This is another case study of the point I've long made: A hallmark of the true believer is a lack of critical self-reflection. Critical self-reflection is the practice of viewing yourself and evaluating your beliefs, your attitudes, your actions, etc. from an objective perspective while employing the same standards of reason and evidence to which you subject others. If you've read Adam Smith, it is akin to his "impartial spectator."
Exactly. I think that true believers will not engage in critical self-reflection due to the fear of losing faith. They cannot risk losing faith, no matter what evidence arises. So, once again, Eric Hoffer's quote is pertinent:
“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.
It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.
Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.
While many chapel Mormons may, in reality, be True Believers in the Hoffer sense of the word, I don't think one can really tell until they've been exposed to the underbelly of Mormon history. That's the test. Once exposed to these facts (and by facts I'm referring to items that apologists concede occurred), what does the believer do? Engage in critical self-reflection, or find a way to "alter one's paradigm" sufficiently to allow the believer to retain belief regardless of the facts?
This is why I've come to believe that internet apologists are the real True Believers, in the hoffer sense of the word.