Ever hear or read something that, to others, is perfectly innocuous, but makes you shake and cough like The Police? I just read Boyd K. Packer's CES talk from 1981 entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect," and to a disaffected member, it sounds like a Hilterian proclamation at a Nazi function. I'm going to copy and paste it in its entirety; please read it twice. The first time, read like a faithful Mormon. The second time, read like a German hiding Jews in your attic...as a BYU professor whose research has contradicted the church's history. And buckle up. It's a bumpy ride.
No, wait, scratch that: I attempted to reformat the copy-and-paste from the pdf on the church website, and it's taking too bloody long, so I'm just going to post a link to the original.
Please go here.
Did you read it?
Oh...My...Goodness.
Really, what more can I say? That was the single least-veiled threat I've ever, ever read. It's quite literally terrifying, and honestly, it just kept getting more and more terrifying, the further I read.
It's a bit like my experience learning about the proverbial man behind the curtain: the rabbit hole goes so deep, I'm in a sub-basement of hell...and this talk was the welcome speech.
Good stuff, huh?
Showing posts with label circular thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label circular thinking. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Bless the Ex-Mormon Community!
A former-LDS friend found some notes on apologist tactics and shared it with me, and I just HAD to pass it along. Enjoy!
1. Apologists start with the end in mind, and sift through available evidences, picking and choosing what they will use to construct an argument to support their previously determined conclusion.
2. Ad hominem attacks - when frustrated, apologists will typically attack the character or credentials of a critic, trying in some way to minimize the perceived credibility of the arguments of the critic.
3. Straw man construction - destruction. Apologists will take several of the weakest aspects of the critics argument, glue them together as if they are the entire argument, then proceed to attack the straw man characterization of the argument. This approach is used to discredit the entire argument and is fallacious. It relies on a logic that says, if this little part may be refuted, the rest of the argument is null and void.
4. Improper usage of sources, often using secondary sources as primary sources - also using sources out of context.
5. The lynchpin - invalid epistemology. If all else fails, the "spiritual witness" card is pulled, saying that it all relies on faith, or "once you have a spiritual witness, nothing can take that away." They fail to address the inherent circular logic or infinite regress that that causes. Why would a burning in the bosom, or feeling of peace be an indication of truth? Because the scriptures tell us so. How do we know the scriptures are telling us the correct way to find the truth? Because they are from God and God wouldn't lie to us. How do we know the scriptures are from God? Because the scriptures tell us so. Thus starts the endless loop.
Indeed. Better put on the armor of God if you're going up against a Hugh Nibley-type from FAIR! Good luck!
1. Apologists start with the end in mind, and sift through available evidences, picking and choosing what they will use to construct an argument to support their previously determined conclusion.
2. Ad hominem attacks - when frustrated, apologists will typically attack the character or credentials of a critic, trying in some way to minimize the perceived credibility of the arguments of the critic.
3. Straw man construction - destruction. Apologists will take several of the weakest aspects of the critics argument, glue them together as if they are the entire argument, then proceed to attack the straw man characterization of the argument. This approach is used to discredit the entire argument and is fallacious. It relies on a logic that says, if this little part may be refuted, the rest of the argument is null and void.
4. Improper usage of sources, often using secondary sources as primary sources - also using sources out of context.
5. The lynchpin - invalid epistemology. If all else fails, the "spiritual witness" card is pulled, saying that it all relies on faith, or "once you have a spiritual witness, nothing can take that away." They fail to address the inherent circular logic or infinite regress that that causes. Why would a burning in the bosom, or feeling of peace be an indication of truth? Because the scriptures tell us so. How do we know the scriptures are telling us the correct way to find the truth? Because they are from God and God wouldn't lie to us. How do we know the scriptures are from God? Because the scriptures tell us so. Thus starts the endless loop.
Indeed. Better put on the armor of God if you're going up against a Hugh Nibley-type from FAIR! Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)