Mill and Mormons

Why do a lot of pro-Mormonism users think any criticism towards Mormonism is anti-Mormons propaganda?
Profile photo for Ray Farmer
Ray Farmer
, Jealous of and Zealous for the Book of Mormon
Answered 2m ago

2 Nephi 28:28 “And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.”

Most LDSaints have built on a sandy foundation. Hence, any reasonable argument causes stress.

Jesus said “But what think ye?” (Matthew 21:28)

God invites thinking. "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). “Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob”.

Paul had no problem with this reasoning. “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures” (Acts 17:2). “And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks”. (Acts 18:4). “he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews”. (Acts 18:19). “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him”. (Acts 17:17)

We should not regard reasoning about rhetorical, leading, or otherwise unfair and biased questions that make answering them a chore, not a pleasure, work rather than recreation as anti-mormon, but as a great opportunity to think deeper regarding our “decided opinion”. Read these great words by Toby:

“I don’t mind some criticism of my beliefs. I *like* thinking deeply about the doctrine and delving deep into scripture and examining how to apply those teachings to life. Critics play an important role in that introspection and I have had many pleasant interactions with critics of my faith over the years, and one can even look over my answers over time to see how these interactions have “polished” me, personally. I am a better man today than yesteryear because I have had to refine my character in response to criticism, and I genuinely thank those critics for bringing my shortcomings to my attention”.

John Stuart Mill wrote a great Essay called On Liberty. It is challenging to read, but I have included some applicable segments therefrom:

However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth

There is a class of persons (happily not quite so numerous as formerly) who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defence of it against the most superficial objections. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from authority, naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned. Where their influence prevails, they make it nearly impossible for the received opinion to be rejected wisely and considerately, though it may still be rejected rashly and ignorantly

…to shut out discussion entirely is seldom possible, and when it once gets in, beliefs not grounded on conviction are apt to give way before the slightest semblance of an argument.

….assuming that the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument—this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth

….it has to be shown why that other theory cannot be the true one: and until this is shown, and until we know how it is shown, we do not understand the grounds of our opinion

The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.

….if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment,

Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety- nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light.

So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up.