In his MTC address, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s statement is filled with logical fallacies that manipulate emotions rather than provide actual evidence for the LDS Church’s truth claims.
The “Borrowed Testimony” Fallacy
“If there is anyone in the room who’s struggling with a testimony, you have one — mine!”
This is similar to advice from another LDS church leader, Dallin H. Oaks, who stated that one can gain a testimony by bearing it, or essentially to pretend to have a testimony until you think you actually do.
Why It’s a Fallacy
This is an appeal to authority and emotional dependence. Holland suggests that if someone lacks a testimony, they can simply “borrow” his. But belief isn’t something that can be transferred like property—it requires personal conviction based on evidence and reason. Simply because an authority thinks something, it doesn’t mean that is true, especially when this so-called authority, is a self-proclaimed authority.
Why It’s Manipulative
This discourages critical thinking by pressuring individuals to adopt his certainty instead of seeking their own answers. It suggests that doubting is unnecessary because a leader has already done the thinking for them.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
The Appeal to Personal Sacrifice
“You’re giving two years. I’m giving my life! Everything I own, everything I possess is on the line.”
Why It’s a Fallacy
This is an appeal to sacrifice—the idea that because he has invested so much, it must be true. The amount of effort someone puts into a belief however doesn’t determine whether the belief itself is true. Many people dedicate their entire lives to causes that are later proven false or misguided.
The Argument from Inertia (also “Stay the Course”): The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action regardless of pain and sacrifice involved and even after discovering it is mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting that one’s decision (or one’s leader, or one’s country, or one’s faith) was wrong, and all one’s effort, expense, sacrifice and even bloodshed was for nothing, and that’s unthinkable.
https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
Why It’s Manipulative
This pressures missionaries to feel guilty for questioning because Holland claims to have sacrificed even more. It creates an unfair comparison—young missionaries who struggle for two years are being told that their leader has given far more, implying that they should just endure and obey.
The “I’m Not Stupid” Fallacy
This is one of Holland’s personal favorite fallacies. He’s brought up multiple times that he’s not stupid. In an interview on BBC he states both that he is not a dodo and he is not an idiot. Now we have him saying he’s not stupid. He thinks highly of himself and expects others to as well. He thinks since he received Ivy league schooling and a senior leadership calling in the church that he’s an expert or authority on the subject and we should just take his word.
“Give me a little more credit than that! I’m not an absolutely stupid man.”
Why It’s a Fallacy
This is an appeal to authority and a false dilemma. Holland suggests that because he is intelligent, he must be correct about the church’s truthfulness. But intelligence doesn’t guarantee correctness—highly intelligent people have been wrong about many things throughout history.
Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Why It’s Manipulative
It implies that anyone who disagrees with him is insulting his intelligence. This discourages questioning because it frames doubt as a personal attack rather than a sincere search for truth.
The “I Wouldn’t Lie to You” Fallacy
“I would not come tell you a fairy tale. I wouldn’t wear myself into the ground… for something we did not know beyond a shadow of a doubt was God’s almighty truth!”
Why It’s a Fallacy
This is an appeal to personal integrity, implying that because he believes he is honest, his claims must be true. But honesty and truthfulness are not the same—someone can be sincerely mistaken, even an honest person. This is also an appeal to incredulity, in that Holland expresses he cannot fathom that his claims are a “fairy tale.”
Personal Incredulity: Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it’s probably not true.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Why It’s Manipulative
It plays on the trust members have in church leaders. Instead of offering evidence, Holland leans on his own perceived credibility. This can make members feel guilty for doubting because it implies that doing so is equivalent to accusing a respected leader of lying.
Faith or Manipulation?
Holland’s rhetoric is not about proving the church’s truthfulness—it’s about pressuring members to stop questioning. His words rely on guilt, emotional appeals, and logical fallacies rather than presenting clear evidence.
This kind of messaging can be harmful because it discourages independent thought and critical analysis. A healthy faith should welcome questions and allow individuals to find their own answers—not demand that they borrow someone else’s certainty.
Gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of the Mormon Church—or any belief system—through an intellectually honest approach requires a rigorous and unbiased method of investigation. This means avoiding confirmation bias (only seeking information that supports a pre-existing belief) and appeals to emotion (relying on feelings rather than evidence).
Here’s a fair and intellectually honest way to examine the truth claims of the LDS Church:
1. Define What Would Constitute Truth
Before beginning any investigation, one must establish clear criteria for what would qualify the Church’s claims as true. Consider:
- Historical accuracy – Do the church’s foundational claims align with historical evidence?
- Consistency – Are doctrines, revelations, and teachings internally consistent over time?
- Empirical verification – Can any of the claims be tested or falsified?
- Moral and ethical coherence – Do the teachings align with ethical principles independent of church authority?
2. Approach the Investigation with Neutrality
An honest seeker should be willing to accept any conclusion, whether it supports or challenges their beliefs. This means being open to the possibility that the Church is true, partially true, or false. This goes against the apologetic course of action or taught approach of starting with a conclusion and looking for anything that gives it confirmation.
3. Evaluate All Available Sources
Rather than relying only on faith-promoting sources (like church-published materials), a thorough investigator should examine any and every available source.
- Primary documents (e.g., the Joseph Smith Papers, early church records, original Book of Mormon manuscripts)
- Independent historical research (scholarly works on church history from both LDS and non-LDS historians)
- Critiques and apologetics (both faithful defenses and critical analyses of LDS truth claims)
4. Use Critical Thinking Skills and even Scientific Method
- Form a hypothesis – Example: “The LDS Church is the one true church restored by God.”
- Gather evidence – Review historical records, theological arguments, and personal experiences.
- Test predictions – If Joseph Smith was a prophet, his prophecies should come to pass. If the Book of Mormon is historical, there should be archaeological evidence.
- Consider alternative explanations – Could the spiritual experiences confirming the church’s truth be psychological in nature? Could the growth of the church be explained by social, rather than divine, factors?
- Repeat and verify – Compare findings from multiple sources to see if the conclusions hold under scrutiny.
5. Examine the Role of Spiritual Experience
Many testimonies rely on subjective spiritual feelings (a “burning in the bosom”). While feelings are valid personal experiences, these are not reliable methods for determining objective truth. Ask questions to clarify and distinguish truth from feelings:
- Do people of other faiths experience the same confirming feelings?
- Are there psychological explanations for these emotions?
- Can truth be established independently of emotional responses?
6. Consider the Implications of Both Possible Conclusions
If the church is true, then its claims should withstand rigorous scrutiny. As many church leaders have proclaimed.
If the church is not true, then accepting this fact should not be feared but embraced as an honest search for truth.
7. Make a Conclusion Based on Evidence, Not Desire
After weighing the evidence, draw a conclusion based on facts, not what one hopes to be true. Intellectual honesty means being willing to change one’s beliefs if the evidence points in a different direction.
By following this method, one can arrive at a testimony—or lack thereof—that is based on reason and evidence rather than logical fallacies, bias, and emotion.
Seek Truth with Integrity
An intellectually honest pursuit of truth requires us to examine beliefs critically, consider all available evidence, and be open to conclusions we may not have anticipated. If the Mormon Church is true, its claims should hold up under rigorous scrutiny. If it is not, then we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge reality rather than cling to comforting but unfounded beliefs. Truth should not require mental gymnastics, suppression of doubt, or emotional manipulation—it should stand on its own.
For many who have gone through this process, faith deconstruction can be a challenging but ultimately liberating journey. If you have questioned, examined, and arrived at your own conclusions about Mormonism, we invite you to share your story. Your experience may help others who are navigating similar doubts and searching for truth with integrity. Share your faith transition or deconstruction story at wasmormon.org and be part of a community that values honesty, curiosity, and personal growth.
More reading:
- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
- Does a “Burning in Your Bosom” Outweigh Physical Evidence?
- Moroni’s Promise – A Lesson in Confirmation Bias and Elevated Emotions
- Moroni’s Promise and Begging the Question
- The Truth Cannot Be Harmed By Investigation?
- Jeffrey R Holland’s BBC Interview – Transcript and Video Clips
- Elder Holland’s Taffy-Pulled Devotional – Don’t You Dare Bail & Stay in the Boat!
- Would You Die For The Church?
- Facts More Important than Cherished, Mistaken Beliefs
- When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest
- Moroni’s Promise – A Lesson in Confirmation Bias and Elevated Emotions
- Confirmation Bias
- Mormons Expected to Stand Forever – Despite Questions
- Gain a Testimony By Pretending To Have One