Ad Hominem, Mormon style?

[_consiglieri]

You're correct, but I don't know how far yelping out "that's a logical fallacy" will go when someone is trying to dismiss you by saying you're of the devil. The likely response will be, "if you think I'm breaking some logical rule, then it only proves you are of the devil, because only the devil would object to my obvious conclusion that you are of the devil. Therefore, you are an anti-Mormon. Logical fallacy that, satan."

As one of the speakers in April's General Conference said, "The logic of the natural man is an enemy to God."

[Guest]

Hmmmmm. Could you be more specific? scientific?

First off, the text is riddled with logical fallacies, mostly non-sequiturs and petitio principii.

As a science experiment it is all wrong.

First, there is no control group. I have watched footage of a Heaven's Gate testimony meeting and the way they described their faith shows that they followed the Alma 32 process. Their testimonies seemed more sincere than what I hear in an average LDS F&T meeting. Would your average chapel Mormon (or Joseph Smith, if he were alive) contend that the Heaven's Gate beliefs are therefore true? Hell no, they wouldn't. Chapel Mormons don't even trust this process when it comes down to it.

Second, this fails as a science experiment because the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. We are told that if the seed grows, it is because the faith is true, but that if the seed does not grow it is because the person is at fault (the ground is barren). Both results mean that the belief system is true. Heads, they win, tails, I lose. In cult studies, this is referred to as a "closed system of logic" and is the bread and butter of coercive persuasion. All results positive or negative mean that the belief system is true. All cults (and many mainstream religions) do this. This is not how a science experiment works.

Also, Alma 32 doesn't deal with the possibility of someone getting a positive result in the Heaven's Gate cult or something like that. Is their ground too fertile or something? I think Joseph Smith avoided raising this issue because it would make this already weak argument even weaker.

Edit: Another thing, what are we testing in this experiment? Alma's words. Which ones? Everything he has ever said? The things he said about being humble just previous to proposing the experiment? Everything any "prophet" has ever said? That latter one is I think how most chapel Mormons interpret it, but it is definitely not how it is spelled out in the experiment.

Edit 2: Another logical problem is the circular nature of the test. In order to test Alma's words we have to first accept that his words are true to accept the test methodology. How do we know that the test for Alma's words is valid? Well, Alma's words said it was valid, of course! Moroni's promise has the same logical problem.

[_fetchface]

As one of the speakers in April's General Conference said, "The logic of the natural man is an enemy to God."

Wait, you're joking right? They didn't actually say that did they?

[_Xenophon]

As one of the speakers in April's General Conference said, "The logic of the natural man is an enemy to God."

Wait, you're joking right? They didn't actually say that did they?

If he is thinking of the same talk as me, pretty much.

In these moments of trial, the adversary—who is always on the lookout—tries to use our logic and reasoning against us. He tries to convince us that it is useless to live the principles of the gospel. Please remember that the logic of the natural man “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.”12 Remember that Satan “is an enemy [of] God, and [he] fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth [us] to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.”13 We must not allow him to deceive us; for when we do, we falter in our faith and lose the power to obtain God’s blessings.

[_fetchface]

Okay, yes, they said that in substance. I thought that the paraphrase was a direct quote. It would have been a very culty one-liner and would have been kind of fun to throw around in the presence of TBMs.

[_deacon blues]

Hmmmmm. Could you be more specific? scientific?

First off, the text is riddled with logical fallacies, mostly non-sequiturs and petitio principii.

As a science experiment it is all wrong.

First, there is no control group. I have watched footage of a Heaven's Gate testimony meeting and the way they described their faith shows that they followed the Alma 32 process. Their testimonies seemed more sincere than what I hear in an average LDS F&T meeting. Would your average chapel Mormon (or Joseph Smith, if he were alive) contend that the Heaven's Gate beliefs are therefore true? Hell no, they wouldn't. Chapel Mormons don't even trust this process when it comes down to it.

Second, this fails as a science experiment because the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. We are told that if the seed grows, it is because the faith is true, but that if the seed does not grow it is because the person is at fault (the ground is barren). Both results mean that the belief system is true. Heads, they win, tails, I lose. In cult studies, this is referred to as a "closed system of logic" and is the bread and butter of coercive persuasion. All results positive or negative mean that the belief system is true. All cults (and many mainstream religions) do this. This is not how a science experiment works.

Also, Alma 32 doesn't deal with the possibility of someone getting a positive result in the Heaven's Gate cult or something like that. Is their ground too fertile or something? I think Joseph Smith avoided raising this issue because it would make this already weak argument even weaker.

Edit: Another thing, what are we testing in this experiment? Alma's words. Which ones? Everything he has ever said? The things he said about being humble just previous to proposing the experiment? Everything any "prophet" has ever said? That latter one is I think how most chapel Mormons interpret it, but it is definitely not how it is spelled out in the experiment.

Edit 2: Another logical problem is the circular nature of the test. In order to test Alma's words we have to first accept that his words are true to accept the test methodology. How do we know that the test for Alma's words is valid? Well, Alma's words said it was valid, of course! Moroni's promise has the same logical problem.

Execellent, thanks. If the word in the experiment means "polygamy" or the "priesthood" then it is a bad seed, according to Alma and Moroni, because those things never enlarged my soul or made me believe in Jesus Christ.