Honest seekers of truth must demand honesty and fair treatment if we are going to have productive discussions. Read over this list of manipulations and fallacies common to antagonists to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and be careful not to fall into using any of them yourself.
The following list was compiled by The Light and Truth Letter (not affiliated with Light and Truth AI), by Austin Fife. This is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to recognize the strong logical and evidence based arguments in favor of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
| Manipulation Tactic or Logical Fallacy | Example | Why it is manipulative or wrong |
|---|---|---|
Distrust in authority Assuming that any institutional structure with a hierarchy is up to no good. | “If the Church donated that money, it must have been for nefarious reasons.” The attitude that anything positive the Church does must have had sinister motives. | This is designed to make the target distrust church leaders. The manipulator wins if the target believes they cannot trust the Church. |
Myth of Infallibility An assumption that church leaders must be infallible. | Any quote or policy from church leaders in the past that does not align with what we practice or believe today. | It assumes something the restoration never does. Namely, God’s servants should be near perfect and not succumb to popular false teachings. The formula for critics is easy. 1). Assume church leaders are infallible, 2). Show an example of fallibility. |
False Compromise Presenting opposed narratives and then assuming, “Well, the truth must lie between these two extremes.” | “Joseph Smith said he translated the golden plates with the gift and power of God. However, he was just a treasure-seeking, peep-stone-looking fraud.” | Critics do not need their target to agree with their view. They only need the victim to reject the traditional narrative. The middle ground between truth and lies is not where the truth is. |
The Big List (Gish Gallop or Proof by Verbosity) An illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material provided. | The CES Letter. It culminates the critiques of the Church of Jesus Christ’s truth claims. | Overwhelm the reader or listener. Critics who use the big list tactic want to create the illusion that even if one concern has an answer, there are 100 more. It is the hydra of manipulation strategies. |
Half Truth Mixing truth with deceit to confuse the issue. | The CES Letter seeks to explain how Joseph Smith came up with so many unique place names in the Book of Mormon. A table lists place names and potential candidates in and around upstate New York. The idea is not a half-truth; it is more like a tenth truth. Most modern cities on the list did not exist until after the publication of the Book of Mormon. | A half-truth is still a lie at its core. It is more destructive than a lie because a half-truth requires untangling the lie from the truth. |
Presentism Assuming historical figures see the world in the same way that a person would today. Judging the past based on today’s standards. | Church leaders phased in the Word of Wisdom from its 1833 introduction to 1921. That was when it became required for a temple recommend. Critics point out that early church leaders did not adhere to the Word of Wisdom as we know it today. | Judging people in the past based on today’s standards is popular but misleading. If critics lived at the same time as the people they criticize, they would believe and act similarly (or worse). Anything from 200 years ago seems weird without historical and cultural context. |
Quote Mining Mining for unflattering quotes made in the past. | A meme on social media by a critic5 – “My wife has borne to me fifteen children. Anything short of this would have been less than her duty and privilege.” – George F. Richards, Relief Society Magazine, July 1916. | It is disingenuous. Scouring a target’s social media feeds to find anything damaging is similar. Often, these quotes lack context or fall into the “presentism” category. |
Meat before Milk Presenting complicated issues without first establishing the fundamental building blocks for understanding. | “Mormons believe they will all have their own planet.” “Mormons believe that only they will get into heaven.” | Critics who use this tactic either 1). Do not understand the issue, or more likely, 2). Understand it, but know that jumping to the conclusion first will lead people to avoid engaging the Church’s sincere claims. |
Naturalist Assumptions Assuming no supernatural or spiritual forces are at play in the universe. | “Angels don’t appear to men to give them golden plates.” | Critics who have naturalist assumptions are close-minded by definition. They are limited in their pursuit of truth. Eliminating supernatural forces from the universe closes off an entire dimension of truth. |
Bully on the Playground Use of mockery and name-calling. | “Oh, he is just a TBM.” (True Believing Mormon) “You’re in a cult.” | Critics attempt to manipulate people into accepting their worldviews by name-calling or labeling. No one wants to hear that what they are doing is weird. This method is effective, especially if someone is unsure of their convictions. |
Straw Man Set up the opponent’s argument to be weaker than it is. Then, proceed to demolish the false, weak version and claim victory. | “Mormons believe you need magic underwear to get into heaven. We believe you need Jesus.” | It is dishonest because it does not genuinely engage with the opposing party’s arguments. It may win points for the “home team” of like-minded people, but it does not bring anyone closer to the truth. |
Ad Hominem Attacking the person instead of their arguments. | “John is a Latter-day Saint. We should not invite him to this equality debate because Mormons are bigots.” | Does not address the issue or lead to any understanding. |
Hasty Generalization An inference is drawn from insufficient evidence. Leaping to a conclusion. | “The Church’s affiliated investment manager, Ensign Peak, was fined $4 million and the Church itself $1 million for insufficient reporting of securities owned. So, the Church is sketchy.” | We all tend to take lazy shortcuts when we encounter new information. It is easier to write something off than to engage with the issue. One or two more insights may address the concern. |
Red Herrings Using an unrelated issue to distract attention away from the relevant question. “Whataboutism” used by political pundits is a form of using a red herring. | “The finances section of the Light and Truth Letter does not say anything about the SEC fine!” | Distracts attention away from the issues raised without addressing them. |
Poisoning the Well (or Bulverism) Attempts to discredit a person before their arguments are even heard. | “Oh, you can’t read anything a BYU scholar says because they’re on the Church’s payroll!” | Critics hope their target will not engage in the information that may answer important questions. |
Double Standard Treating two or more people or circumstances differently even though they should be treated the same. | Christians will use a double standard when criticizing an element of the restoration without applying the same logic equally to their beliefs. Two examples: 1). “If the golden plates are real, then where are they?” Atheists use the same logic for the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets. 2). “The Book of Mormon witnesses are unreliable. They were Joseph Smith’s friends and family.” That logic can be applied to the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. | This shows that the critic is being internally inconsistent. They use an argument when it is convenient for them without applying it equally to other situations, including those that would reflect poorly on their position. |
Appeal to Authority Claiming that something must be true (or false) because it is believed (or not) by someone who is said to be an authority on the subject. | “There is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon in the Americas.” Black-and-white statements from an unknown expert. These usually start with “there is no evidence” and explain why some aspect of the Book of Mormon is false. | We are naturally inclined to believe an expert. Faith crisis victims do not have the time to be expert archaeologists, historians, chemists, linguists, lawyers, doctors, and authors. It is easier to trust an expert. Critics rely on our belief in experts to make bad arguments. The “authority” may be unreliable. Note that actual authorities rarely speak in black-and-white terms. |
Bandwagon Claiming something to be true because “most people believe it.” | “Most Christians believe that the Bible canon is closed, so it must be so.” | This fallacy preys on the tendency to want to follow the crowd. Advertisers and salespeople use this tactic all the time. |
Appeal to Emotion Seeking to win an argument through the manipulation of emotions. This tactic is used especially in the absence of evidence. | “The Mormon Church is a bigoted cult! It hates the LGBTQ community and destroys people’s lives!” | Critics will use inflammatory or prejudicial language to influence their target. When someone speaks passionately, we want to believe that they are telling the truth. |
The False Dilemma or Dichotomy (The “either-or” fallacy) Discussing an issue as if there are only two alternatives and no compromises. | “If you have sincere questions about the gospel, then your family will hate and abandon you.” | Critics tend to use this fallacy to create rifts between a questioning Latter-day Saint and their families and wards. In the example given, the critic is trying to create resentment toward the family and the ward, which may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
Begging the Question – False Premise Reaching a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. | “The Church hid the fact that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in the translation process. Thus, the Church is immoral.” | It subtly takes a giant leap in logic to influence the victim. The victim will likely agree with the conclusion if a false premise is assumed. Even if the target does not agree with the conclusion, the believed false premise itself can generate doubt. |
Non-Sequitur A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Non Sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” | “Russell M. Nelson was a member of a college secret fraternity, ‘Skull & Bones.’ How is he God’s prophet?” | A massive leap in logic from the opening statement to the conclusion. The end result is a conclusion that illogically flows from the underlying premise. |
Argument from Ignorance Asserts that a proposition is true because it is not yet proven false. Alternatively, that silence is an admission of guilt. | Before metal plates with writing in ancient Israel were found, critics would say, “We’ve never seen ancient people write on metal plates. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is false.” | Critics argue that something cannot be because they cannot imagine how it could be. This intellectual shortcut does not seriously consider the totality of the available evidence. |
Slippery Slope Assuming catastrophic results from a premise. | “It is dangerous to accept the doctrine of personal revelation from God. Before you know it, we’ll see criminals committing heinous acts claiming revelation from God.” | It is a false idea meant to exploit the target’s risk aversion. |
Questionable Cause (Correlation vs. Causation) Oversimplification. Presumes there is a single cause of a more complex phenomenon. It is often used to insinuate that a correlated variable is the cause of an outcome. | “Utah has a higher-than-average suicide rate. Thus, the LDS Church makes people depressed and suicidal.” | In my experience, questionable cause is the primary type of data critics use (aside from personal stories). When the manipulator lacks evidence, his/her only corroboration is questionable correlations. |
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy This fallacy takes data out of its context and tries to make it appear more impressive than it is. The name of this fallacy comes from an example of a Texas gunslinger who shoots randomly at a barn door. Afterward, a target is painted around each bullet hole. The holes are random, but the painted targets appear to prove that the gunslinger is a great shot. | “View of the Hebrews and The Late War have some parallels with the Book of Mormon. So, that must have been the source for the Book of Mormon!” | To me, this is grasping at straws. Book of Mormon critics tend to compare loose parallels with other books and then exaggerate how they are “bullseyes” for the source of the Book of Mormon. |
Shifting the Burden of Proof Making a claim that needs evidence, then shifting the responsibility for disproof of that claim to another party. | “Brigham Young conspired to get Joseph Smith killed. Prove that I’m wrong.” | Critics point to weak, coincidental, and often contradictory connections, and then, in place of evidence, they shift the burden of proof back onto the Church or the believer. |
Generalization A claim based on insufficient evidence. Drawing a conclusion about a large population using a small, unrepresentative sample. | “Local ward and stake leaders did not respond adequately enough to an instance of abuse. Therefore, the Church is abusive.” | Claims of abuse in the Church or hostilities toward sexual or other minorities often fall into this category. Critics use anecdotal examples to prove an untrue conclusion. |