D&C 127:2

[huckelberry]

I wouldn't necessarily think that critics feel guilty. I haven't seen any evidence of that anyway.

Regards,
MG

It’s not that critics feel guilt—I agree there’s no evidence of that. I’m describing how sometimes honest inquiry can be reframed as coming from a place of guilt, which is a different thing entirely.

I find an alternate view or two in MG's post. Perhaps Joseph Smith is so earnest and committed his church and message must be true. I do have some memory of feeling guilty for discovering g doubt. My first encounter was way back in junior hi when I found Bennetts Nauvoo book. The feeling of guilt helped me decide Bennett ( and Howe who was on the same library shelf) were full of lies. Judging Bennetts truthfulness was a bit out of reach for me at that age. Even now if I believed the Book of Mormon real history I could doubt those sources. Guilt would help of course.

The presentation of Joseph Smith earnest self expression feels like arm twisting,, here you must believe these tales or be a bad person in spiritual darkness. ,,,Yea right. To say it nicely.

[malkie]

I wouldn't necessarily think that critics feel guilty. I haven't seen any evidence of that anyway.

Regards,
MG

It’s not that critics feel guilt—I agree there’s no evidence of that. I’m describing how sometimes honest inquiry can be reframed as coming from a place of guilt, which is a different thing entirely.

In any case, how relevant is it whether or not critics feel guilt (presumably about criticising Mormon beliefs)?

Should Mormons feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others? Should missionaries feel guilt about trying to lead people away from their previous religion, or non-religion?

I can only see special pleading as distinguishing between the two sides in this respect - it's OK for Mormons because they have the truth.

[Limnor]

Huck, I was thinking more along the lines of how there seems to be a pre-established script where doubt = guilt. I don’t know if it’s intentionally built in, but it definitely shows up in how some questions are “reframed.” And yes, the arm-twisting seems to be part of that approach.

And Malkie’s right: If guilt is the pre-scripted response when a critic questions Mormonism, why doesn’t the same logic apply when missionaries question the beliefs of others? That approach only works if the conclusion is present before the conversation even starts. Yeah, that’s basically special pleading—one standard for insiders and a different standard for everyone else.

[Limnor]

Judging Bennetts truthfulness was a bit out of reach for me at that age. Even now if I believed the Book of Mormon real history I could doubt those sources.

I read those sources with healthy skepticism myself, but I evaluated them for myself. I didn’t have the cultural pre-label of them as untrustworthy.

I have heard from a couple of acquaintances who expressed something akin to that method: “of course they are negative, they are “antis.” It was fascinating to me that the label was considered a real thing. It’s as if that label is a meaningful explanation rather than a conclusion.

[MG 2.0]

It’s not that critics feel guilt—I agree there’s no evidence of that. I’m describing how sometimes honest inquiry can be reframed as coming from a place of guilt, which is a different thing entirely.

In any case, how relevant is it whether or not critics feel guilt (presumably about criticising Mormon beliefs)?

Should Mormons feel guilt about criticising the beliefs of others? Should missionaries feel guilt about trying to lead people away from their previous religion, or non-religion?

I can only see special pleading as distinguishing between the two sides in this respect - it's OK for Mormons because they have the truth.

I don't know that I would say that missionaries sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is teach the gospel and let others recognize...or not...the truth, as they (the missionaries) see it, as it is taught/shared with them.

Missionaries are not "leading people away" from their previously held religious beliefs. Converts become converted to the fullness of the Gospel through their own search for truth as they listen, study, pray, and do their own thinking.

You make it sound as though folks that are baptized into the LDS Church are cattle being prodded into the chute.

You might give them some credit.

Why would missionaries feel guilty for sharing their 'truth'?

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

I don't know that I would say that ex-Mos sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is point out factual/logical inaccuracies of Mormon claims and let others recognize...or not...the problems, as they (ex-Mos) see it, as it is understood by them from independent research.

Ex-Mos do not "lead people away" from their Mormon religious beliefs. Newly minted ex-Mos become enlightened that the Mormon "fullness of the Gospel" has been misleading, through their own search for truth as they listen, study, and do their own thinking.

MG 2.0 makes it sound as though Mormons have not been prodded into the chute of believing Mormon claims.

You might give ex-Mos some credit.

Why would ex-Mos feel guilty for pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of Mormon claims?

[MG 2.0]

I don't know that I would say that ex-Mos sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is point out factual/logical inaccuracies of Mormon claims and let others recognize...or not...the problems, as they (ex-Mos) see it, as it is understood by them from independent research.

Ex-Mos do not "lead people away" from their Mormon religious beliefs. Newly minted ex-Mos become enlightened that the Mormon "fullness of the Gospel" has been misleading, through their own search for truth as they listen, study, and do their own thinking.

MG 2.0 makes it sound as though Mormons have not been prodded into the chute of believing Mormon claims.

You might give ex-Mos some credit.

Why would ex-Mos feel guilty for pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of Mormon claims?

Any particular reason you left out "prayer"?

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I don't know that I would say that ex-Mos sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is point out factual/logical inaccuracies of Mormon claims and let others recognize...or not...the problems, as they (ex-Mos) see it, as it is understood by them from independent research.

Ex-Mos do not "lead people away" from their Mormon religious beliefs. Newly minted ex-Mos become enlightened that the Mormon "fullness of the Gospel" has been misleading, through their own search for truth as they listen, study, and do their own thinking.

MG 2.0 makes it sound as though Mormons have not been prodded into the chute of believing Mormon claims.

You might give ex-Mos some credit.

Why would ex-Mos feel guilty for pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of Mormon claims?

Brilliant!

[MG 2.0]

I don't know that I would say that ex-Mos sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is point out factual/logical inaccuracies of Mormon claims and let others recognize...or not...the problems, as they (ex-Mos) see it, as it is understood by them from independent research.

Ex-Mos do not "lead people away" from their Mormon religious beliefs. Newly minted ex-Mos become enlightened that the Mormon "fullness of the Gospel" has been misleading, through their own search for truth as they listen, study, and do their own thinking.

MG 2.0 makes it sound as though Mormons have not been prodded into the chute of believing Mormon claims.

You might give ex-Mos some credit.

Why would ex-Mos feel guilty for pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of Mormon claims?

Brilliant!

Yeah, he copied almost everything I said through the lens of a non-believing materialist. I suppose that's why he left out ONE WORD that I think might have meaning.

The word "prayer".

I don't necessarily fault him for that because I'm guessing that in his...your...worldview, prayer isn't part of the 'learning process'.

That's an important consideration in looking at the 'meat' of what he said and what I said originally.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I don't know that I would say that ex-Mos sit down and "criticize" the beliefs of others. What they do is point out factual/logical inaccuracies of Mormon claims and let others recognize...or not...the problems, as they (ex-Mos) see it, as it is understood by them from independent research.

Ex-Mos do not "lead people away" from their Mormon religious beliefs. Newly minted ex-Mos become enlightened that the Mormon "fullness of the Gospel" has been misleading, through their own search for truth as they listen, study, and do their own thinking.

MG 2.0 makes it sound as though Mormons have not been prodded into the chute of believing Mormon claims.

You might give ex-Mos some credit.

Why would ex-Mos feel guilty for pointing out the factual and logical fallacies of Mormon claims?

Nice mimicry. You have to wonder why some don't recognize the inadequacy of using one's conclusions as their starting assumptions.

Even mg's most recent post does this-- he assumes the concept of 'prayer' should be universally accepted as valid, which he states condescendingly. Prayer is a meaningful concept for him, but assuming his type of prayer is so important and valid that it should be considered by everyone is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of assuming one's conclusions.

So, why come here to a place where logical fallacies are openly and frequently recognized and discussed, and then repeatedly lead with a logical fallacy?

Adjacent to this is the recent admission that restoration religions are not unique, and that Christ's teachings and atonement are available to all. As a result, the special nature of Mormon 'truth' becomes generic within the context of religious belief, rendering the assumption of lds superiority even more fallacious. This is when we can expect the argument that 'yes, all restoration religions are good, but ours is better.'

To that argument....

Orwell allows the word ‘equal’ to slip slowly in the novella [Animal Farm]: from denoting true egalitarianism when Old Major first pronounces ‘all animals are equal’, it starts to become qualified by ‘buts’ and political propaganda.

This is evident when Squealer, the mouthpiece for Napoleon and his chief propagandist, explains to the rest of the animals about the new arrangements for the running of the farm, whereby the weekly meetings (in which all animals would be allowed to have their say) are being abolished, and all decisions would thereafter be made by ‘a special committee of pigs’:

‘Comrades,’ he said, ‘I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?’

In other words, ‘I know what’s best for you, better than you do yourself.’ ...

https://interestingliterature.com/2021/ ... -analysis/

"I know what's best for you, better than you do yourself" could be a mental gymnast's motto. It simultaneously embraces the fallacy, the arrogance, and the futility of the position.