Defenders - qualified for evangelism?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_malkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Defenders - qualified for evangelism?

Post by _malkie »

On another thread:
Yahoo Bot wrote:According to my long-established position, anonymous sources are almost always to be mistrusted and ignored, per historical method. Of course, there may be exceptions.

My rule applies particularly to defenders of the Church, as I can't imagine that an anonymous voice is qualified for evangelism.
...

Defenders, what say you?

If you have previously posted anonymously, will you now cease to do so, and expose your in real life identity so that you meet Yahoo Bot's standard?
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Defenders - qualified for evangelism?

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

I’d say it’s a terrible historical method. This is Bob throwing around the genetic fallacy so he can move around evidence he doesn’t like, strict propositional deductive logic shows that even false premises can lead to true conclusions. You don’t ignore what a source says based on anonymity, because that doesn’t prohibit a source from being correct, at least in partial.

This is Crocket we are talking about here, not exactly the most stellar guy to come down the Mopologetics pipeline.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Defenders - qualified for evangelism?

Post by _moksha »

Wasn't it C. Joseph Goebbels who said, "Bring your name to the table and let's see what we can add to silence you"?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_malkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Re: Defenders - qualified for evangelism?

Post by _malkie »

When I think about what YB is saying about anonymous defenders, I wonder what their concern is. I mean, it's not like they cannot expect their god to protect them, is it? ... Is it?

What do defenders have to be afraid of in going public?

What do they have to lose?

Have they reason to be afraid for their lives?

Might their businesses be affected by the sudden departure of non-member/critic customers?

Might they be shunned (perhaps divorced) as a result of their families and friends finding out that they had been closet believers.

Might they be refused admittance to the non-LDS temple to witness the marriage of their child?

Compared to many of the critics, there doesn't seem to be much of a downside for the defenders. Why do some of them remain anonymous?

[[by the way, in case anyone misunderstands me, I am NOT saying that defenders, or anyone else, should not have the right to determine, individually, what the pros and cons of exposure are on a message board.]]
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Post Reply