This thoughtful explanation on X is useful.
https://x.com/VeritasAnchor/status/1983666764279116191
THE 13-TOPIC TANGO:
A Field Guide to Internet Critics (And Why They're Actually Your Best Missionaries)
----------------------
There's a peculiar phenomenon every Latter-day Saint apologist encounters eventually. Someone shows up with what I call "The Checklist," a greatest-hits compilation of anti-Mormon talking points they're absolutely convinced will devastate your faith.
Let me tell you about a recent encounter. Over several hours, a gentleman (we'll call him Dan) threw thirteen different objections at me. Seer stones. Priesthood restriction. Brigham Young quotes. The Nauvoo tavern. Book of Mormon revisions. Reformed Egyptian. Garden of Eden in Missouri. Even Quakers on the moon.
Thirteen topics. One sitting. Zero engagement with any answer I provided.
It was magnificent. Not because we had productive dialogue (we didn't), but because it perfectly illustrated how critics operate when they're more interested in being right than finding truth. And it demonstrated why these conversations are never really for the critic. They're for everyone watching.
----------------------
The Dance: Thirteen Steps to Nowhere
The pattern is predictable. Dan opens with: "Let's talk about seer stones, top hats, and mysterious tablets."
Fair question. I respond with biblical precedent. The Urim and Thummim, Moses' staff, Aaron's rod, the apostles casting lots. God has always used physical objects in revelation. The 531-page Book of Mormon should be judged by its fruit, not the method of its translation.
His response? Cricket emojis. Then immediately: "Let's talk about why blacks weren't allowed to hold higher offices."
Different topic entirely. But I engage honestly. I acknowledge the priesthood restriction from 1852 to 1978, explain it ended by revelation, note that Elijah Abel was ordained in 1836, and compare it to Peter's vision in Acts 10 where God revealed Gentiles could receive the gospel after centuries of restriction.
His response? Mockery of Brigham Young's teachings, followed by laugh emojis.
So I address that too. Brigham Young said things about race that were wrong. The Church officially disavowed those teachings in 2013. Prophets are human. I cite biblical examples: Peter denying Christ, Moses striking the rock in anger, Nathan incorrectly telling David to build the temple before God corrected him.
And Dan's off again: "Let's talk about the tavern."
Thirteen topics. Each one answered with scripture, historical context, and logical reasoning. Not a single acknowledgment of any response.
----------------------
The Psychology: Fear of the First Domino
Dan doesn't want answers. He wants validation. Every question is a test: if I can just find the one objection this Mormon can't answer, the whole thing crumbles.
When I answer the first objection, he can't stop to consider it. Because if that objection isn't as devastating as he thought, maybe the others aren't either. That's terrifying. So he keeps moving. As long as he's asking new questions, he never has to face the answers to the old ones.
I eventually called it out: "I answered seer stones, priesthood restriction, Brigham Young, tavern, moon inhabitants, and Book of Mormon revisions with historical context and sources. Each time I answer, you jump to the next talking point. That's not debate. That's a checklist."
His response: "You're definitely a wordsmith who can stand behind twisted nonsense. Garden of Eden in Missouri. Go ahead."
He literally cannot stop himself. 
My favorite part? I asked him repeatedly to state his own religious beliefs so we could examine them by the same standards.
Silence.
He won't state his beliefs because throwing stones from behind a wall is easier than defending his own glass house.
----------------------
The Real Audience: Everyone But Dan
I never engaged Dan for Dan's benefit. I engaged him for everyone else reading the thread.
Dan is emotionally invested in being right. He's likely spent years collecting these objections. Admitting any are weak threatens his entire framework.
But observers? They're watching a different movie. They see one person answer thirteen objections with scripture, history, and logic. They see another respond with laugh emojis and subject changes. They watch me cite 1 Corinthians 15:29 for baptism for the dead and explain Paul's rhetorical pattern. They watch him call it "snake oil" without addressing the biblical text. (this was another 'debate' with another 'Dan').
The conversation was never for Dan. It was always for them.
This is fundamental to defending the faith online. You're not trying to convince hostile critics. You're giving neutral observers reason to question their assumptions. You're demonstrating that there's a coherent, scripturally grounded defense of Latter-day Saint beliefs. You're showing that critics often operate on misinformation, double standards, and emotional hostility rather than reason.
When someone throws thirteen objections and you address every one without flinching, observers notice. When you stay calm while they devolve into mockery, observers notice. When you offer to examine their beliefs and they refuse, observers notice.
----------------------
The Emojis: When Arguments Die, Mockery Begins
There's a reliable pattern. When someone starts losing ground, the laugh emojis appear. 
It's psychological defense. They can't refute your argument, so they mock it. The laughter signals: "I'm not taking this seriously, and neither should you."
Except observers aren't fooled. When someone answers a substantive question about Reformed Egyptian with " That's pig latin!" and you respond by explaining the difference between script and language, observers don't think, "Great rebuttal." They think, "He didn't actually answer the argument."
By the end, Dan had devolved to: "Just because Joey said it doesn't make it so. Here's a story only I can read. "
That's not discourse. That's intellectual surrender dressed up as confidence. He started with specific historical objections and ended with name-calling and emojis.
----------------------
How to Handle 'Dan', the Checklist Critic:
When you encounter someone running through The Checklist:
1. Answer honestly and substantively. Give scripture, history, and logic.
2. When they jump topics, gently note it. "I just answered that. You've moved on without engaging."
3. Keep answering anyway. Observers are learning.
4. After several rounds, name the pattern. "That's ten topics in an hour with zero engagement. You're running a checklist, not seeking truth."
5. Invite them to state their beliefs. "Tell me what you believe so we can examine it by the same standards."
6. When mockery replaces argument, diagnose it. "You've gone from historical objections to laugh emojis."
7. Reply. "I've answered every question. Observers can judge who brought substance."
The goal isn't the last word. The goal is demonstrating confidence in the restored gospel, intellectual honesty in addressing hard questions, and the ability to expose bad faith without losing your temper.
----------------------
Why This Matters: Critics as Unwitting Missionaries
Here's the beautiful irony. Critics like Dan think they're damaging the Church. In reality, they're doing missionary work.
When observers see someone answer thirteen objections with truth, scripture, and accuracy, then watch the critic melt into mockery and evasion, they start asking a crucial question:
"If this church is so obviously false, why can't critics disprove it without resorting to dishonesty and emojis?"
That cognitive dissonance creates curiosity. And curiosity leads people to investigate for themselves rather than trusting internet talking points.
----------------------
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to hide. We openly acknowledge historical complexities, prophetic imperfections, and ongoing doctrinal development. What we offer is coherent theology centered on Christ, living prophets receiving continuing revelation, and a worldwide community of 17 million Saints striving to follow Jesus.
We're not afraid of hard questions. We welcome them. Ask about seer stones, we'll give you biblical precedent and historical context. Ask about priesthood restriction, we'll acknowledge it honestly and explain the 1978 revelation. Ask about Book of Mormon geography or Reformed Egyptian or plural marriage, we'll give you thoughtful, scripturally grounded responses.
What we don't respect is intellectual dishonesty. Critics who run through checklists without listening. Mockers who deploy emojis instead of logic. People who demand we defend every detail while hiding their own beliefs.
----------------------
The Invitation
To anyone genuinely curious about Latter-day Saint beliefs: ask your questions. Really listen to the answers. Compare what critics claim we believe with what we actually teach. Read the Book of Mormon yourself instead of trusting someone's third-hand summary.
You'll find a faith that takes Jesus Christ seriously as Savior and Redeemer. That believes in modern prophets receiving ongoing revelation. That teaches human potential reaches beyond this life into eternal progression. That sends young missionaries across the world at their own expense because we believe this restored gospel changes lives.
You'll also find we're honest about hard questions. We don't have perfect answers to everything. But we have good answers to most things, and we trust God for the rest.
To the critics running through checklists:
Thank you!
Every time you throw a hundred objections and ignore the answers, you demonstrate to observers that our faith withstands scrutiny while your methodology doesn't. Every laugh emoji you deploy when you can't refute an argument shows that mockery isn't scholarship.
You think you're attacking the Church. Really, you're stress-testing it in public. And when observers see it withstand the test while you resort to emojis and evasion, they start wondering what you're so afraid of.
Keep foaming. We'll keep answering. And observers will keep noticing the difference between substance and slander.
----------------------
Final Thought
The restored gospel of Jesus Christ can handle hard questions. It's been doing so for 194 years. What it can't be defeated by is checklists, emojis, and critics who refuse to engage honestly.
To my Latter-day Saint friends facing hostile critics online: Don't be intimidated by The Checklist. Answer calmly. Cite scripture. Provide context. Name bad faith when you see it. And remember you're never really talking to the critic.
You're talking to everyone watching who hasn't made up their mind yet. And they're paying attention to who brings truth and who brings noise.
Be the truth. Let them bring the noise. Observers will figure out the difference.
My favorite part? I asked him repeatedly to state his own religious beliefs so we could examine them by the same standards.
Silence.
He won't state his beliefs because throwing stones from behind a wall is easier than defending his own glass house.
----------------------
The Real Audience: Everyone But Dan
I never engaged Dan for Dan's benefit. I engaged him for everyone else reading the thread.
Dan is emotionally invested in being right. He's likely spent years collecting these objections. Admitting any are weak threatens his entire framework.
But observers? They're watching a different movie. They see one person answer thirteen objections with scripture, history, and logic. They see another respond with laugh emojis and subject changes. They watch me cite 1 Corinthians 15:29 for baptism for the dead and explain Paul's rhetorical pattern. They watch him call it "snake oil" without addressing the biblical text. (this was another 'debate' with another 'Dan').
The conversation was never for Dan. It was always for them.
This is fundamental to defending the faith online. You're not trying to convince hostile critics. You're giving neutral observers reason to question their assumptions. You're demonstrating that there's a coherent, scripturally grounded defense of Latter-day Saint beliefs. You're showing that critics often operate on misinformation, double standards, and emotional hostility rather than reason.
When someone throws thirteen objections and you address every one without flinching, observers notice. When you stay calm while they devolve into mockery, observers notice. When you offer to examine their beliefs and they refuse, observers notice.
----------------------
The Emojis: When Arguments Die, Mockery Begins
There's a reliable pattern. When someone starts losing ground, the laugh emojis appear.
It's psychological defense. They can't refute your argument, so they mock it. The laughter signals: "I'm not taking this seriously, and neither should you."
Except observers aren't fooled. When someone answers a substantive question about Reformed Egyptian with " That's pig latin!" and you respond by explaining the difference between script and language, observers don't think, "Great rebuttal." They think, "He didn't actually answer the argument."
By the end, Dan had devolved to: "Just because Joey said it doesn't make it so. Here's a story only I can read. "
That's not discourse. That's intellectual surrender dressed up as confidence. He started with specific historical objections and ended with name-calling and emojis.
----------------------
How to Handle 'Dan', the Checklist Critic:
When you encounter someone running through The Checklist:
1. Answer honestly and substantively. Give scripture, history, and logic.
2. When they jump topics, gently note it. "I just answered that. You've moved on without engaging."
3. Keep answering anyway. Observers are learning.
4. After several rounds, name the pattern. "That's ten topics in an hour with zero engagement. You're running a checklist, not seeking truth."
5. Invite them to state their beliefs. "Tell me what you believe so we can examine it by the same standards."
6. When mockery replaces argument, diagnose it. "You've gone from historical objections to laugh emojis."
7. Reply. "I've answered every question. Observers can judge who brought substance."
The goal isn't the last word. The goal is demonstrating confidence in the restored gospel, intellectual honesty in addressing hard questions, and the ability to expose bad faith without losing your temper.
----------------------
Why This Matters: Critics as Unwitting Missionaries
Here's the beautiful irony. Critics like Dan think they're damaging the Church. In reality, they're doing missionary work.
When observers see someone answer thirteen objections with truth, scripture, and accuracy, then watch the critic melt into mockery and evasion, they start asking a crucial question:
"If this church is so obviously false, why can't critics disprove it without resorting to dishonesty and emojis?"
That cognitive dissonance creates curiosity. And curiosity leads people to investigate for themselves rather than trusting internet talking points.
----------------------
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to hide. We openly acknowledge historical complexities, prophetic imperfections, and ongoing doctrinal development. What we offer is coherent theology centered on Christ, living prophets receiving continuing revelation, and a worldwide community of 17 million Saints striving to follow Jesus.
We're not afraid of hard questions. We welcome them. Ask about seer stones, we'll give you biblical precedent and historical context. Ask about priesthood restriction, we'll acknowledge it honestly and explain the 1978 revelation. Ask about Book of Mormon geography or Reformed Egyptian or plural marriage, we'll give you thoughtful, scripturally grounded responses.
What we don't respect is intellectual dishonesty. Critics who run through checklists without listening. Mockers who deploy emojis instead of logic. People who demand we defend every detail while hiding their own beliefs.
----------------------
The Invitation
To anyone genuinely curious about Latter-day Saint beliefs: ask your questions. Really listen to the answers. Compare what critics claim we believe with what we actually teach. Read the Book of Mormon yourself instead of trusting someone's third-hand summary.
You'll find a faith that takes Jesus Christ seriously as Savior and Redeemer. That believes in modern prophets receiving ongoing revelation. That teaches human potential reaches beyond this life into eternal progression. That sends young missionaries across the world at their own expense because we believe this restored gospel changes lives.
You'll also find we're honest about hard questions. We don't have perfect answers to everything. But we have good answers to most things, and we trust God for the rest.
To the critics running through checklists:
Thank you!
Every time you throw a hundred objections and ignore the answers, you demonstrate to observers that our faith withstands scrutiny while your methodology doesn't. Every laugh emoji you deploy when you can't refute an argument shows that mockery isn't scholarship.
You think you're attacking the Church. Really, you're stress-testing it in public. And when observers see it withstand the test while you resort to emojis and evasion, they start wondering what you're so afraid of.
Keep foaming. We'll keep answering. And observers will keep noticing the difference between substance and slander.
----------------------
Final Thought
The restored gospel of Jesus Christ can handle hard questions. It's been doing so for 194 years. What it can't be defeated by is checklists, emojis, and critics who refuse to engage honestly.
To my Latter-day Saint friends facing hostile critics online: Don't be intimidated by The Checklist. Answer calmly. Cite scripture. Provide context. Name bad faith when you see it. And remember you're never really talking to the critic.
You're talking to everyone watching who hasn't made up their mind yet. And they're paying attention to who brings truth and who brings noise.
Be the truth. Let them bring the noise. Observers will figure out the difference.
