This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Almost immediately as I began answering skepticism of the church, responses began pouring in. Some Ex-Mormons responses are helpful, sincere, and thoughtful–and I take each opinion to heart. But many Ex-Mormons have not responded constructively. Many have ridiculed, dismissed, and shown a close-minded attitude. But even though their responses may not seem helpful, there is still a reason why they feel compelled to respond at all. I believe I can improve my writing if I understand the reasons. Everyone in their heart wants to help people around them, even if they end up lashing out with hurtful comments. I try to find patterns in their behavior, find the reason behind it, and confront that reason.
Intellectual Laziness
One of the most popular articles on Conflict Of Justice is our list of 237 lies in CES Letter. I think this is because CES Letter is basically the Antimormon’s scout handbook for attacking the church right now, and this list of falsehoods is strong statement about it. Who wants to read something with 237 lies in it? Frankly, I think my other articles about logical fallacies in CES Letter are more effective at debunking it, but someone is more likely to click on an article about falsehoods. So there you go. But lots of Antimormons clicked on it and aren’t happy about what they read. Here’s how they responded (I censored the swear words ):
“I quit reading after the first dozen.” “237?!? Welp, I guess I’ve gotta go back to church.” “******, me too. My threshold was 236 errors, any more than that and I go back to church.” “Sorry, but you’re not rebutting claims, you’re proofreading and underlining things in red pencil. Give realistic answers to the issues or **** right off.”
(Ex-Mormon Reddit)
That last comment is a valid criticism. It’s true, a list with brief explanations won’t do–except that I did give full answers. I provided hundreds of links in huge bold references taking you to individual articles where I addressed each issue at great length. They are just being too lazy to go to those articles. A list of 237 falsehoods would be impossibly long if I explained each issue at length within the same page. They would quite reading before finishing the first falsehood much less the first dozen. So it’s a no-win situation. Either the article is too long to keep their attention span or they dismiss it because it doesn’t explain enough detail.
But most of the responses on that Ex-Mormon Reddit page reflect this criticism, and it seems to be the general consensus with that community. They eagerly promote CES Letter, which is over 80 pages and packed full of mind-numbing repetition, yet I get a failing grade because they were too lazy to click on links that provided full answers to their “concerns.” This shows the level of intellectual laziness that prevails in the Ex-Mormon Subreddit.
Logical Fallacies
Another Conflict Of Justice article addressed a graphic which was rife with deception and skewed facts about Joseph Smith’s polygamy. The graphic was from MormonInfoGraphics.com and appeared in 2015 version of CES Letter. I pointed out that the “wives” were organized in a confusing way that suggests a tangled web of relationships, along with a bunch of other manipulative portrayal techniques. But the main point was that Joseph Smith likely had no physical relations with any of the polygamous “wives” and most relationships were sealings for “eternity only.”
The Ex-Mormon subreddit responded to my analysis, and the first thing I noticed was their poor logic. Every single comment was pure logical fallacy (I censored swear words). The title of the Subreddit topic itself was unsophisticated and childish:
- “OMG the CES Letter is false! If Runnells would stoop so low as to jumble names around to look confusing, the church must be true! Thanks, Conflict of Justice, for setting me straight!” Falsehood– There was nothing in the chart’s analysis about the church being true. That was not the premise of my article. I never hinted in any way that the deceitful nature of this graph means the church is true. So this Antimormon is misrepresenting what the article was about. And secondly, the chart was not created by the supposed author of CES Letter. It says at the bottom MormonInfographics.com. I would assume that’s who made it. So that’s two falsehoods in this response already. Appeal To Ridicule – But notice how he makes it personal. “Thanks, Conflict of Justice, for setting me straight.” It’s between me and him now. I must have written this analysis to set him straight. Why does he take my analysis as a personal attack on his beliefs–specifically his evident belief that the church is not true? Well, whatever the reason, his belief is so fragile that he cherry-picks one minor part of my analysis to make my position sound ridiculous. From the sound of it, this may be a young teenager who has not figured out how to reflect on his own beliefs, compare them to other people’s beliefs, and communicate beliefs in a clear logical way.
- “‘Modern looking men. Not at all how they looked.’ Mic drop.” Argument From Ignorance – Same thing as the topic title: it cherry-picks a very minor part of my analysis and pretends like that is the crux of my position. And I have to assume that, again, this person feels like his fragile belief is threatened by my analysis. But I detect a subtle hint of sexism here as well. I pointed out that the women were likewise misrepresented in an incorrect form, so why did their response cherry-pick just what I said about the men? Why omit my analysis of what the chart said about women? Well, the entire Antimormon position of historical polygamy is that men were victimizing women. CES Letter says some really ugly things about men in the church, so perhaps this comment comes from seething disdain for patriarchy and masculinity. The implication is that the chart may have portrayed the men in a cartoon form but it got their character right. This is the highest-rated comment, which indicates this is the main issue for most people in that Ex-Mormon community.
- “*** ****! Now i have to throw my whiskey and coffee away, go buy some new undies and get my *** back an uncomfortable bench to hear the Lards good word.” Appeal To Ridicule – I guess somebody in the universe finds this sarcasm funny? Really funny. Well, let’s treat this likewise as someone who feels that their fragile beliefs are threatened by my analysis. I think they are really listing reasons why they want to believe this manipulative and dishonest: to drink whiskey and coffee, not wear garments, sit on an uncomfortable bench, and listen to the gospel. In other words, they refuse to listen to the Lord because it makes them uncomfortable and they are attached to their current behaviors. They are reminding themselves that for all practical purposes, such a sweeping lifestyle change is just not going to happen. It’s not about truth or honesty for them.
- “Conflict of Justice is my favorite apologetics blog!!! It is SOOOO bad. I love it. Have you seen the comics?”
Ad Hominem – Hey, what’s wrong with my comics? But this time, they don’t even bother cherry-picking a minor detail to misrepresent my analysis with. They don’t bother giving a real response; they just attack my character. I don’t consider myself an apologist, as I do not feel the need to justify my beliefs. I’m simply answering questions and defending my community and my faith. Laugh all you want. - “5 years ago momo’s were coming out of the walls to call me a liar for saying Joe had more than 1 wife. Now, she was 19 not 16!?! Now, I say he only had 1 wife and approximately 40 mistresses.” Strawman – Antimormons love to pretend like the church’s narrative changes over time. They pretend like the church denied polygamy and everything else, and now is forced to admit it. This comment issues a threatening warning, that as the church continues to ‘admit’ things, skeptics will push the narrative more and more Antimormon. Does this seem strange? What is this about? Well, it is an attempt to regain the narrative. My analysis of the chart did not only reveal dishonesty, it more importantly reframed the issue of polygamy in an objective and fair way. This person recognizes how this hampers the Antimormon cause, so they are reminding the rest of the community that each time a church member ‘admits’ something they need to use that as momentum to reframe the issue as one of ‘Mormon’ men victimizing women. Dehumanizing – But read this again, and this time notice how the comment dehumanizes church members. “momo’s were coming out of the walls.” Momo is a recent urban legend on the internet, of a woman with a hideous face who appears out of the shadows and persuades children to harm themselves and commit suicide. Yes, Antimormons have stooped to comparing ‘Mormons’ with this urban legend. It perpetuates the bigoted narratives about partiarchy and men in the church which fills Antimormon rhetoric. The message is that Ex-Mormons need to perpetuate this hateful narrative to protect children from ‘Mormon’ males.
- “Love this: ‘Assigns numbers to depersonalize the women.’ Oh yes, that’s so MUCH more depersonalizing than being one wife in a Mormon harem of 40 wives. Argumentum Ad Populum – Maybe you thought that the previous commenter didn’t mean to be dehumanizing with what they said. It’s understandable to call someone you don’t like names, right? Or maybe calling us “momo’s” was not actually a reference to the urban legend? Well, now we see that the next comment addresses dehumanization and excuses dehumanization that Antimormons perpetuate. Coincidece? I doubt it. The message is that it is not such a big deal to depersonalize “Mormon” women because “Mormon” men victimized them with polygamy. And they play a numbers game to make it sound more severe: one wife in a harem of 40 wives. So really we are the ones assigning them a number instead of a face. This framing removes all historical context, excuses intellectual dishonesty, and perpetuates irrational hatred for ‘Mormon’ men.
- “‘“Many” poisons the well’ Only if you think polygamy is abominable. Then you must think that five consecutive prophets were abominable, not counting JS himself.” Appeal To Consequence – Uh, what? The logic here is confusing. I guess this builds off the previous comment, which suggested a higher number implicates depersonalization. Five prophets of the church practiced polygamy, not counting JS (subtle depersonalization) himself! Oh, well then! Why didn’t you say so? But they point to my analysis which found that the chart’s title was manipulative because it called it “The Many Wives” of Joseph Smith. That is a manipulative title because “many” is the issue at hand that they are trying to prove. So, this comment is saying that “many” is a fair conclusion because five prophets after Joseph Smith practiced polygamy too. Doesn’t make sense.
- “What if we judged everything as evil if they get one thing wrong.” Slothful induction – No, the entire thing is wrong. Most were “eternity only” sealings and none included physical relations. And it’s not just one thing wrong, I pointed out 18 things wrong with the chart. But they are ignoring all that, remember? Here again, we have them making it personal. Did I judge “everything as evil”? Where did I do that? I simply analyzed the chart and pointed out manipulative or incorrect tactics. I didn’t call anyone evil. This touches on the persecution complex that many on Ex-Mormon Subreddit evidently have, where we “Mormons” are judging them all the time. We are just so judgey! While in reality they are judging us. It is a reminder that their narrative needs to be upheld despite revelation of flaws and dishonesty in the details. I think it may also be a message that it isn’t just one thing that reinforces their hatred for the church and church members. They think we are evil because they have a long laundry list of things that are wrong, and notwithstanding each item is shaky if examined independently, it is the collective nature of their ‘shelf items’ that makes their rhetoric so obstinantly hateful.
- “All of these responses/rebuttals are still terrible. Not much is really proven here. It’s more like they’re trying to point out obscure or technical errors that have little to do with the subject matter. Even if what they saying here is correct, it still looks terrible. Even with all these red markered “corrections” it all still boils down to the fact that Joseph Smith married a ton of girls/women. Some of his spouses were underage and married to other men. That’s something that is hard to change no matter how much spin you put on it. A pig with lipstick on it is still a pig. And Joseph was a *** of a pig.” Slothful induction – This is the same as the responses to my list of falsehoods in CES Letter. They ignore my lengthy answers to each issue brought up in CES Letter and pretend like I am just “red-lining” tiny errors. Well, in this case the Ex-Mormon reddit just stole the image from my article, removed the rest of the article that gave proper context, and did not provide proper attribution. So they would have to google search for my article, and I’m sure that is asking a lot. Honestly, I’m not shocked that they would steal my image and then complain that content is missing which they removed themselves. But it is not true that everything I brought up was “obscure or technical errors that have little to do with the subject matter.” False. The nature of Joseph Smith’s “marriages” is very much important. Evidence indicates he did not have physical relations. It is false to equate his relationship to the women’s marriages “to other men,” and thus incorrect to say he married women who were married. I find that important. But notice what this Antimormons says: “it still looks terrible.” How it “looks” is what is important to them. Not actual truth. And back to dehumanization.
- “’For eternity only’ which is somehow better.” Argument From Ignorance – Uh, yes. Yes it is better. If you hadn’t taken my image and stripped away the rest of what I said, you would see how it is better. But if there’s one thing Antimormons are good at, it’s taking things out of context. I don’t remember the last time an Antimormon has not taken a quote or Latter-Day Saint issue in context. It’s just not something they do, because it’s much easier to portray contradiction and deconstruct faith if you isolate something and twist it into something it’s not. But actually, I explained in great detail why “for eternity only” is better. It’s a totally different kind of relationship. It was literally a matter of Joseph Smith and a woman saying words in an ordinance and then possibly never seeing each other until the afterlife. I also find it interesting that the Ex-Mormon Subreddit so often attacks the church over LGTBQ issues. We aren’t open-minded about alternative relationships… but wait, aren’t they condemning us for these alternative relationships in the 1800’s? I guess making it “LGTBQ” is somehow better? So it’s pure hypocrisy.
- “Yeesh, these are so nitpicky and don’t contest the actual facts of the infographic at all.” Argument From Ignorance – I do not deny the pedant nature of my analysis. I was careful to examine it closely. I don’t see why that should be a problem for Antimormons, considering how they are so nitpicky about us. CES Letter nitpicks about polygamy being omitted from a Brigham Young teacher’s manual, for example. But yes, it does contest the actual facts. That earlier comment pointed out one of them: the girl was 19, not 16, when sealed. That is an actual fact. So again, they are cherry-picking one or two minor things and ignoring the basis for my position.
- “‘Many’ is not poisoning the well if it’s a ******* fact.” Objectivist Fallacy – Similar to the earlier comment. My analysis found that the chart’s title was manipulative because it called it “The Many Wives” of Joseph Smith. That is a manipulative title because “many” is the issue at hand that they are trying to prove. This time they say “many” is a factual descriptor rather than opinion, which is of course nonsense.
- “‘All plural wives were likely non-physical relationships.‘ That’s cute that you think that. I’d encourage you to read a book, or two, on the topic. Appeal to Authority – Well, I read hundreds of pages of legal documents in the Temple Lot case. Does that count? I read diaries and other original historical documents. But I suppose what this Antimormon means is I need to read a historian’s book. Pick one of the litany of Antimormon books at the top of Amazon and get spoon-fed their conclusions based on their research. Antimormons typically read some 100-page book by a hateful bigot or some website and think they are master historical authorities of the universe. This commenter obviously did not see my lengthy explanation of Joseph Smith’s relationship because they did not bother looking it up. They also obviously did not read the original historical documents like I did. That’s why they react so pridefully.
- “Is this real? It reads like a parody” Appeal To Ridicule – Antimormons are so adept at their “parody,” which is really just strawman characterization of the church, that they can’t recognize parody from real life. Rather than dismiss this as a foolish comment, I’m thinking this actually belies an important part of the Antimormon community. To them, “parody” and real truth is one and the same. There is so much sarcasm and nasty meming that you drown in it unless you accept water as air. If something is said in a snide, ridiculing tone then that is telling truth. So all I had to do was write my analysis in a snotty, facile tone and they wouldn’t have had to ask this question!
- “That is honestly what I thought. I googled the wives of Joseph Smith after listening to the CES letter for the first time and this is what I found. It’s evidently a sincere attempt at attacking the letter’s veracity. If I weren’t already out and saw this as the best defense to the letter, it would be a done deal.” Appeal To Consequence – This is the original topic author’s response to the previous comment. “That is honestly what I thought.” Again, sarcasm layered upon sarcasm. Obviously they didn’t see this and think it was a joke. He goes on to claim that if he weren’t already out of the church my analysis would have convinced him to do so. More sarcism? My head is spinning at this point, it’s hard to tell. It’s like Alice in Wonderland here. It sounds like he just saw this image–maybe didn’t even bother going to my site, just copied it from google image search–yet is suggesting that this is “the best defense to” CES Letter. How do you know if you haven’t even read a single word of the response? You’ve looked at one image. That’s it, and then took the image and posted it without proper attribution. And it sounds like nobody else read the content of my responses, because they are complaining that I didn’t explain things that I explained. Notice that they say they were “listening” to CES Letter. They didn’t even bother to read the Antimormon literature! They had to listen to it. That is the level of intellectual laziness going on. But at least it’s good to know my content is showing up at the top of google search results. I can’t complain about that.
- “It makes me want to add my own word bubbles with arrows pointing at his additions. My favorite, though, has to be ‘Blames Joseph Smith & Mormons for cultist predators today’ So, you agree with us that he was one? And yeah, if it’s a splinter group that arose from his practice of polygamy, we can absolutely blame him for it. (and them)” Guilt By Association – Of course I don’t agree he was one. That’s the whole point. But Antimormons frequently compare him to modern predators. They implicate Latter-Day Saint doctrine for modern-day predatory behavior using sheer inuendo rather than facts and logic. I believe that’s why this jumbled chart exists. It’s why they use images of “modern looking men.” Are there polygamous splinter-groups that claim Joseph Smith was a prophet? Sure, but it is incorrect to say they “arose from his practice,” because the practice was different than what these splinter-groups do and modern context is different. The chart is simply an ad hominem attack on Latter-Day Saints which ignores real issues and tries to portray us in the worst light possible.
Narrative Rather Than Truth
This is why in my responses to CES Letter I emphasize logical fallacies in clear, concise lists. Because Antimormon rhetoric is saturated with it. They rely on it, and it threatens their belief system when they get pointed out. Like one of those comments said, the important thing is that our history “looks bad.” They have constructed a narrative entirely on how it is framed rather than the actual content of the issue. I think a good faithful response should therefore address their frame, because when the dishonesty of their frame is revealed, then the information can be portrayed objectively and honestly, and then people can judge it for what it truly is. I am trying to figure out how best the Antimormon narrative can fall apart.
But because they are bound to this frame and tossed and turned by media portrayal. Antimormons have become masters of media manipulation. Church members are highly media literate by nature, because of our study of scripture and interaction with the temple, and when a member goes apostate they sometimes turn this media literacy to evil. It becomes their entire focus. So when I point out facts and debunk the details, many think their argument is still intact because I haven’t taken out the frame. But how am I supposed to do that? Can I purchase Fox News and all the other media corporations to make them stop printing articles associating us with polygamy? The dishonest frame will always be there, but what I can do is make the frame untenable to honest people by pointing out logical fallacies. Some of these fallacies will be small details, and some will be large important issues such as the nature of Joseph Smith’s relationships, but each one is an unavoidable piece of evidence that Antimormons are being dishonest and pernicious.
Are Other Ex-Mormons Honest? – Of course, yes. I have talked to Ex-Mormons who not only approach issues in an intelligent and ethical manner, but they reach out to me and help fact-check my content in a helpful way. I appreciate that. I understand that Reddit tends to be a low-level space for discussion. But it appears to be the most popular for Antimormons, and that’s why I address it. They respond to my articles the most. Some other forums that repond a lot are only slightly less bad. My hope is that they can take my criticism to heart and use it to improve discussion. I find that Reddit is structured in a way that encourages toxic group-think and excludes productive discussion. It doesn’t just contain intellectual dishonesty, but breeds real bigotry. The Ex-Mormon is really one of the worst hate sites on the internet I have ever seen.
As I have mentioned before, it is interesting that polygamy is such an important issue for these Antimormons. It’s been such a long time since polygamy happened, and once you actually get to the bottom of it, these were consensual adult relationships that weren’t all that bad. I truly don’t see why it’s such a problem. The Antimormons don’t fixate on today’s sexual slavery or the much-worse history of polygamy in other certain cultures. I think to a large degree it has to do with feelings of impotence from the Antimormons themselves. It’s not really about history, it’s about their own frustrations with romance and marriage.
Emotion & Intellectualism – But I have not found a good way to have a discussion about that, because it is such an emotional topic and Antimormons are so often freaked out by emotions. They decry my attempts to address emotional needs and feelings, because to them suddenly that means we are convincing ourselves that emotions are promptings of “the Spirit.” But their rhetoric is filled with emotion. It is entirely emotion dressed up as intellectualism. That’s what makes responding to them so difficult. The second I talk about emotion they close their mind, but if I talk about intellectual things they respond with pure emotion. Both need to be addressed in a pleasant, constructive, and self-aware way.