Beyond Paganism & Relativism: How to THINK like a Philosopher (Logical problems with the LDS Godhead Exposed - Part 2!)

More mental masturbation about Logic, metaphysics and philosophy.

In the last post, I examined LDS metaphysical and GodHead theology through the lens of logic philosophy. Since logic and reasoning are usually not taught in K-12 schools and very few take courses on it in University, I figured it may be a good opportunity to explore some other concepts in Logic, especially regarding falsehoods and fallacies.

The thinking in my brain sometimes!

Introductions

This article was co-created by a special guest writer: Danial Lemmon, a long-time reader of this publication. Danial has formal training in both Logic and Philosophy and is currently an orthodox catechumen. It was Danial’s comments on the debate between an LDS apologist and a catholic philosopher (GodHead vs Trinity) that led to the genesis of this article series. It is only fitting that he take over and carry us through the exploration of these issues to their conclusion.

In a world overloaded with conflicting information, clear thinking is crucial. We're bombarded daily, so we need to be sharp at evaluating claims, especially from biased sources, which includes this article (let’s be fair.)

This isn't about arguing, but about spotting compelling arguments versus fallacies. It's about knowing when to trust a conclusion and when to disregard it.

This article aims to sharpen your reasoning and critical thinking. We'll cover basic reasoning, common errors in reasoning, and key formal logic terms and concepts. Then, we'll apply these methods to LDS Godhead theology. This is Part 2, continuing from the last article where I only had space to address the issue of Monism, but there were other significant issues I glossed over. Please read Part 1 before continuing.

WARNING!

This article is intellectually dense and its LDS analysis is likely contentious. While I aim for a neutral tone, the logical conclusions regarding LDS Godhead theology are, in my view, unavoidable and devastating to the model. I will articulate these issues, conclusions, and implications clearly, also offering potential resolutions.

In the interest of being sensitive to my readers’ feelings. I sought to soften these conclusions, but found no reasonable way to "put lipstick on this piggy." (Likely, I lack creativity.) Doing so would require deception by selectively presenting/hiding information, a tactic I find distasteful and one commonly used by many LDS writers and apologists to obscure challenging topics. When familiar with a subject, I often see vital information omitted, which distorts understanding and undermines trust in such sources and the church. I prefer the approach of complete (and brutal) honesty to manipulated narratives.

I complain about some of these tactics in the following article: (so I’m not going to get into it too much right now.)

Bible Bombshells, Part 2: Shocking facts about the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible!

Frankly, I took no joy in writing this. It's a cerebral exercise for intellectuals and logicians, likely to bore most. If you don't value logic, this article probably won't impact you. All that to say, this article may not be for you.

Contention is not divine; no argument can change religious belief—only the Holy Spirit can convert. As I grow in orthodoxy and (hopefully) humility, I'm less inclined to argue to try to prove others wrong with “facts.” These highly cerebral arguments, lacking emotional impact, are often unpersuasive to the average person (so this one’s for you ortho-bros!) and require extensive research (pulling out textbooks from 28 years ago!). And despite checking my work, it is very possible that I have also made errors of logic and reasoning. (After all, I’m working with only a partially functional brain. After three strokes, there are just parts that don’t work anymore. Please forgive me if, after putting everyone through this monstrosity, I ended up making some critical mistakes.)

This is my first and only warning. Like I warned in the previous article, if you are sensitive to a critical analysis of your beliefs, including the metaphysical and theological models and frameworks on which they are built, then please stop reading now. Also, if you tend to view any criticism as a personal attack, please delete this email or close this browser tab (the shortcut is: control+w or command+w) - cause it’s just not worth it (for either of us.) Instead, wait for the next article in the section “My Journey.”

This article's critical LDS analysis isn't meant to insult, attack, or trash anyone's faith. I didn't write it to disprove Mormonism or destroy the LDS Church. Instead, it's a purely intellectual exercise for nerds interested in philosophy, logic, and rationalism. Like the last piece, I found the concepts fascinating and believe everyone should learn basic reasoning. The idea to do this came from a theological debate between an LDS YouTube theologian/apologist and a roman catholic philosopher. As we watched it, we noticed that there were logical issues that weren’t being addressed. Absolutely no emotions were involved in writing this. My engineer hat was on. It was written dispassionately, and it's best read dispassionately. If you are LDS and struggle with compartmentalizing your emotions, please stop reading now. This is your last warning: this article is not for you.

The fact that I need these types of warnings is another indication to me that I probably shouldn’t be writing these types of articles. I'm so sorry, guys! I think this one is my last one.

Why should you care about this Logic crap?

For the thick-skinned/cerebral types who have chosen to keep reading, I anticipate that one question you might have regarding deploying Formal Logic to analyze theologies, doctrines, or metaphysical models is, “ Why should I care about this? Why is this important? What difference can it make? Let me give you five reasons that I think these types of analysis can be important (or should at least be taken seriously.)

1. Truth Matters — and Logic Protects It

Logic is a tool used to preserve truth and guard against deception. Formal logic is simply the disciplined way of asking, “Do these ideas fit together? Are we being honest with ourselves about what we’re saying? Can we trust these conclusions?”

If you are a seeker after truth, and not content with relying on subjective emotional experiences, but want to be certain about the truth of the reality behind it, then logic is a tool of discernment that God has given us Humans to discern Truth from illusion or deception.

“God is not the author of confusion.” — 1 Corinthians 14:33

Rejecting logic is effectively the same as saying, “I don’t care if what I believe makes sense — I’ll believe it anyway.” That’s not faith. That’s willful blindness. If you do that, you’re building a house on the sand.

2. A Contradictory God Cannot Save You

When theological claims contradict themselves — like saying “God is the source of truth” and “truth exists apart from God” — then you are trusting your life and salvation to a system that cancels itself out. If your understanding of God rests on a contradiction, then it is possible that:

• What you are worshipping may not be God at all.

• You have no way of knowing if what He says, or if what you are being taught about what he has said, is trustworthy.

• You cannot be sure if His promises are real or merely a fantasy.

That’s not an abstract concern — that’s a direct impact on your soul. When you engage in a set of religious beliefs in a religious organization, you are trusting them with your eternal soul. That might sound like hyperbole, but if you are going to build your life around a specific belief system, invest time and money and effort into it, and pin your eternal hopes and dreams on it, you want to make sure that where you are investing your energy is worthy of that investment and has a reasonable chance of delivering on the promises being offered.

3. Love Requires Honesty

God gave us the faculty and capability to reason. That is part of being made in his image. This faculty is not meant to replace love or wonder, but to keep us from being deceived. As I see it, using logic in theology is an act of love, both for God (so we don’t say nonsense about Him) and for our neighbor (so we don’t lead them astray and jeopardize their salvation).

Just like we wouldn’t fully trust a doctor who dismisses logic and medicine in favor of voodoo, crystal balls, and incense to treat stage 4 cancer, we also shouldn’t follow a spiritual framework that abandons rational coherence for the sake of sentiment.

4. Because Orthodoxy Is Reasonable

The Orthodox Church has always affirmed that faith and reason are friends, not enemies. (A perspective not historically encouraged in the LDS faith. e.g., the Gang of 6 who were excommunicated by Hinckley in the early 90’s for digging into church history and Joseph Smith’s polygamy.) The Fathers of the Church — from St. Basil to St. Gregory Palamas — were deeply rational thinkers. They believed that truth is harmonious, not self-contradictory.

Faith doesn’t mean checking your brain at the door and just believing what you are told to believe. It means going beyond reason, yes — but never against it.

“The Spirit of truth … will guide you into all truth.” — John 16:13

5. Because Illogical/Incoherent Systems of Belief Lead to Abuse

Systems built on contradiction are ripe for manipulation. If you believe contradictions don’t matter, then religious leaders can say whatever they want, and you’re defenseless against the lived realities they will create for you.

It’s no coincidence that many spiritual abuse scandals occur in churches where logic is mocked or ignored, exposure to information is controlled, dissenters are expelled, and leaders engage in messaging aimed at controlling or influencing the thought processes of their members. If logical contradictions are allowed to flourish, the abuse of power is not far behind.

Finally

You don’t need to be a logician to follow Christ. But if you say “I love God,” and you claim to believe in truth, then you should care whether your beliefs make sense — and whether the God you trust is actually God, or just a confused idea propped up by emotion and “spiritual experiences.”

Logic is not cold. It’s not elitist.

It’s the language of coherence, the grammar of truth, and a gift from God to help us see clearly.

Part 1 - Logic and Fallacy

The Three Pillars of Reasoning

When we think, analyze, or try to solve problems, we primarily engage in three types of logical reasoning. If you go into a Philosophy department at a college to enroll in a logic course, their classes are likely going to be divided along these categories:

1. Deductive Reasoning:

   • The Structure: This reasoning goes from the general to the specific. If your premises (the starting propositions) are true, and your logic is valid, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

   • Classic Example:¹

     • Premise 1: All humans are mortal.

     • Premise 2: Socrates is a human.

     • Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

   • The Objective: Certainty. Deduction proves a conclusion based on established rules or facts.² The strength lies entirely in the structure of the argument, the truth of its premises, and the rules of logical deduction that can lead you to a conclusion that you can be sure is true. The strength of deduction is the certainty of the conclusion (as long as you follow the derivation rules and the propositions are solid). The major limitation is that you cannot generate new knowledge or information that isn’t already embedded (in some form) in your initial set of propositions. You could uncover/tease out information that is maybe hiding in your propositions, but is non-obvious; however, you aren’t going to come up with new revelations.

2. Inductive Reasoning:

   • The Structure: This is reasoning from the specific to the general. You observe patterns or instances and make a generalization or form a hypothesis based on those observations. Unlike deduction, induction can lead to new information. That information is not guaranteed, but it may be probable.

   • Classic Example:

     • Observation 1: The sun has risen every morning of my life.

     • Observation 2: Historical records show the sun rising every morning in the past.

     • Conclusion: There is a good probability (a good reason to expect that) the sun will likely rise tomorrow morning.

   • The Goal: Probability. Induction doesn't guarantee the conclusion, but it makes it probable based on the evidence. It's the foundation of the scientific method, where observations lead to theories that are then tested. This is the primary way in which new knowledge is obtained.

3. Abductive Reasoning:

   • The Structure: This is reasoning to the best explanation. You start with an observation or set of observations and then seek the most likely explanation for why those observations occurred.

   • Classic Example:

     • Observation: I wake up, and my entire lawn is wet.

     • Possible Explanations: It rained; my neighbor was washing their car nearby.

     • Best Explanation (given no other information): It rained.

   • The Goal: Forming a hypothesis with a high likelihood of being true³. Abduction is what detectives, doctors, technologists, and mechanics do. They gather clues (observations) and infer the most probable cause. It's about finding the likeliest explanation that best fits all of the observations, not a guaranteed or the most probable one in the statistical sense of induction.

Understanding these three modes of thought is crucial for dissecting arguments. Is someone presenting a guaranteed truth (deduction), a likely generalization (induction), or just the most plausible explanation (abduction)?

Common Logical Fallacies and Faults in Reasoning

1. Underdetermined Arguments

• What it means: This happens when the reasons someone gives (the evidence or premises) aren't strong enough to force their conclusion. The conclusion might be a possible explanation, but the reasons don't rule out other possibilities. The evidence "underdetermines" or doesn't fully decide the outcome.

• Simply put, you jump to conclusions based on clues that could mean several things.

• Example:

  • Someone argues: "My car won't start this morning. It must be because the battery is dead."

• Why it's flawed: While a dead battery is one reason a car might not start, it's not the only reason. It could also be an empty gas tank, a problem with the starter motor, a security system issue, etc. The single piece of evidence ("car won't start") doesn't determine that the battery is definitely the problem. The argument is underdetermined because the premise could support multiple conclusions.

2. Circular Arguments (Begging the Question)

• What it means: This is when the argument assumes what it's trying to prove. The conclusion is already included or hidden within the reasons given for it. It goes in a circle, not actually proving anything new.

• In simple terms, You use your point to try and prove your point.

• Example:

  • Someone argues: "You should always trust me because I'm a trustworthy person."

• Why it's flawed: The argument is trying to convince you that the person is trustworthy. But their reason is simply that they are trustworthy. To accept their reason ("I'm a trustworthy person"), you already have to assume their conclusion (that you should trust them). They haven't given you any independent reason to believe they are trustworthy; they just asserted it differently.

Common Logical Fallacies

Recognizing these common fallacies helps you evaluate the strength of arguments you encounter every day, whether in discussions, advertisements, news, or political debates. A fallacy means the argument itself is weak, even if the statement being argued for happens to be true for other reasons.

Fallacies of Relevance

• Where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusions.

• Ad Hominem (Against the Person)

  • What it means: Attacking the character, motive, or other attributes of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument's substance.

  • In simple terms: Attacking the messenger instead of the message.

  • Example: "You can't trust anything she says about economic policy; she's never run a business herself."

  • Why it's flawed: A person's personal qualities, background, or motives usually have no bearing on the logical validity or truth of their claims. The argument stands or falls on its own merits. (We see this in political news coverage all the time. When you see this happening, by adding labels to a person, racist, misogynist, ablist, etc., you know that this type of argument is afoot and likely what they are saying to you is incorrect or they are trying to poison the well..)

  • Subtypes:

    • Abusive Ad Hominem: Direct insult. "You're too stupid to understand this complex issue."

    • Circumstantial Ad Hominem: Attacking circumstances/motives. "Of course he supports that law; he's a politician trying to get re-elected."

    • Tu Quoque ("You Also"): Claiming the arguer is a hypocrite. "You say I shouldn't smoke, but you used to smoke too!"

• Appeal to Authority (Ad Verecundiam)

  • What it means: Using the opinion of an authority figure as evidence in an argument when that authority is not an expert in the relevant field, when experts disagree, or when the authority is biased.

  • In simple terms: Believing something is true just because a 'smart' or famous person said it, even if they're not an expert on that topic.

  • Example: "My favourite actor endorses this new diet, so it must be effective for weight loss."

  • Why it's flawed: Expertise in one area does not transfer to others. Even legitimate experts can be wrong or biased. The argument should stand on its own evidence, not just who said it.

• Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy)

  • What it means: You claim that something is true, right, or good simply because a lot of people believe it or are doing it.

  • In simple terms: "Everyone's doing it, so it must be okay/true."

  • Example:

    • Someone argues: "Most people in my town believe that [Specific Conspiracy Theory] is true, so it must be true!"

  • Why it's flawed: The popularity of a belief does not logically determine its truthfulness. Millions of people can hold a false belief. Evidence and logic determine truth, not opinion polls.

• Appeal to Emotion (Ad Passiones)

  • What it means: Manipulating an emotional response (like pity, fear, anger, joy, etc.) in the audience to win an argument, instead of using logical reasoning or factual evidence.

  • In simple terms: Trying to make people feel a certain way so they agree with you, rather than giving good reasons.

  • Example: (Appeal to Pity) "Please give me an extension on my assignment; my dog is sick, and I've been so stressed I can't focus."

  • Why it's flawed: Emotions, while powerful, are not a reliable guide to truth or logical validity. An emotional response does not make a claim true or false, or an argument valid or invalid.

• Red Herring

  • What it means: Introducing an irrelevant topic into an argument to divert attention from the original issue and shift the focus.

  • In simple terms: Changing the subject to avoid the main point.

  • Example: "You're asking why I didn't finish my report on time? Well, let's talk about the impossible deadlines we're always given in this department."

  • Why it's flawed: The new topic, while potentially interesting or important, is logically unrelated to the original argument. It serves only to distract and does not address the actual claims being made.

• Straw Man

  • What it means: Misrepresenting, distorting, or oversimplifying an opponent's argument (creating a "straw man" version) to make it easier to attack or refute.

  • In simple terms: Twisting someone's words or argument into something they didn't say, then attacking that twisted version.

  • Example: Person A: "I think we should invest more in renewable energy sources." Person B: "So, you want to shut down all fossil fuel industries immediately, throw millions out of work, and plunge us back into the Dark Ages? That's ridiculous!"

  • Why it's flawed: The arguer is attacking a fabricated argument, not the actual one. Refuting a distorted version of an argument does not mean the original argument is false or weak.

The Straw Man and Anti-Mormon Arguments.

I’m going to break here for a bit and use this to highlight a common tactic used by anti-Mormons to attack Mormonism. (Typically, things you see coming from evangelical/protestant corners of the internet, where they not only engage in sloppy thinking, but rely on both sloppy thinking and false LDS cultural myths to be effective.) Let’s have a look.