Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_sock puppet]

For 30 points, explain how insinuating that 14 million Latter-day Saints have reached different conclusions than Darth J does not suggest that among those 14 million who have access to LDS.org, they all got on, extensively researched LDS teachings, and determined that Church teachings means something other than what is meant by the plain words in front of their faces.

Wait...Darth...I need you to clarify something for me.

What is it you are actually stating here? Are you concluding that those who are aware of LDS.org and are still faithful members have simply not bothered to study what you have studied at length, and that they would all reach the exact same conclusion you reached if they did?

I'll leave that to be answered by Darth J. But perhaps instead of Darth J actually stating the conclusion as you have worded it, he might be asking Simon if he is really implying that all 14 million Latter-day Saints have researched that topic on LDS.org to the same extent as Darth J has and all 14 million have reached conclusions different than Darth J. If so, that is a wildly outlandish thing for Simon to be insinuating, isn't it?

[_Droopy]

It's like you're the Bob Ross of anti-Mormonism.

Actually, he's the Johnnie Cochran of anti-Mormonism, always trying to make that glove fit on O.J.'s hand.

Quite typical, to be sure, of his kind.

[_Darth J]

It's like you're the Bob Ross of anti-Mormonism.

Actually, he's the Johnnie Cochran of anti-Mormonism, always trying to make that glove fit on O.J.'s hand.

Quite typical, to be sure, of his kind.

That's right, Droopy. O.J. Simpson's defense attorney was trying to make a piece of incriminating evidence fit his client's hand.

Who will ever forget that closing argument: "If I make it fit, thereby tying O.J. to the crime scene, you must acquit"?

Your learned insights into the American legal system never cease to impress me.

[_Droopy]

That's right, Droopy. O.J. Simpson's defense attorney was trying to make a piece of incriminating evidence fit his client's hand.

Who will ever forget that closing argument: "If I make it fit, thereby tying O.J. to the crime scene, you must acquit"?

Your learned insights into the American legal system never cease to impress me.

Cochran was using O.J. as a bit of a proxy for the real object of his ideological racialism, Geronimo Pratt, who never made it out of the slammer riding on the greased skids of Cochran's meandering sophistry.

Too bad, isn't it?

[Guest]

For 30 points, explain how insinuating that 14 million Latter-day Saints have reached different conclusions than Darth J does not suggest that among those 14 million who have access to LDS.org, they all got on, extensively researched LDS teachings, and determined that Church teachings means something other than what is meant by the plain words in front of their faces.

Wait...Darth...I need you to clarify something for me.

What is it you are actually stating here? Are you concluding that those who are aware of LDS.org and are still faithful members have simply not bothered to study what you have studied at length, and that they would all reach the exact same conclusion you reached if they did?

Liz, I know you want to relieve Simon from the fatuousness of his own statements, but that doesn't mean you have to deliberately misconstrue what is happening. Please do not insult the intelligence of people reading this thread by trying to invert Simon's fallacious statements and make it as if I am making some argument about people looking at the Church's website.

Simon says (ha ha!) this:

It's not as if the other 14 million members of the Church don't have access to LDS.org -- in fact most probably do, and most come to very different conclusions than you do

This was Simon's assertion, not mine. It is a combination of the bandwagon fallacy and argument from ignorance.

The bandwagon fallacy component of this statement is that if most of the 14,000,000 alleged members of the LDS Church researched church teachings and came to different conclusions than I did, it must mean that their conclusions have superior truth value on the basis of there being more of them. That is the only reason he would make this statement.

The argument from ignorance components are as follows:

1. It assumes without proof that I am the only person who is familiar with LDS teachings and has found them to be occasionally contradictory to each other (Simon's statement above is in reference to his assertion that when I have pointed out the lack of internal consistency in certain LDS teachings, those teachings are only "seemingly" contradictory).

2. It assumes without proof that among the "most" of the 14M members that the LDS Church claims on paper to have, the component members of that "most" do not find the Church's teachings to be occasionally contradictory.

3. It assumes without proof that this "most" of the alleged membership have really thought this through, and not put it on the shelf.

4. It assumes that the "most" of the alleged 14M members are in fact believers, that they actually have a great deal of familiarity with the teachings of the organization that counts them on its membership rosters, and that they self-identify as Latter-day Saints (census data from various countries indicate that people who self-identify as Latter-day Saints are substantially lower than the members the Church claims to have).

And Liz, your question suggests that I don't know what it is like to be an active Latter-day Saint who really believes this stuff. Just because you are anxious to bail out Simon, on even the most banal of points, does not mean you have to adopt his mentality.

[Guest]

That's right, Droopy. O.J. Simpson's defense attorney was trying to make a piece of incriminating evidence fit his client's hand.

Who will ever forget that closing argument: "If I make it fit, thereby tying O.J. to the crime scene, you must acquit"?

Your learned insights into the American legal system never cease to impress me.

Cochran was using O.J. as a bit of a proxy for the real object of his ideological racialism, Geronimo Pratt, who never made it out of the slammer riding on the greased skids of Cochran's meandering sophistry.

Too bad, isn't it?

Droopy, thank you for your earnest efforts to derail this thread.

I appreciate your attempt to distract from making a fool of yourself by saying that Johnnie Cochran was trying to do the exact opposite of what he was trying to do with the glove in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. It's too bad that, this being the only court case you apparently have ever heard of, you can't even keep track of the most important details. Perhaps it is your public school education that inhibits your from being able to read the tabloids accurately.

I will not even try to guess why you think that anyone cares about Johnnie Cochran's ideology, or about anything that Johnnie Cochran did during his lifetime.

In the meantime, since you have inserted yourself into this thread, I happily encourage you to stay on topic and share any and all examples you might find on this board where you feel I have misrepresented the teachings, policies, or practices of the LDS Church.

In undertaking this task, please do not be fooled by Simon Belmont's example. Argument by assertion does not count. I mean actually taking something I said and showing why it is a lie.

Thanks for dropping by, Droopy!

[_Droopy]

I appreciate your attempt to distract from making a fool of yourself by saying that Johnnie Cochran was trying to do the exact opposite of what he was trying to do with the glove in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Uh...Johnnie Cochran was trying to show that the glove did not fit O.J. The laughably tragicomic end of that attempt was televised to the world for all to see. So he was trying to make the glove appear not to fit. Sorry about the faulty language, but yo might have asked me for a clarification rather than assume stupidity (the classic tactic of a typical insult-trolling leftist when confronted with a typo or hastily written phrase)

I will not even try to guess why you think that anyone cares about Johnnie Cochran's ideology, or about anything that Johnnie Cochran did during his lifetime.

You abject ignorance of this key aspect of Cochran's character, personal philosoophy, and legal career fits nicely with your abject ignorance of the doctrines and teachings of the Church, not to mention most sociopolitical subjects of serious concern to intellectually serious people.

In the meantime, since you have inserted yourself into this thread, I happily encourage you to stay on topic and share any and all examples you might on this board where you feel I have misrepresented the teachings, policies, or practices of the LDS Church.

Simon already mentioned virtually every thread you've ever made in which you attempt any kind of analysis of Church teachings. The next time you do it, if I'm around, I'll demonstrate the problem right away, so it doesn't sink into the archives and become a big, time consuming research problem.

This excremental pile of a forum isn't worth all that effort.

[_Darth J]

Uh...Johnnie Cochran was trying to show that the glove did not fit O.J. The laughably tragicomic end of that attempt was televised to the world for all to see.

See, the thing is that you said he was trying to make the glove fit: "Actually, he's the Johnnie Cochran of anti-Mormonism, always trying to make that glove fit on O.J.'s hand."

But you're right, it was indeed laughably tragicomic when the prosecution failed its attempted in-court demonstration, which Cochran was able to exploit in his closing argument in a case where his client was found not guilty. I think it goes without saying that defense attorneys fail miserably when they get their clients acquitted of murder charges.

I will not even try to guess why you think that anyone cares about Johnnie Cochran's ideology, or about anything that Johnnie Cochran did during his lifetime.

You abject ignorance of this key aspect of Cochran's character, personal philosoophy, and legal career fits nicely with your abject ignorance of the doctrines and teachings of the Church, not to mention most sociopolitical subjects of serious concern to intellectually serious people.

Yes, Droopy, because Johnnie Cochran had the same importance in my life as membership in the LDS Church. I remember fondly the days of wandering around Italy for two years, trying to convince people of the truthfulness of Johnnie Cochran's personal philosophy.

And if there is anything that intellectually serious people are concerned with, it is the life and times of Johnnie Cochran.

In the meantime, since you have inserted yourself into this thread, I happily encourage you to stay on topic and share any and all examples you might on this board where you feel I have misrepresented the teachings, policies, or practices of the LDS Church.

Simon already mentioned virtually every thread you've ever made in which you attempt any kind of analysis of Church teachings. The next time you do it, if I'm around, I'll demonstrate the problem right away, so it doesn't sink into the archives and become a big, time consuming research problem.

This excremental pile of a forum isn't worth all that effort.

I am pleased to see that you are impressed with ipse dixit.

Nevertheless, thank you for your immediate surrender of the issue. Heaven knows what this thread would have looked like if you had babbled relentlessly about a straw man like Simon Belmont already has.

Did you feel the Spirit testifying to you about the beauty and power of the Atonement when a fellow Latter-day Saint argued that Jesus could not have felt our physical pains unless He had had a vagina that was penetrated by trillions of penises?

[_Kishkumen]

This thread is an excellent example of how potentially harmful inept apologetics can be. I have rarely seen such feats of apologetic bumbling.

[_Yoda]

And Liz, your question suggests that I don't know what it is like to be an active Latter-day Saint who really believes this stuff. Just because you are anxious to bail out Simon, on even the most banal of points, does not mean you have to adopt his mentality.

Did it possibly occur to you that the reason I asked is because I know that you know what it is like to be an active LDS who really believes this stuff, and that is why the assertion made no sense?

I guess not.