Physics Guy wrote:Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of asserting that a statement is false because the person who stated it is a bad person. Simply asserting that a person is bad is not argumentum ad hominem. So for example to say that the Book of Mormon cannot be authentic because Joseph Smith was a con man would be argumentum ad hominem, but to say that Joseph Smith was a con man because he faked the Book of Mormon would not be ad hominem at all. If you want to stop people from calling Smith a con man in any way then you can appeal to politeness but logic won't help.
Moreover, if a form of argument is a fallacy that just means that it can never be a watertight logical proof. Fallacious arguments are often downright stupid arguments, but not necessarily. Sometimes a logical fallacy can still be a good argument. When the crocodile says it will carry monkeys across the stream without eating them, the fact that the statement was made by a crocodile doesn't strictly prove that the statement is false, but it is a good reason for the monkeys not to believe the statement. Suggesting that Joseph Smith might have lied about the Book of Mormon because he had an established career in the inherently dishonest business of scrying for treasure would indeed be argumentum ad hominem, but it's still a fair point to make that you can't just rule out of court.
I agree, and I'd add that it's Mormons themselves who have established the truth of Joseph Smith as a prophet partially based on his virtues. If we had to get TBMs to argue within a realistic framework of evidence, we'd hardly ever get a conversation. In fact, Mormons are flat out taught not to discuss anything, and make their points by the logical fallacy of bearing testimony. When arguing with someone whose worldview is, to put it charitably, so far different from our own, we can get things going by targeting the internal consistency of their position.
If Niadna agrees with this statement:
s1 - "God's model of calling prophets includes the possibility of calling a total dirtbag who operates as a dirtbag in his capacity of a prophet, including by revealing some of the most sacred doctrines of the Kingdom entirely for the sake of satisfying his own immoral desires"
Then we're clearly having the wrong conversation. Otherwise, this may just be the quickest way to get from point A to point B due to the mountains of evidence available.
Sound outlandish? Consider this similar statement, which I think most people would agree is true:
s2 - "In science, a dirtbag scientist may research an idea for no other reason than to gratify his evil desires, and he may turn out to be right."
