|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{appeal to authority|The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in [[Fallibility of prophets|infallibility]] in their leaders. The author finally admits on [[#205|p. 205]] that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/New_World#Is_there_an_.22official.22_or_revealed_geography.3F|no official geography]], what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds? | + | {{tu quoque|The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in [[Fallibility of prophets|infallibility]] in their leaders. The author finally admits on [[#205|p. 205]] that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/New_World#Is_there_an_.22official.22_or_revealed_geography.3F|no official geography]], what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds? |
| | }} | | }} |
| | | | |
| | {{Repeat|#10-11|#38-39|#40|#41|#45|#137|#138|#140|#142|l1=10-11|l2=38-39|l3=40|l4=41|l5=45|l6=137|l7=138|l8=140|l9=142}} | | {{Repeat|#10-11|#38-39|#40|#41|#45|#137|#138|#140|#142|l1=10-11|l2=38-39|l3=40|l4=41|l5=45|l6=137|l7=138|l8=140|l9=142}} |
Latest revision as of 21:04, 26 November 2016
Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.
The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in
infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on
p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is
no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?
The work repeats itself on p. 10-11, 38-39., 40., 41., 45., 137., 138., 140., and 142.
