DiscussMormonism.com

Answering Attacks on the Church with Judo
By Gary C. Lawrence
Friday, November 11, 2011

How to answer the good reverend from Dallas?

... I opt for a different approach – judo.

Reframing and Differentiation

Practitioners of judo (not to be confused with jiu-jitsu) do not throw fists, but are taught to protect against such blows and use an attacker’s energy to their own advantage. We can do the same with an attacker’s verbal hits.

We call it reframing and it is to verbal judo what redirecting an attacker’s momentum is to physical judo.

When a critic attacks the Church, I look first for a logical weakness, an exaggeration, or an overstepping of the bounds of propriety.

Might work, but I think I will reframe his solution and offer Javanese mule kicks.

Your thoughts?

http://www.ldsmag.com/society/ideas-and-society/article/8919?ac=1

When a critic attacks the Church, I look first for a logical weakness, an exaggeration, or an overstepping of the bounds of propriety.

Note how truth claims are always deemed an "attack" when the facts are discussed. As far as a "logical weakness" goes, let's start with some magic rocks placed in a hat.

It's actually kind of funny to read a defender admit that he's not going to address the substance of something he deems an attack, but instead try to pick some nit that allows him to attack the "attacker" back and derail the original criticism of the church by either undermining the legitimacy of the critic, or else refocusing the discussion on some matter of form.

Sethbag wrote:It's actually kind of funny to read a defender admit that he's not going to address the substance of something he deems an attack, but instead try to pick some nit that allows him to attack the "attacker" back and derail the original criticism of the church by either undermining the legitimacy of the critic, or else refocusing the discussion on some matter of form.

What else would you have the defender do? Quote scriptures or conference talks?

.

This guy also has a book called Mormons Believe...What?!

In an advertisement for it, we are told that among the questions that are purportedly answered are:

Polygamy? Yes we did and no we don’t.

Really? How many eternal companions does Dallin H. Oaks have?

Christians? Why would we claim to be the original of something if we’re not at least the something?

This must be some of that mischaracterizing the issue, which he euphemistically calls "reframing."

False prophets? Yes, the Bible says there will be false prophets. We believe that implies there must also be true prophets.

I have read books that say that the Loch Ness Monster is a myth. I believe that implies that there must be real sea monsters.

Heaven? We do not believe we can work our way into heaven. Nor, at the other extreme, do we believe in E-Z Pass grace.

Instead, we teach absolute, paternalistic dependency on the Church as the retail middleman between you and God.

Power? The LDS Church does not seek political power. Besides, how could a church that has both Harry Reid and Glenn Beck as devout members ever agree on a strategy?

That must be why the Church lobbies the Utah legislature, and why the Church's attorneys have helped draft DABC regulations.

Ministry? Ask a Mormon bishop his occupation and you will never hear the word bishop.

And then ask a General Authority his occupation.

Government? The First Amendment is clear: no state church with both miter and gavel, and keep government’s mitts off religious activities.

Now we just have that pesky problem of defining "religious activities."

Weird beliefs? No more so than our belief that Jesus Christ raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, and healed lepers, the blind, and the deaf.

Who wants to bet whether this guy deals very much with secular criticisms?

This guy also has a book called Mormons Believe...What?!

Yeah, it's a sequel to his earlier book, Joseph Smith did...What?!

I would love for this person to join this forum and use his verbal Judo.

I have a feeling he'd last about five minutes before getting his ass handed to him.

What has redirecting an attack got to do with answering an attack?

Sounds more like artful dodging.

Gadianton wrote:I would love for this person to join this forum and use his verbal Judo.

I have a feeling he'd last about five minutes before getting his ass handed to him.

Dean Robbers:

Perhaps that is because his faulty analogy is not designed as a real strategy to refute criticism of his cherished beliefs, but rather is meant to impress the credulous bobbleheads who want to be reassured that there could not possibly be any valid, reasonable, evidentiary-based questioning of the faith-promoting narrative.

Darth J wrote:Heaven? We do not believe we can work our way into heaven. Nor, at the other extreme, do we believe in E-Z Pass grace.

Instead, we teach absolute, paternalistic dependency on the Church as the retail middleman between you and God.

LOL... it's funny 'cause it's true, and because of the inclusion of the word "retail."