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.
Equality is becoming a confusing concept in popular culture. Some are using it as a wedge to drive people away from the Church of Jesus Christ. When we consider that Lucifer appealed to equality in the pre-existence when he dissented from God’s plan, we can start to see glimpses of Lucifer’s vision of slavery in today’s philosophies. We are gifted with bodies and brains that are capable of understanding intellectually why Satan’s plan is a bad idea. We can therefore discern the logical fallacies in the cult of equality that is taking over popular culture and Antimormon circles.
Contradiction Strategy
| See also: | Use Of The Contradiction Strategy |
One common argument I hear is “Jesus accepted everybody.” You may say, “Okay fine, I won’t judge what you do,” but then we are still considered evil because we teach our children moral standards and refuse to baptize people who are not repentant.
Curiously, many Antimormons who use this argument do not believe in Jesus and repudiate Christianity as a source of horror in the world. So is their obsession with finding contradiction in our belief really about accepting people? They often say something like, “Your holy book says this but you are doing this.” Once the cognitive dissonance is established in our minds, they then insert their own ideology as a superior alternative. Saul Alinsky wrote about how to attack people by holding them to their own standards regardless of what standards you may actually hold. This attack is effective because we have high standards and we all fall short of these standards. The moment we doubt, we open ourselves up to having perverse philosophies replace them. Then, when we likewise cherry-pick and believe false contradictions about the gospel we likewise take the name of Christ in vain: Jesus was this, or Jesus was that.
Is this how Jesus or the prophets spoke to people? No. The incredible power of this logical fallacy is evident by the fact that Satan himself used it. After his 40 day fast, the devil came to Jesus the second time and pretty much told him “The scriptures say the Messiah will be caught by angels whenever he falls. So if you really are the Messiah, prove it right now and jump from the pyre!” Jesus then shifted the narrative to point out Satan was appealing to pride. “Thou shalt not put God to the test.” If Jesus had jumped from the pyre, that would have been creating a problem and then demanding God to solve it, and it would have been motivated by pride.
Antimormons likewise subtly manipulate our belief structure to set up a strawman argument and then they attack us for contradicting that belief. Often, they take some temporary policy from Old Testament times and attack us for not practicing it today. Always try to see the incorrectness of their claims about what we believe. Usually they are trying to portray a contradiction that isn’t really there. Do not allow them to dictate our beliefs and identity. Also, feel free to point out the hypocrisy of their arguments. They demand we accept sinful behavior, yet do they accept our behavior?
Accusation Of Hypocrisy
Tu quoque – This is when someone thinks he is not guilty because the person accusing him is guilty of the same behavior. They call church members hypocrites because we are the guilty party. It’s like a child saying “I know you are but what am I?”
This is a fallacy that I see some use to alleviate guilt from sin that had led them to apostasy. It gives them an excuse to keep avoiding responsibility for themselves, and it reinforces a deluded worldview where this behavior is either normal or entirely the fault of the church. It makes them feel like the church community trapped them in an unfair position where they couldn’t possibly win, and thus leads to deep resentment.
Consider this tweet:
Blaming ‘Mormons’ For Their Problems – It is sad and abhorrent if families reject people for leaving the church. But consider what this Antimormon wrote in the preceding tweet of this thread: “Merry Christmas to those struggling to justify Joseph Smith marrying 14-year-olds and other men’s wives…” If someone attacks your beliefs and constantly berates you like this, how accepting would you be? They are going to throw nasty insults and then cry about not being accepted?
You are evil, disgusting, creepy people… why are you rejecting me?
They often play victim. It’s a ridiculous, but many Antimormons adopt this pathetic mindset because popular culture celebrates being a victim. Instead of critical reason, they swirl in a vicious circle of character attacks and negativity, and then cast themselves as victims when church members react defensively.
My experience has been that people who leave the church either leave on good terms with their families or they angrily berate their families for their religious beliefs–in which case they are effectively rejecting their families, not the other way around. But they will still claim their families are doing the rejecting when the only thing the family did was continue to believe what they believe. Antimormon rhetoric in general tends to project character problems onto church members which the Antimormon won’t admit about himself.
The tu quoque fallacy is also used by hostile Antimormon media to provide cover for Antimormon elements. For example, a newspaper may claim church leadership is not racially diverse enough, but when you take a look at that newspaper’s own staff you see much much less racial diversity than you find in church leadership. Hypocrites. Or a newspaper may attack the church for “excluding people” with its moral standards, yet what about the secular morality preached in the same newspaper? It turns out to be very strict and intolerant of other belief systems. Often, the media narrative attacking the church actually describes Antimormons, and the media itself.
If the media is unable to make up some kind of excuse for Antimormon misbehavior, they either ignore it or appeal to equality–suddenly everybody commits this behavior sometimes and we all need to strive to be better. The tu quoque logical fallacy thus enables the media to shift the issue away from the Antimormon misbehavior, abstract it into a hypothetical game, and present an impossible argument: how could you possibly prove that church members wouldn’t behave this way in a similar situation if it never happened? Or they just fabricate news. The classic example of this is Mark Hofmann. The media called him “Mormon bomber”–the opposite of what he actually was. Why does the mainstream media call a guy who hated the church to the point of committing terrorism a “Mormon?”
Avoiding Logic By Using Abstraction
Every year, it seems like people on social media provide less original thought and more mindless memes and slogans. The same meaningless string of words or image across millions of Facebook accounts. If you are really lucky, you will find some New York Times reporter to explain what it actually means, but do you find an actual logical basis for it? There are many meaningless slogan that people use as an excuse to avoid critical thinking. Antimormons likewise abstract their arguments until they become emotional slogans that redefine words to fit their narrative. If “2” is something good, and “3” is something that you want people to believe, just make 2=3! Simple! Or if “2” is something bad, and “3” is something you hate about “Mormons,” again, make 2=3. They make sure to keep these words simple and vague, because once you start going into details and logic the entire thing false apart. “Love,” “acceptance,” “rights,” etc.
It takes a conscious decision to ignore logic and make these kinds of assumptions, but once the audience makes this decision, suddenly they take this logical shortcut for all sorts of things. Suddenly, the memitic images and slogans take over their mind, heart, and soul. The danger about Antimormons reifying people and ideas is that it leads to tremendous hatred. Once you start messing with the praxis of basic and important concepts like love and equality, it is no small stretch to abstract individuals or entire groups of people into extreme categories. You will commit incredible acts of hatred that you would not have considered doing beforehand. Then you will go on to reify yourself, and the problem compounds.
Klafkaptrapping – Abstraction is also used to tear down church members by making rhetorical attacks vague and leading. “Why did you cheat on your wife?” Someone being accused of this will find it hard to defend against because the accusation is so vague and any denial will be seen as further evidence that it is true. Antimormons frequently do this with accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. If you ask for evidence, they may point to some scripture or ancient Brigham Young quote out of context, but they still fail to make the logical case for how that is valid as an attack on church members. It’s just a character attack.
Supremacy Vs. Equality
It is no mystery why social justice advocates appeal to equality: their entire ideology is built on the word. Everything has to be equal! Of course equal application of the law is something we should strive for, but once we stray from equality based on merit and start demanding equality based on manufactured “rights” and turning everyone into the same thing, this is where it becomes a logical fallacy.
Yet they are very selective about what is equal and what isn’t. If the church is superior in some way they appeal to equality, but if the church is at a disadvantage, then the church is inferior and does not deserve to be equal. As the saying goes, all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. So, when it comes to Salt Lake City, every belief deserves a seat at the table to establish local culture. In Salt Lake City we need diversity. But when it comes to San Francisco, it is inappropriate for the church to seek to change local culture. Then we need equality, not diversity. No newspapers calling for Pioneer Day parades in San Francisco, are there? Why not? Social justice advocates consider their ideology superior in every way. But if they are at a disadvantage they have no qualms saying, “We need to be equal!” If they are the dominant voice and cultural dictator, well, equality means you conforming to their ideology.
Equality is often used to push the Tu quoque fallacy. For example, when a Hollywood “comedian” came to Salt Lake City and started spewing vile bigotry about the church, the Salt Lake Tribune declared: “Mormons should get used to jabs from comedians,” because after all, “right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro” stirred up plenty of controversy when he tried to speak at a university, and we should always “foster diverse viewpoints and critical thinking.” Is that a valid comparison? Ben Shapiro speaking calmly at a university versus a hateful Hollywood stooge mocking temple garments and fantasizing about violently beating the President? Are those events equal? No, but Antimormons appeal to equality in comparisons to excuse bad behavior from enemies of the church. Suddenly, Antimormon bigotry is okay because we need “diverse viewpoints.” Everything is equal when it is convenient to propagate the ideology.
Illogical Associations – Antimormons and the media often cherry-pick events and details to show only one side. If a random church member does something wrong, you can bet the mainstream media will trumpet the fact that he is a “Mormon” in their headline. The media in general will often fill articles about the church with photos of the temple photoshopped to be dark and spooky. You know what news photos I mean. Or in articles about some crime that has nothing to do with the church, they may insert ad links to articles about the church which infer a negative association. You are reading about some hit and run accident when suddenly the article is interrupted by “RELATED ARTICLES: Mormon Church…” I have also noticed that the media generalizes events to hide poor behavior from Antimormons. For example, the Missouri’s genocidal extermination of 1838 against church members might be referred to in an article as a “local Mormon dispute.” In each of these cases, the media is drawing an illogical sense of equality.
Illusion Of Equality – They appeal to equality to boost the merit of their side, either to bring it up to the level of equal with the church or superior to the church. In order to do this, they sometimes cast an illusion of what their side or our side is. How long did the media go on about church members opposing the recreational marijuana law in Utah? They still are complaining about it. We must not mix religion and state! That gives the church an unfair advantage! But when it comes to the skeptics’ ideology–which is effectively religious zeal at this point–they have no problem mixing religion and state, do they? That’s because they set an illusion where their religious zeal is not religion but our religious zeal is.
False Portrayal Of Opposites – Another example of this illusion is the online cliche of calling everything they don’t like “hate speech” or “racist.” Someone may be deplatformed because they said something offensive, but there is still an illusion of equal rights because we think they can always just hop on some other platform–which is not really an option for them. A person’s response to being accused of hate speech is typically, “What about my free speech?” The reply to this is often, “Hate speech is not free speech.” A false portrayal of opposites. Antimormons likewise portray a difference between things that isn’t really true. A classic example of this is their insistence that women have no role in the priesthood, a total lie.
This often comes in the form of an “either/or” fallacy, what is known as a ‘false dilemma.’ “Either Joseph Smith was monogamous or he had sexual relations with married women.” That’s pretty much the Antimormon argument. Only those two options are allowed. By constricting the possibilities to just two options, Antimormons can more easily portray a contradiction in our beliefs. They set up a strawman of who we are and then knock it down.
Circular Logic
A clear example of circular logic by Antimormons is their narrative about Oliver Cowdery and the divining rod. Here’s how it goes. They provide a quote about Oliver Cowdery using a magical divining rod from some Antimormon. Then they point to D&C 8 and interpret it to “actually” be about Oliver Cowdery’s divining rod. If I debunk their quote from an Antimormon, they point to D&C 8. But when I explain that their interpretation of D&C 8 is false they point to the Antimormon quote. Their logical progression goes in a circle.
They do this a lot, and it often involves more than just two recursive steps in the logical circle. Often there are three or more arguments they make that have zero basis except each other. When you consider their personal reasons for opposing the church, isn’t it often circular logic?
Intermediary Confusion – In order to hide the fact that it is circular logic, Antimormons sometimes obfuscate one of the steps with unecessary complexity or exaggerated simplicity. For example, they claim Joseph Smith must have used the recovered Hor scroll fragment to produce the Book of Abraham, and they construct a complicated narrative about Katumin, but when you look at how the Abraham documents relate to each other, it’s really not all that complex.