Coping with the “Big List” of Attacks on the LDS Faith

One of the challenges in defending one’s faith is coping with critics who use the “Big List” technique in their attack. This involves throwing out numerous arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage that decimates the faith in question (see the related post, “If Only 10% of These Charges Are True…“). The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren’t written in search of a real answer. If there is a good defense to the arguments raised at first, never mind, there are many more to be launched in different directions.

As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it’s time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.

This doesn’t just happen in anti-Mormon attacks. Attacks on many other faiths use the same approach. Interesting, attacks on some aspects of modern science by religious fundamentalists or young earth Creationists also may rely on the Big List approach, much to the exasperation of scientists who know there are good answers to the attacks, but often may not be able to adequately deal with the barrage of questions from critics not really interested in the answers. Some scientists call the tactic the “Gish Gallop” after Duane Gish, a Creationist noted for hurling numerous brief arguments to overwhelm opponents in debates on evolution.

One interesting recent example is discussed by famous science blogger PZ Myers in the post, “No! Not the list of stumpers again!” at Pharyngula. Myers writes:

There’s a common tactic used by creationists, and I’ve encountered it over and over again. It’s a form of the Gish Gallop: present the wicked evolutionist with a long list of assertions, questions, and non sequiturs, and if they answer with “I don’t know” to any of them, declare victory. It’s easy. We say “I don’t know” a lot.

Jack Chick’s Big Daddy tract is a version of the creationist list, and contains a fair amount of fantasy as well. You know what they believe will happen: they’ll ask that one question that the scientist can’t answer, and then they’ll have an epiphany, a revelation, and realize that all their science is a lie, at which time they’ll resign from their university position and join a good bible-believin’ church.

It happens to me all the time, too. At one talk I gave, there was a woman at the door who had printed a 5-page, single-spaced list of questions, and she was telling everyone going in to ask me to answer them — I invited her to come in and listen to the talk and ask them herself, and she ran away. I’ve had a Canadian creationist do the same thing, and then I talked to him for several hours in the hallway after the talk. He seemed stunned and angry that I actually had answers for most of his questions. I have been confronted by people with questions (more like ignorant assertions) about biology, who once I’ve answered them and reveal that I’m a biologist, switch to asking me about geology and the Big Bang, to get me into a corner where I’d have to say, “I don’t know.”

This approach, often launched by some of the same religious folks who like to denounce The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is painfully familiar to me.

By the way, for the record, I believe in God and believe that He is the Creator, yet believe that science and religion will ultimately be compatible when properly understood. I have no problem with the earth being billions of years old and with evolutionary tools being part of God’s toolkit for preparing a planet like ours for the miraculous spectrum of life that we have here. While I disagree with the arguments used by many Creationists, as one who loves science, I definitely believe that the majesty of the cosmos and the many intricacies of life cannot be reasonably explained as mere accidents, but are evidences of a remarkably clever and artistic Creator. So while I do not share some of PZ Myers views, I can related well to the frustration of being hit with Big List attacks from religious critics not really interested in understanding or dialog.

One of my first experiences in helping to teach the Gospel after graduating from school and taking my first job in Appleton, Wisconsin involved a young college student, a new LDS convert, who had been given volumes of anti-Mormon literature by her former pastor. She came in with a stack of books, relying especially upon a thick tome published by a popular anti-Mormon organization. She asked one pointed question after another, all of which turned out to have reasonable answers, in my opinion, that we were able to offer on the spot. We dealt with them one at a time, turning to answers from the scriptures, when appropriate, or making points based on logic or other sources of information.

After about 40 minutes of this, she grew impatient and said something like, “Look, maybe you’ve got answers for the questions I’ve raised, but there are hundreds more arguments in this book. How can the Church be true when there are so many arguments against it?”

I said that it’s easy to make arguments against anything. I reminded her of the days of early Christianity when there were numerous false witnesses against Christ, when there were paid witnesses who said that the tomb had been raided by Christians to fake the Resurrection, when all the elite religious leaders of the Jews spoke against Christ, and when the whole Roman world seemed to speak against Christ and the Christians. There were volumes and volumes of arguments against the Church back then, too. “If you were living them, how could you see past the massive arguments and recognize the divinity of the Son of God and the truth of Christianity?”

Unwilling to acknowledge the importance of a spiritual witness, she returned to her anti-Mormon books. I pointed out that while we had examined only a few of the arguments, the ones she had raised had reasonable answers, and some even demonstrated a lack of integrity on the part of the authors. Her answer surprised me: “I don’t care. Even if only 10% of that book is true, that’s enough to prove the Church is false.”

Ah, the fallacy of the Big List, a key tool in the Adversary’s arsenal. Impress them with shear volume, wear them out with endless attacks, and many will succumb, overwhelmed by the image and impression of strength.

A few years ago I received a letter from a former LDS member explaining why he and his wife were leaving the Church. In that letter, he acknowledged that there may be “excuses” to deal with each anti-Mormon argument when taken individually, but that taken together as a whole, the case against the Church is overwhelming. He then listed a barrage of arguments, mentioning DNA and the Book of Mormon, anachronisms, 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, racism, polygamy, the Temple and masonry, etc. — problems that each can be dealt with if one takes the time to understand the issues and examines the assumptions behind them. Even then, one must be willing to recognize that there always will be some gaps in our understanding and that no amount of evidence and study will remove the need for faith or replace the power of a witness from the Holy Ghost. But in many cases, there are answers, sometimes powerful answers that turn apparent weaknesses in the Book of Mormon, for example, into strong evidence for authenticity. Such insights do not come from a superficial glance at the text and related literature. Sadly, he became another victim of the fallacy of the Big List.

There are tough arguments, indeed. DNA and the Book of Mormon is an example of this. For a meaningful understanding of the issues, one must identify assumptions and evaluate information from a variety of perspectives. In so doing, one can come away with a better understanding of what the Book of Mormon is and what it is not. But the Adversary would have us just fold based upon a superficial examination: “Wow, there’s no obvious Jewish DNA in the Americas. End of story!”

 

To help those coping with Big List issues, I’ve begin compiling my own list of recommended reading for students of the LDS religion. I hope it will be helpful to some. I’m not saying that you have to read this list before you leave the Church (or join it), but if you’re willing to look at answers and evidences, it might be a great place to start.

 

The Gospel is true, and the Book of Mormon is a divine, authentic book of scripture, in spite of whatever mountains of books and brochures against it the enemy can mount. And Jesus is the Son of God, no matter how many false witnesses and PhD’s and celebrities take a stand against Him. It’s not about who can shout the loudest and longest, but Whose gentle voice we listen for amidst the senseless shouting of men.

Author: Jeff Lindsay

179 thoughts on “Coping with the “Big List” of Attacks on the LDS Faith

  1. When a list of criticisms of the Church leads off with a string of several demonstrably false accusations, it's a clear indication that the compilers of such a list have not done their research, but that they're merely engaged throwing out propaganda.

    The shotgun method of argumentation reveals a position of desperation and not a well-thought out analysis. It shows that the arguer doesn't know his or her material well enough to focus on the key issues. Alas, they don't even know what the key issues are.

  2. I think many of us know what this is in reference to: the recent letter written to the Church Education System that's making waves on the internet.
    The heart of the matter, from my perspective, is that so many faithful LDS people have never, ever been presented with the information in that letter, and so they're overwhelmed and shaken. And rightfully so. I remember when I first heard the story of Fanny Alger's life. It's still a thorn in church history for me, especially considering her own words and actions in later years.
    When the blanket reply from LDS leadership is "oh that's just anti-Mormon hogwash, pay it no mind," one can't help but take a longer peek behind the curtain. It's human nature.
    It's time for the church to take the blinders off and address concerns in a sincere way, without berating accusers.

    1. I think the Church is doing a pretty good job addressing this with the recent articles on DNA and Priesthood on the church website. I really hope they keep coming out with those articles because I think it is going to address the problems with trying to just ignore the challenges against the church.

  3. There is much truth to the points the author presents, in that volume does not prove anything.

    That said, the author then employs his own logical fallacies and errors in much the same way.

    After all said, the central claims of the lds church do not stand up to any reasonably close scrutiny.

    Saying "is easily dealt with" is not an answer. Its an attempted whitewash.

    The author would be good to detail the 4 core issues detractors (not "antis") have and respond to them.

    They are: multiple and conflicting versions of the first vision.
    Clear source plagiarism and anachronisms in the book of Mormon.
    Book of Abraham translations proven to be utterly wrong
    Polygamy, and marrying other men's wives who were on missions.

    The author says there, and all others, are easily explained, well, blogs have as much space as needed and no deadlines, the floor is all his.

    Yes, the paper termed "CES letter" details well in one easily readable format the main problems the church has with it's foundational claims. I could note 50 or 60 off the top of my head, but those 4 are sufficient

  4. Oh don't you worry about a huge list, just tell me why Joseph lied to Emma about marrying other women, including 14 year old girls, or tell me why he used a HAT to "translate" the Book of Mormon without using the plates, or tell me why he died while calling from help from the Masons, just pick one or shut up.

    1. Let me take a crack.

      "When you look closer at what appear to be troubling questions, you discover that there are simple answers to them if you are prepared to make the effort to find them".

      I think that answers your question clearly enough.

      I guess there are no more questions then.

  5. It's amusing when supposedly intelligent people prove your point by trying to refute it.

    Thanks for pointing out a major flaw in their thinking. Nothing is as dangerous to reason as one who has only a passing acquaintance with it. They know the form, but not the substance of it.

    1. Unfortunately the author and yourself have provided nothing of any substance whatsoever to refute the CES Letter. FAIR took a shot but actually ended up agreeing with most of the letter. And the parts where they disagreed were largely laughable.

  6. "Interesting, attacks on some aspects of modern science by religious fundamentalists or young earth Creationists also may rely on the Big List approach, much to the exasperation of scientists who know there are good answers to the attacks, but often may not be able to adequately deal with the barrage of questions from critics not really interested in the answers"

    Mormons are religious fundamentalist and young Earth creationist…lol

    You sound like the Catholic church complaining about Copernicus and Galileo providing to much evidence…

  7. As your link points out, "The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time."

    The Letter to a CES Director is not a debate, and it's not presented in real time. There are no time constraints on addressing the points made and questions asked individually or together. Calling the document a "Gish Gallop" is akin to calling Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium a "Gish Gallop" against geocentrism.

    If the document contains problems, fallacies, or falsehoods, address them specifically, at any pace you care to set. You've got all the time and space you need.

  8. "That said, the author then employs his own logical fallacies and errors in much the same way"

    "The author would be good to detail the 4 core issues detractors…"

    "Unfortunately the author and yourself have provided nothing of any substance whatsoever to refute the CES Letter"

    Who said that this post is an attempt to address all of the points of the CES letter, or to address any criticisms for that matter? This is a post directed at criticizing the "big list" technique of dissuading people from a certain thing, like the LDS church or even science. Interesting that you would miss the point of this post and yet prove it.

    "The author says there, and all others, are easily explained, well, blogs have as much space as needed and no deadlines, the floor is all his."

    Jeff has 1786 blog posts to date–most of which dealing with criticisms–as well as a separate website dealing with difficult issues. Let us know when you're all caught up 😉

    "Mormons are religious fundamentalist and young Earth creationist…lol"

    The only thing I'm laughing about is your assumption that I am a young earth creationist.

  9. Basically, you're not up to the task of responding with the effort you say is required to give the "simple" answers. If you're saying it is worthy of that much attention then give it. If you're just going to post this then you're a hypocrite.

  10. Let's face it. If a person, a member or investigator, has these questions they're going to look for answers. The a-horse-is-a-deer and that-anti-is-discredited stuff is only going to work for so long. Eventually, a person needs real answers that don't make them feel like a fool to swallow.

    You can see it in the lifelong members who just can't make themselves believe anymore despite the generations that apply guilt and the whole church communities who won't pressure one another to keep up pretenses such as Sweden & much of Europe and the millennials who realize they haven't swallowed the Koolaid & still have a choice not to.

    Mormonism will always work for a certain number of people who like living in a highly controlled environment and are lulled into complacence. But the curtain (or veil, if you will) has already been pulled back on the fabric of myth held together with prevarication. If you choose that, then fine. But it's too late to demand that other people sign on to confirm your bias.

  11. "Jeff has 1786 blog posts to date–most of which dealing with criticisms–as well as a separate website dealing with difficult issues. Let us know when you're all caught up ;-)"

    Yet with this immense resource he still chose not to directly confront any of the glaring issues that the CES letter presents in this article.

    If he has answers to all these difficult questions, why isn't he taking the time to post links? Wouldn't that help alleviate the troubled souls that are out searching for answers? Wouldn't a simple step by step explanation help people less faithful than himself find comfort? Wouldn't this be seen as God's work? Wouldn't he be saving the souls of his brothers and sisters from the endless torment of Lucifer himself?

    Maybe the author just feels that heaven is going to be too crowded so he opts not to help out. Or maybe he feels that it would be better for those sinful masses to gather the information for themselves. Or maybe he simply wants to hide his candle under a bushel so that it doesn't interfere with others trying to find the light…

    Bah I say… You're excuse for why he didn't expound on the problems is worse than his lack of expounding.