Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Stupid Member Memes

You know, the "gotcha" stuff they like to throw at you. Feel free to add your own, complete with comeback. If you can't come up with one for whatever reason, I'm sure someone around here can help.

To investigators, out of fear they may seek "anti" sources:

You wouldn't go to a Ford dealership to learn about your Chevy, would you?

(Confession: I totally bought this one.)

Not necessarily, but let me screw with this meme a bit: if I wanted to buy a Ford it might be worth my while to check with someone who had experience with that brand to figure out if it was something I really wanted to buy. In fact, people do this all the time. "How's your Kia?" they ask us all the time. And we tell them.

If we like the person asking, we're even honest ;)

But seriously, would you buy a car without checking into it--what issues generally arise from it, if people are satisfied, its resale value, accident/safety reports, etc? Gas mileage? And let's not forget price, for that matter (*cough*tithing*cough*)--cost/benefit.

So you know, I just might go to a Ford guy to learn a little about Chevy (it wouldn't be "my" Chevy--who the hell buys something this expensive without learning about it first?...oh). Maybe the Ford guy has some inside info I don't have--but of course I'd double or triple check with some independent research. After all, all Chevy is going to do is tell me how awesome it is and, oops, happen to neglect a few of the not-so-nice things. Because they want me to buy their cars.

It's the same sentiment as checking out new restaurants or hotels. You're not just going to talk with the particular hotel or restaurant, are you? They won't tell you what sucks about it. But people who've stayed or dined there will, and it helps to know if anything unseemly goes on. Don't want to contract food poisoning after all (but the restaurant said they followed health codes!)

To anyone claiming to know a truth contradictory to LDS doctrine: (especially those along the lines of "the church isn't true.")

You can tell me the sky is green all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's blue.

Yeah, heard this one before. Directly. And I used to think it was epic AWESOME.

All I have to say is this: the sky is kinda green right before a tornado. And then it's gray during a storm. Mostly white sometimes. Black at night (kinda polka-dotted, really. stars and all). Then you have to consider that the sky ain't blue everywhere on Earth at the same time.

Purple, then!


We could get a little trickier and discuss hues and shades. Mixtures of colors. But that'd probably just make their head hurt.

I can't seem to think of others at the moment, but I'm positive more exist. Help?


  1. I'm not creative enough at the moment to think of others, but the Chevy/Ford one annoys me.

    I for one would not see EITHER Chevy OR Ford about one of their cars. The dealer is biased, and a competitor is biased.

    Independent sources are where it's at. Even better is trying to go for source documentation, if you happen to know how to interpret it.

    And, as you put, peer testimonials. I just have to make sure my "peers" aren't fanboys.

  2. good point. i think what i was going for was the idea that you need to hear what the other side says.

    in the beginning of my investigation of the church, my parents--mom especially--gave me all sorts of brochures and whatnot to convince me the church wasn't true. I also saw "Godmakers" which was obvs a joke.

    It seems my intention to suggest a visit to the competition was misguided. You don't want to go with the competitor, either. As it pertains to the church, anti-sources (angry ones, at least) tend to get rather ridiculous and just as over-emotional as we accuse TBMs to be.

    I remember looking at Jeff Lindsay's site for rebuttals to what I'd heard. It worked. But I realized later that Jeff's arguments aren't all that sound.

    You work with what you got, I guess.

    So yeah, independent sources, unbiased, etc. Not so easy to find, but even in the church you can find people who are fairly level-headed. I try to be. I don't always succeed or care if I am. But I do try to be fair. I do try to offer sources. It's more than I could find as an investigator or a member, for that matter.

    Rough Stone Rolling was about as close as I could get. But even then, I didn't *really* need it. Cog-dis can really break you down all on its own. It would perhaps be a good book for an investigator, however.

  3. I think that in the dearth of unbiased sources (since I also think it's unrealistic to expected unbiased), then we should look at many sources, see what is constant, what differs, and why they differ.

    I don't think we necessarily need to have a bibliography or whatever, but if we see the same detail corroborated by different sides, then it becomes easier to recognize that that may be a data point that has credibility. And then we can recognize that where people differ is in their conclusions and interpretations.

    I think that higher level apologetics (or counter-apologetics) will agree on the facts for the most part, but will disagree very much in interpretation. I think there's only really a problem when either side is selectively using data, ignoring some things, or making some things up, etc.,

  4. What bothers me the most is that mormons don't apply the same expectations to themselves.

    My brother lists "Seven Rules for Discussing Religion" which should be titled "Seven Rules for Discussing Mormonism" because when he and I have ever tried to discuss my views he breaks each and every one of his listed rules.

    The hypocrisy is maddening.

  5. Chedner: I especially enjoy his word choice here:

    "If you want to know what members of another religion believe, go to them and not to their enemies."

    Does he think of those with different or even contrary views as "enemies"?

    Interesting, but then again not entirely surprising.

  6. also,

    who would an interested member reference to know why people leave the church?

    according to this sentiment, certainly not the apostate's enemies.

  7. Exactly what I was saying about hypocrisy.

    I mean to whom do they (mormons) expect the world to listen to concerning, say, homosexuality? Homosexuals? NOPE; they want the world to listen to the enemies of homosexuals.

    Basically they "know" they're right, and so if everyone is logical and sincere then everyone would be converted to their thinking. (Therefore, if there's conflict, it's because the other person isn't playing appropriately; it's never their fault.)

    BAH, I say, BAH!

  8. Don't forget the "If an Ice Cream truck pulled you over and wrote you a ticket, would you pay it? Why not? That's right, because an Ice cream driver doesn't have the AUTHORITY."

    Good post.

  9. Oooh, I hadn't heard that one. When I got the ones about "authority" it was always directed at other churches.

    Which is stupid because Catholics claim to have a direct (living) line back to Peter (ie: no dead people/ghosts coming back to confer things) and mainstream Christianity claims Jesus gave his followers his authority in the Bible

    So, whatev

  10. also, that's an exceptionally stupid meme.

    why the fuck would you pull over for an ice cream truck?