Aside from the fact that Monson isn't even an expert in his field of theology, the man has no credible background in epidemiology, biology or the theory of disease transmission. He only has opinions that he can then toggle to age old scriptures on faith in God for healing which were about all the options one had back in the day when the gods were about as much medical help as one was going to get.
Sheldon Monson is a False Authority, on the topic of whether or not one should take or reject the vaccine for Covid because God will protect them. He won't. And while decisions do belong to each individual, you'd at lest think "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" might come into play somewhere in their thinking. It generally doesn't in the more rabid pastor types in the splinters I know and alumni.
This article will focus on the conditional logical fallacy of argument from authority or false authority. It is also known as an appeal to authority, appeal to false authority, and argumentum ad verecundiam (see note 1). In scientific discussions, this logical fallacy is often used by those opposed to the scientific consensus.
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/argument-from-authority-logical-fallacies/Description of the argument from authority
Generally, the argument from authority or false authority, is an argument from an authority, but on a topic outside of the particular authority’s expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased). The argument is considered conditionally fallacious, because an appeal to authority may be appropriate.
In order for the argument from authority to be considered a logical fallacy, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualifications, and not because of their evidence in the argument. Moreover, the argument can be fallacious if the authority lacks actual qualifications in the field being discussed.
In discussions about vaccines, the anti-vaccine side will often promote individuals who appear to have appropriate credentials, such as an MD, as advocates for their beliefs. However, if this MD rejects the obvious scientific consensus on vaccines, without an equivalent amount of evidence, then it is considered a fallacy.
It’s the argument and evidence that matters, not the credentials of the arguer. Wikipedia has an interesting policy called “Ignore all credentials.” Their reasoning is that the only thing that matters in creating a neutral point of view (which values reliable evidence over opinions and arguments) are credible citations that support a statement.
A climate change denier may attempt to convince us that because 100 PhDs reject the theory of anthropogenic climate change, without presenting any high quality contradictory evidence, then it’s a fallacy of argument from authority. If many of those PhDs are outside of the fields of climate change, it’s an argument from false authorities.
And remember, lacking credentials of an authority do not necessarily negate the arguments from that person. If their arguments are founded on robust evidence, that’s all that matters.
What is not an argument from authority?
As we mentioned, this is a conditional fallacy, so an argument from an authority may not be a logical fallacy, and, in fact, may be an appropriate argument. For example, one may be a published and highly respect expert in a field, their arguments can be acceptable, and it’s not a logical fallacy.
These authority figures have extensive work in the field that actually form the body of evidence in support of an argument. The reason we accept their authority is that their works (almost always published and peer-reviewed) of authorities, no matter how eminent or influential, is always judged by the quality of their evidence and reasoning, not by their authority alone.
Example
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych has a Ph.D. in immunology and has a few publications in the field of immunology. She has been used by the anti-vaccine world as an authority about vaccines. However, her statements about vaccines lack any supportive scientific evidence, and they reject some of the basic principles of immunology. She has no experience in any of the important areas vaccine research, has never personally researched vaccines, so, despite her credentials, she is a false authority.
=================================================
Perhaps the Facebook Covid Medical Misinformation Policy would help on The Churches of God avoid straying outside their chosen field of all things God. They should adopt them for their upcoming Feast of Coughs and Sniffles. Several COG ministerial and homeopathic types have had their posts removed under these guidelines and ,of course, scream "persecution!"
COVID-19 medical misinformation policy
The safety of our creators, viewers, and partners is our highest priority. We look to each of you to help us protect this unique and vibrant community. It’s important you understand our Community Guidelines, and the role they play in our shared responsibility to keep YouTube safe. Take the time to carefully read the policy below. You can also check out
this page for a full list of our guidelines.
YouTube doesn't allow content about COVID-19 that poses a serious risk of egregious harm.
YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19. This is limited to content that contradicts WHO or local health authorities’ guidance on:
- Treatment
- Prevention
- Diagnosis
- Transmission
- Social distancing and self isolation guidelines
- The existence of COVID-19
Note: YouTube’s policies on COVID-19 are subject to change in response to changes to global or local health authorities’ guidance on the virus. This policy was published on May 20, 2020.
What this policy means for you
If you're posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
Treatment misinformation:
- Content that encourages the use of home remedies, prayer, or rituals in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
- Content that claims that there’s a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
- Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19
- Claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19
- Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19
- Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
Prevention misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
- Claims that there is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19
- Claims that any medication or vaccination is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19
- Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19
- Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects
- Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19
- Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO
Diagnostic misinformation: Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
- Claims that approved COVID-19 tests are dangerous or causes negative physical health effects
- Claims that approved COVID-19 tests cannot diagnose COVID-19
Transmission misinformation: Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or WHO.
- Content that claims that COVID-19 is not caused by a viral infection
- Content that claims COVID-19 is not contagious
- Content that claims that COVID-19 cannot spread in certain climates or geographies
- Content that claims that any group or individual has immunity to the virus or cannot transmit the virus
Social distancing and self isolation misinformation: Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO's guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.
Content that denies the existence of COVID-19:
- Denial that COVID-19 exists
- Claims that people have not died or gotten sick from COVID-19
- Claims that the virus no longer exists or that the pandemic is over
- Claims that the symptoms, death rates, or contagiousness of COVID-19 are less severe or equally as severe as the common cold or seasonal flu
- Claims that the symptoms of COVID-19 are never severe
Examples
Here are some examples of content that’s not allowed on YouTube:
- Denial that COVID-19 exists
- Claims that people have not died from COVID-19
- Claims that any vaccine is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19
- Claims that a specific treatment or medicine is a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
- Claims that hydroxychloroquine saves people from COVID-19
- Promotion of MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution) for the treatment of COVID-19
- Claims that certain people have immunity to COVID-19 due to their race or nationality
- Encouraging taking home remedies instead of getting medical treatment when sick
- Discouraging people from consulting a medical professional if they’re sick
- Content that claims that holding your breath can be used as a diagnostic test for COVID-19
- Videos alleging that if you avoid Asian food, you won’t get the coronavirus
- Videos alleging that setting off fireworks can clean the air of the virus and will prevent the spread of the virus
- Claims that COVID-19 is caused by radiation from 5G networks
- Videos alleging that the COVID-19 test is the cause of the virus
- Claims that countries with hot climates will not experience the spread of the virus
- Videos alleging that social distancing and self-isolation are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus
- Claims that wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop to dangerous levels
- Claims that masks cause lung cancer or brain damage
- Claims that wearing a mask gives you COVID-19
- Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it
- Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will be used as a means of population reduction
- Videos claiming that the COVID-19 vaccine will contain fetal tissue
- Claims that the flu vaccine causes contraction of COVID-19
- Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19
- Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes contraction of other infectious diseases or makes people more vulnerable to contraction of other infectious diseases
- Claims that the COVID-19 vaccines contain a microchip or tracking device
- Claims that achieving herd immunity through natural infection is safer than vaccinating the population
- Claims that COVID-19 never causes serious symptoms or hospitalization
- Claims that the death rate from the seasonal flu is higher than the death rate of COVID-19
- Claims that people are immune to the virus based on their race
- Claims that children cannot or do not contract COVID-19
- Claims that there have not been cases or deaths in countries where cases or deaths have been confirmed by local health authorities or the WHO
Educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content
We may allow content that violates the misinformation policies noted on this page if that content includes additional context in the video, audio, title, or description. This is not a free pass to promote misinformation. Additional context may include countervailing views from local health authorities or medical experts. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn, dispute, or satirize misinformation that violates our policies. We may also make exceptions for content showing an open public forum, like a protest or public hearing, provided the content does not aim to promote misinformation that violates our policies.
What happens if content violates this policy
If your content violates this policy, we’ll remove the content and send you an email to let you know. If this is your first time violating our Community Guidelines, you’ll likely get a warning with no penalty to your channel. If it’s not, we may issue a strike against your channel. If you get 3 strikes within 90 days, your channel will be terminated. You can learn more about our strikes system here.
We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation. You can learn more about channel or account terminations here.
