Do apologists get lost in trivialities?

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Or is it a well orchestrated maneuver of avoidance or to obscure reality?

[_CSA]

It is often in the minor details of things that we find truth!

[_DarkHelmet]

I think it's intentional. They like to debate specific anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, like horses, rather than debate the fact that the overall big picture that the Book of Mormon paints looks nothing like ancient America, and is really quite rediculous. But if they tackle one issue at a time, they can show how the debate is still out on that one issue (because maybe horses = tapirs) and since they stood their ground on that one issue it means the Book of Mormon is true.

It's like in Star Wars when people point out how George Lucas made a goof when Han Solo used the word parsec to refer to speed instead of distance. But some Star Wars fans have come up with convoluted theories on how Han could possibly be using parsec correctly in that instance. Their theories are a bit of a stretch, but if they were like Mormon apologists they would say that since the latest scholarship suggest that Han may have used the word correctly then maybe Star Wars really is true.

[_bcspace]

Do apologists get lost in trivialities?

No, but antiMormons do such as their head in hat fiasco.

[_Some Schmo]

I sense that they like to lead people down rabbit holes in order to distract them from the obvious.

For example, someone can be arguing with them about one thing, and if they happen to use a word in an unconventional way that doesn't fit the apologist's rigid view of the word, they can jump all over it to avoid the larger issue they know they're clearly wrong about in the first place. If they can convince onlookers that their interlocutor really did use the word in a dubious way, they think it also discredits them on the original point and they can feel like they won the whole fight.

I think it's more about assuaging their own dissonance and insecurities than anything else, really.

Of course, part of it is that they just aren't very clear or honest thinkers generally.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Do apologists get lost in trivialities?

No, but antiMormons do such as their head in hat fiasco.

If the question is about how Joseph Smith translated the golden plates, then how is mentioning the hat and seer stone trivial? Now if someone starts arguing about the type, color, shape and condition of the hat then you may have a valid point, but I don't think I have heard apologist, critics or even the Lord's anointed in this day and age say that this method of translation did not exist.

I am sure both apologist and critic can get caught up in the minutia of an argument, but it seems as if the apologist easily gets stuck clamoring about minor details which seem to hinder productive discussion.

[_stemelbow]

both sides get lost in trivialities from time to time. It depends on the person and circumstance at times. Its hardly an exclusive LDS thing. just look around for crying aloud. Half the things here, at least, are critics getting lost in trivialities.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

both sides get lost in trivialities from time to time. It depends on the person and circumstance at times. Its hardly an exclusive LDS thing. just look around for crying aloud. Half the things here, at least, are critics getting lost in trivialities.

I am beginning to think it is a defense mechanism for the brain. When confronted with debate throwing up trivial items in defense may also block some of the cognitive dissonance a person may feel from dealing with the larger issue at hand.