions about church topics with my TBM friends. I avoid it. But sometimes when they spout off about conference talks, etc., I don't see anything wrong with asking them a question or two. It's surprising how little they know about church history. I don't want them to feel uncomfortable so I quickly change the subject if I can sense that they are distressed. They can go home and do some research in the comfort of their home.

I wish someone had asked me basic questions about church history when I was TBM. I knew so little about the Mormon church when I was a member.

Oh, there's nothing "wrong with asking a question or two." My impression is that most questions simply reinforce Mormons' persecution complexes but I'm sure that's not always the case.

Do you really, honestly believe American Indians are the descendants of Jewish/Hebrew immigrants?

There are about a dozen questions in my article "How to Stump a Mormon" at

http://packham.n4m.org/stump.htm

More are at "Unasked questions about Mormonism"

http://packham.n4m.org/unasked.htm

Another good one: JS taught in "Teachings of the Prophet JS" that one way to identify a false revelation is that it contradicts a previous revelation. I can think of quite a few- can you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2023 11:00PM by RPackham.

If you combine Mormon doctrines on "authority" with the D&C 121:37ff teaching that the priesthood authority will be withdrawn if improperly used, the Mormon cannot come up with an explanation - see http://packham.n4m.org/authority.htm

Truth by deduction and induction and not revelation. Seen as Lucifer's way to truth.

I would pay good money to see this in Open Mic Sunday:

Person goes to the mic and says limited into then starts Holy Ghost crying... 8 second pause.... Continue with blubbering beginnings of standard intro to testimony.... Start relating an experience where someone mocked them and took their scriptures... blubbering and snot bubbles. blow nose in the tissue... pull a few extra tissues to tell audience the story is just getting going.. relate testimony of likening scriptures to ones self. Just a few days ago you had strted rereading the BoM. more watershed tears and pausing. And you got to the Laban story. Now relate it back to the person who mocked and took scriptures.... You heard a voice that the one who took you scriptures was to have the same fate as Laban..Blubber through the monologue you have internally to not kill this guy even though the feeling was powerful and overwhelming and you still are convinced you did not listen to the spirit of the Lord. Cry about how unworthy you are of blessings of following the Spirit and that you know you are unworthy and that you have not been able to take the sacrament because you didn't kill that guy. Abruptly end it in the name of JesusChristAmen! Then sit back on the front row... Bonus points to say you know that story will help someone here today and that you would be remiss if you didn't share.

Just look them in the eyes and tell them you don't believe it.

my uber TBM dad would turn into a 5 point buck when I would tell him that as a kid.

I’ve never asked this, but I’d be interested in the answers:

Do you honestly believe that God wanted Joseph Smith to marry teenage girls and other men’s wives?

Why did Mormons discriminate against blacks for most of their history by denying them admission into the temple, when women never needed the priesthood to enter a temple?

How do you explain Joseph and Brigham ‘marrying’ their followers wives after sending them overseas on missions, when God clearly condemned that practice of polyandry as adultery in both the 10 Commandments and the Law of the Priesthood (D&C 132:61-65)?

>> How do you explain Joseph and Brigham ‘marrying’ their followers wives after sending them overseas on missions, when God clearly condemned that practice of polyandry as adultery in both the 10 Commandments and the Law of the Priesthood (D&C 132:61-65)? <<

They weren't following anything coming from god, they were following their own desires.

Neither of those questions is "Socratic." They are rhetorical.

You still haven't figured that out.

With a Socratic question, you are still expecting an answer.
I’m still expecting an honest answer from a Mormon, to both questions, for once.

You really, really don't know what you are talking about.

“With a Socratic question, you are still expecting an answer. You want the student to say, "Well, because ..." With a rhetorical question, you are not expecting an answer. At least, not an answer other than a rebuttal of the premise behind the question, like, "That's not what I said!"

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/70287/is-this-a-rhetorical-question-a-socratic-question-or-something-else#:~:text=With%20a%20Socratic%20question%2C%20you,That's%20not%20what%20I%20said!%22

Google is your friend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2023 12:09PM by schrodingerscat.

Are there people your students?

Exactly.

Socratic method occurs in the context of established trusting relationships. It cannot and does not function with strangers or acquaintances, so the appearance of random yahoo with a fierce countenance and a hidden video recorder immediately ends any possibility of a Socratic conversation.

Assuming to the contrary that a trusting student-teacher relationship already exists, the first stage is not for the teacher to pose a question of any sort but for the student to present her ideas. The next stage is for the teacher to ask the student questions about her analysis encouraging the recognition of contradictions and flaws. These are not, it must be added, factual propositions but logical queries. The final stage is for the student to adjust and correct her own statement to render it more logical and coherent.

What Socratic method is decidedly not is some yahoo appearing out of nowhere and posing a question that is really a factual statement and then demanding that the student reply to those facts.

Of course, The Cat won't get this. He'll go write back to his ambushes and pretend he's like Socrates.

And by the way, Sir Cat, your link leads to an internet bulletin board with anonymous posters.

Do you really think that's authoritative? Do you post there?

I was responding to the OP’s Q in the subject, ‘What's Your Fave Q 2 Ask TBMs 2 Elicit That "Deer In The Headlights" Look?’

AKA ‘Gotcha Question’

Which may be a Socratic question if you expect an honest answer and don’t let the other person off the hook with repeating cliches to provoke them to actually think about what they are saying.

You still don't get it.

You obviously don’t get it.
I was answering the OP, not you.

Actually, Mr. The Cat, that's not quite true. You were replying to your own reply to me. It's easy to see if you pay attention to the indentations.

On the larger point that you sporadically want to engage and then want not to engage, I don't care. This is a public bulletin board and not your personal blog.

That said, it is entirely permissible to point out that one poster is wholly incapable of learning anything from anybody, be it words and their meanings, philosophies, science, politics. . . it's really a pertinent question: why must you constantly repeat the same erroneous arguments when dozens of people have tried to straighten you out?

And no, that is neither a rhetorical nor a Socratic question.

>> ...when women never needed the priesthood to enter a temple? <<

Women get the priesthood through their husbands.

Yet single women enter the temple daily, so, kinda blows that lame excuse for racist discrimination.

Does God still answer prayers?