DiscussMormonism.com

Hi MSJack,

In the ZLMB thread, you said

t's not just a numbers thing. Not only are Mormons smaller in numbers, but the critical voices often have the better arguments. Mormons tend to be stuck holding the bag on defending positions that are blatantly, obviously inferior or self-contradictory to just about everyone else. It doesn't matter how well a Mormon argues that position; it will always be the losing argument. And let's face it, no one likes to lose all or most of the time.

I wonder if you'd expound on that? Don't the same challenges exist with any religion when arguing with secularist viewpoints?

Simon Belmont wrote:I wonder if you'd expound on that? Don't the same challenges exist with any religion when arguing with secularist viewpoints?

To some extent, yes, but it's not just "Mormons v. Secularists" that I had in mind.

I was chatting with an apologist friend a few weeks ago about the launch of the Mormon Defense League. While I had very nice things to say about the site overall, I mentioned my disappointment that the site had taken to insisting that fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormons." I think this is an exceptionally weak argument and very easily shot down, and the site's Catholic-Lutheran analogy is quite silly.

My friend agreed with me, but basically admitted that the site owners are stuck arguing that fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormons" because that's the church's official position. They cannot take a more erudite and accurate position because to do so would mean saying that the church is getting it wrong.

Does that help give you a picture of what I had in mind?

I think this is an exceptionally weak argument and very easily shot down, and the site's Catholic-Lutheran analogy is quite silly.

It's a perfectly cromulent argument. Catholic-Lutheran simply has the advantage of time. Fundamentalists are in the same boat you claim the LDS Church is in. In other words, they're outnumbered and the LDS Church holds all the communications/media advantages with which to make their case.

MsJack wrote:
My friend agreed with me, but basically admitted that the site owners are stuck arguing that fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormons" because that's the church's official position. They cannot take a more erudite and accurate position because to do so would mean saying that the church is getting it wrong.

Does that help give you a picture of what I had in mind?

It is rather difficult to say just who owns the name Mormon. The catholic church has the same problem with some eastern catholic churches when it comes to the word catholic.

It would not be good if fundamentalist Mormons only use the term Mormon because it would be quite confusing for outsiders. And the main church would certainly get mixed up with the offshoot church. And this is the problem. And so, the site is right in making a clarification and so is the LDS church.

MsJack wrote: I think this is an exceptionally weak argument and very easily shot down, and the site's Catholic-Lutheran analogy is quite silly.

Well, if luther insisted on using the term catholic to describe his breakaway church it wouldn't be too silly. Right? There needed to be a distinction. Now if Luther would have insisted on using the term catholic, the wars between the catholics and protestants would have been even more bloodier then they were.

Let's zero in a little:

Mormons tend to be stuck holding the bag on defending positions that are blatantly, obviously inferior or self-contradictory to just about everyone else. It doesn't matter how well a Mormon argues that position; it will always be the losing argument.

I'm with ya until you get to state the position of a presumed outcome in every single case.

We all employ a little hyperbole fromtime to time.

bcspace wrote: cromulent.

5 extra credit points

Simon Belmont wrote:
I wonder if you'd expound on that? Don't the same challenges exist with any religion when arguing with secularist viewpoints?

Yes, all religions lose the argument against secularism. I'm glad you've finally come around.

Simon Belmont wrote:Hi MSJack,

In the ZLMB thread, you said

t's not just a numbers thing. Not only are Mormons smaller in numbers, but the critical voices often have the better arguments. Mormons tend to be stuck holding the bag on defending positions that are blatantly, obviously inferior or self-contradictory to just about everyone else. It doesn't matter how well a Mormon argues that position; it will always be the losing argument. And let's face it, no one likes to lose all or most of the time.

I wonder if you'd expound on that? Don't the same challenges exist with any religion when arguing with secularist viewpoints?

Simon, am I to understand by your question that you'd be in agreement with Ms. Jack's statement if it read like this:

"It's not just a numbers thing. Not only are Mormons smaller in numbers, but the critical voices often have the better arguments. Religions tend to be stuck holding the bag on defending positions that are blatantly, obviously inferior or self-contradictory to just about everyone else. It doesn't matter how well a religious believer argues that position; it will always be the losing argument. And let's face it, no one likes to lose all or most of the time."

Or was your point to Ms. Jack that her point (whatever its merits might be) about the upper hand secularists have in the arguments applies to all religions, not just Mormonism?

MsJack wrote:To some extent, yes, but it's not just "Mormons v. Secularists" that I had in mind.

I was chatting with an apologist friend a few weeks ago about the launch of the Mormon Defense League. While I had very nice things to say about the site overall, I mentioned my disappointment that the site had taken to insisting that fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormons." I think this is an exceptionally weak argument and very easily shot down, and the site's Catholic-Lutheran analogy is quite silly.

My friend agreed with me, but basically admitted that the site owners are stuck arguing that fundamentalist Mormons are not "Mormons" because that's the church's official position. They cannot take a more erudite and accurate position because to do so would mean saying that the church is getting it wrong.

Does that help give you a picture of what I had in mind?

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that since there can be differences between what the church leaders say and what apologetic responses might be, apologists are at a disadvantage. For example, one may have a valid and strong argument, but that argument may travel very close to crossing the line of "false doctrine."