Droopy wrote:The more significant point I made is that the quote did not come from Helen, but from one of the most virulent anti-Mormon books of the time. Nowhere did Helen say these things in her book, nor did Helen ever make this claim.
Why do critics always manage to exclude problematic aspects of a historical claim such as this in their arguments against the Church or one of its leaders?
This seems to have a long and notorious presence in anti-Mormonism, whether EV or secular.
How convinced would one be by a rebuttal of an account unfavorable to L. Ron Hubbard, on the sole grounds that it came from a book described by a member of the Church of Scientology as 'one of the most virulent anti-scientology books of the time'?
If there is a considerable measure of truth in some of the criticisms of the beliefs and practices of the CoJCoLDS made by its opponents, now and in the past, one would expect that from time to time former members or others who have become acquainted with it by other means would write or speak about the CoJCoLDS with strong disapproval and condemnation. They will be, to that extent 'anti-Mormon'.
Now of course the mere existence of such disapproving accounts does not prove that the criticisms made in them and elsewhere are in every case true true. On the other hand merely using the label 'anti-Mormon' to suggest that their strong disapproval and condemnation of the CoJCoLDS can be dismissed as based on falsehood is just a trick with words:
1. X has written a book in which he or she expresses dislike and distaste for the CoJCoLDS, and recounts events and experiences which they claim have led them to feel this way.
2. But because X expresses dislike and distaste for the CoJCoLDS he or she is an anti-Mormon.
3. Therefore we can be confident that the alleged events and experiences are falsehoods or distortions.
A subsidiary but related problem is that if the critics' account of the heavy social pressures on church members is an accurate one, then one would expect that it would be quite rare for those members in good standing to say anything against the church or its leaders, especially those ranked as prophets. One would expect that, as in the case under discussion, such criticisms would only be recorded in the writings and speech of those who have left the CoJCoLDS. For some of those who remain in the church, it may be enough for an apologist to attach the label 'apostate' to such critics. Since however this labelling tactic lacks the specious appeal to 'fairness' implied by the use of 'anti-Mormon', it is unlikely to work on non-LDS.