Simon Belmont: This is what "quote mining" means

[_Simon Belmont]

I didn't say it was. Are the people that follow those organizations (instead of belmontism) less intelligent that you? I am sorry that your belief system crumbles under minor scrutiny but I am, truly, interested in your thoughts about people that "come to different conclusions" than you do...

That's not my business. I don't attack their faith.

[_Darth J]

I see Bob Ross is at it again, ... requiring that an elderly man who was a fourth-generation Mormon, who claimed to be a living prophet of God, who had been a General Authority for decades, had been a missionary, wrote a history of the Church, and was employed in communications for the Church, give honest answers about the church he leads on a live television interview.

Who was also well into his 80s. I don't care who you are, when you get that old it's easy to miss a beat. Give the guy a break.

See, it's not that President Hinckley gave a misleading answer to a direct question that President Hinckley clearly understood. It's that the Prophet was senile.

I bear you my solemn testimony that in these last days, the Lord has chosen a man who cannot function competently enough to answer softball questions in a friendly interview when explaining the teachings of the Church to the world.

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it marvelous?

[_Simon Belmont]

See, it's not that President Hinckley gave a misleading answer to a direct question that President Hinckley clearly understood. It's that the Prophet was senile.

I didn't say that. I said it is unreasonable to expect perfection from anyone, let alone someone well into their 80s.

[_Darth J]

See, it's not that President Hinckley gave a misleading answer to a direct question that President Hinckley clearly understood. It's that the Prophet was senile.

I didn't say that. I said it is unreasonable to expect perfection from anyone, let alone someone well into their 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes).

[_Simon Belmont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes).

If you are suggesting that I've committed this fallacy (I haven't, of course), which two choices have I given?

[_Darth J]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes).

If you are suggesting that I've committed this fallacy (I haven't, of course), which two choices have I given?

The only things one could have expected from Gordon B. Hinckley were either the answers he gave, or perfection.

[_Simon Belmont]

The only things one could have expected from Gordon B. Hinckley were either the answers he gave, or perfection.

You, of course, would only accept perfection, being someone who holds a strong and everlasting grudge against the church. Any church leader who slips up or makes a mistake is berated by you and is further evidence for you that the church is not true.

[_Darth J]

The only things one could have expected from Gordon B. Hinckley were either the answers he gave, or perfection.

You, of course, would only accept perfection, being someone who holds a strong and everlasting grudge against the church. Any church leader who slips up or makes a mistake is berated by you and is further evidence for you that the church is not true.

In this example of begging the question, Simon is implying the unproven premise that President Hinckley repeatedly made mistakes about specific aspects of LDS teachings.

I wonder what other substantive mistakes Simon Belmont could point to among President Hinckley's answers, lest we mistake Simon's assertions for ad hoc excuse-making.

I also wonder why Simon Belmont thinks that expecting an honest, forthright answer is "demanding perfection."

And I need "further evidence" that the Church is not true to approximately the same extent I need "further evidence" that Harry Potter is not a real person.

But I don't mind Simon Belmont constantly saying I "hold a grudge." People who weren't invested enough in the Church to go on a mission just wouldn't understand.

[_Simon Belmont]

In this example of begging the question, Simon is implying the unproven premise that President Hinckley repeatedly made mistakes about specific aspects of LDS teachings.

Yawn. Same old, same old.

I wonder what other substantive mistakes Simon Belmont could point to among President Hinckley's answers, lest we mistake Simon's assertions for ad hoc excuse-making.

Another favorite among your type of people is when he said something about not emphasizing the man/God doctrine.

I also wonder why Simon Belmont thinks that expecting an honest, forthright answer is "demanding perfection."

Because you demand that an elderly man categorically say the right thing every time. It's unreasonable.

And I need "further evidence" that the Church is not true to approximately the same extent I need "further evidence" that Harry Potter is not a real person.

Consider it proven, then.

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Harry-Potter/

But I don't mind Simon Belmont constantly saying I "hold a grudge." People who weren't invested enough in the Church to go on a mission just wouldn't understand.

Better to have not served and remained faithful than to have served and forsaken.

[_Darth J]

In this example of begging the question, Simon is implying the unproven premise that President Hinckley repeatedly made mistakes about specific aspects of LDS teachings.

Yawn. Same old, same old.

Then why don't you stop doing it?

I wonder what other substantive mistakes Simon Belmont could point to among President Hinckley's answers, lest we mistake Simon's assertions for ad hoc excuse-making.

Another favorite among your type of people is when he said something about not emphasizing the man/God doctrine.

Which is also disingenuous, since Joseph Smith said it is "the great secret" we need to understand if we want to know what God is.

I also wonder why Simon Belmont thinks that expecting an honest, forthright answer is "demanding perfection."

Because you demand that an elderly man categorically say the right thing every time. It's unreasonable.

I see that your reverence for the Prophet is every bit as pious as your reverence for the Atonement.

See, when Hinckley repeatedly makes the same misleading statements about the same subject, it isn't an accident.

I am sorry to learn that you feel that simple honesty is an unreasonable demand to have for a Prophet.

And I need "further evidence" that the Church is not true to approximately the same extent I need "further evidence" that Harry Potter is not a real person.

Consider it proven, then.

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Harry-Potter/

This is an intriguing parallel, Simon. How could J.K. Rowling have known?

You are well on your way to making an apologetic argument that the Harry Potter series of books and films are true stories.

But I don't mind Simon Belmont constantly saying I "hold a grudge." People who weren't invested enough in the Church to go on a mission just wouldn't understand.

Better to have not served and remained faithful than to have served and forsaken.

I suppose that's one way to avoid the issue of one's purported devotion to a belief system being consistent with the sacrifices one is willing to make for it.