Thought Terminating Cliche

[wtfluff]

So I guess mine is also a thought terminating cliche. My bad.

Interesting. I've never really thought about it that way, but according to the all-powerful Google, just because your statement ended the conversation, doesn't mean that it was a thought terminating cliche.

The first definition that pops up when I ask Google is this:

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

So my NOM-firmation bias tells me this: Your statement about the mall, though it stopped the conversation, it wasn't a thought-terminating cliche, unless you were trying to quell your own cognitive dissonance. The ultimate "termination" in this instance was changing the subject of the conversation, which I assume was your friend's doing?

I've had the same thing happen, and I don't think my statement that ended the conversation was to quell my own confirmation bias. My statement was probably to try and make the other party "think"; But more than anything my statement just made them extremely uncomfortable, which in a way is probably more like Godwin's Law than a thought terminating cliche. Although, whether it was intentional or not, it did end up being a conversation stopper. (Fluffy Wisdom: Warren Jeffs is mormonism's Hitler as it relates to Godwin's Law.)

I've never really ponderized what defines a thought terminating cliche. Thanks for making me exercise my tiny brain for a few moments.

This also begs the question: Do I use any "Apostate Thought Terminating Cliche's" myself? If so, what are they? Hmmm...

[Emower]

So I guess mine is also a thought terminating cliche. My bad.

Interesting. I've never really thought about it that way, but according to the all-powerful Google, just because your statement ended the conversation, doesn't mean that it was a thought terminating cliche.

The first definition that pops up when I ask Google is this:

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

So my NOM-firmation bias tells me this: Your statement about the mall, though it stopped the conversation, it wasn't a thought-terminating cliche, unless you were trying to quell your own cognitive dissonance. The ultimate "termination" in this instance was changing the subject of the conversation, which I assume was your friend's doing?

I've had the same thing happen, and I don't think my statement that ended the conversation was to quell my own confirmation bias. My statement was probably to try and make the other party "think"; But more than anything my statement just made them extremely uncomfortable, which in a way is probably more like Godwin's Law than a thought terminating cliche. Although, whether it was intentional or not, it did end up being a conversation stopper. (Fluffy Wisdom: Warren Jeffs is mormonism's Hitler as it relates to Godwin's Law.)

I've never really ponderized what defines a thought terminating cliche. Thanks for making me exercise my tiny brain for a few moments.

This also begs the question: Do I use any "Apostate Thought Terminating Cliche's" myself? If so, what are they? Hmmm...

Hmmm, those are hard to come up with because I experience very few instances of cognitive dissonance as an apostate. Here's my best shot:

"Well, I have to get my thoughts straight on the matter."

"I dont have all the answers."

"Joseph was a pedophile!"

[Mormorrisey]

The ultimate "termination" in this instance was changing the subject of the conversation, which I assume was your friend's doing?

This also begs the question: Do I use any "Apostate Thought Terminating Cliche's" myself? If so, what are they? Hmmm...

As to your first point, yeah, you're right. I would have kept going, so maybe you are right that it wasn't a cliche; an easier conclusion to come to when it paints me in a good light!

As to your second, you're bang on, I can and have done it when I gave it some thought. The worst thing I've said in a fit of pique against the missus, is "the magic voices in your head are no subsitute for critical thinking." In my defence, this line was in direct retaliation for the "you just need to have faith" line, and also in my defence, I apologized profusely after the words came out. But that was a conversation stopper to be sure, that while I might think it from time to time, it's definitely an apostate cliche. However, this larger discussion also led to some great makeup you know what between Sis. M and I so there's that.

But thanks for the response, got my tinier brain thinking as well.

[Hagoth]

I was told, "A testimony is found in the bearing of it."

To which I replied, "You mean I should lie about it until I start to believe it?"

Which was the thought stopper?

[Thoughtful]

The one I hear all the time is, "Well, but WE know that....xyz..."

In response to church history information that looks bad, contradictory doctrine, or any point of dissonance. Doesn't matter bc WE know that prophets won't lead us astray, or we know that God will work it all out later, or we know that Eden was literal.... etc etc

[Just This Guy]

One that has always gotten on my nerves is how quoting a scripture somehow will solve an argument. This is one where Mormonism has the same bad habit as most Christian churches. How often does a Christian think that simply stating John 3:16 is somehow the magic end to any discussion? It's quite the cliche, in Christian literature and cinema. Mormon is just as bad, it just has different favorite citations. What none of them realize is that if you don't believe in the source materiel, then it has no merit or power.

The problem is that most academics consider the bible little more than early historical fiction and the BOM is little more than early 19th century fan fiction with poorer production values.

So how do you have a logical conversation with someone who believes in something and someone who doesn't and you can't agree on the ground rules?

[LSOF]

"Ya just gotta have faith!"
"All these smart people believe it!"
"Some of your friends and family members believe it!"

All three of these were used on me in one sitting.

[moksha]

What can you come up with?

The person suffering from constipation who after some struggle has a relieving BM. After a catching their breath, that person shouts from the bathroom:

"It came to pass..."

[Not Buying It]

Everything you ever do in Church is aimed at stopping you from thinking. The last thing they want is the members actually thinking about what they are being taught. That is why every single question in every single manual can only be answered in a way that reinforces belief in the Church. If you start showing evidence of independent thought, the members around get really uncomfortable really quick.

The whole system is designed to terminate independent thinking. Which, in my estimation, makes it a pretty unhealthy system to be a part of.

[Emower]

What can you come up with?

The person suffering from constipation who after some struggle has a relieving BM. After a catching their breath, that person shouts from the bathroom:

"It came to pass..."

I love it! I am so going to use this in the church bathroom from now on.

[Emower]

One that has always gotten on my nerves is how quoting a scripture somehow will solve an argument. This is one where Mormonism has the same bad habit as most Christian churches. How often does a Christian think that simply stating John 3:16 is somehow the magic end to any discussion? It's quite the cliche, in Christian literature and cinema. Mormon is just as bad, it just has different favorite citations. What none of them realize is that if you don't believe in the source materiel, then it has no merit or power.

The problem is that most academics consider the bible little more than early historical fiction and the BOM is little more than early 19th century fan fiction with poorer production values.

So how do you have a logical conversation with someone who believes in something and someone who doesn't and you can't agree on the ground rules?

Yeah, the divide is pretty huge. Its like trying to shout across the grand canyon.

That is why every single question in every single manual can only be answered in a way that reinforces belief in the Church.

This is something that is a shelf item for several people I know. It is pretty obvious that the manuals are not trying to teach or help people in any way that is effective. We all know that the church does everything for very painstaking reasons, so the reasons that the manuals and lessons are so infantile is probably because they would rather reinforce conditioning rather than introduce thought. It is maddening for me and for several TBMs that I know.

[Emower]

The one I hear all the time is, "Well, but WE know that....xyz..."

In response to church history information that looks bad, contradictory doctrine, or any point of dissonance. Doesn't matter bc WE know that prophets won't lead us astray, or we know that God will work it all out later, or we know that Eden was literal.... etc etc

I hate this one. I hate the WE that gets tossed around in church all the time. It serves to set up an us vs. them dichotomy. Very unhealthy in my opinion. Its not just us, its the whole christian religion, and also some others that play the game. The church has taught that this life is like school, its here for our learning and benefit. It feels more like recess, where there are no rules, bullies abound rubbing your face in the dirt, pushing you off the swings and the people responsible for oversight and safety are all distracted over in the corner talking about the latest episode of Game of Thrones.