Perils of Being a Mormosphere Influencer

[Limnor]

Kish, your story overlays very cleanly onto the experience of being an officer in the military, and maybe other professions or organizations. Especially those that place a lot of value on cohesion and authority.

Your “attaboy mode” sounds like it could have been interpreted as a signal of loyalty. In the military, we learn quickly that there’s a difference between being welcomed when aligning to authority but seen as challenging that authority when even the slightest misstep happens, at least with less seasoned officers or leaders. It’s role maintenance—the leader can never be seen to be wrong or questioned in public.

So the private messages you mentioned sound a lot like an unstated rule: “Don’t undermine authority in public.” In uniform, you’ll hear things like “let’s take this offline, or “see me after” as the indicators that you’ve crossed a line. Public disagreement, no matter how mild, can be interpreted as an erosion of command authority, regardless of intent. I’d probably call those messages an attempt to exact discipline on you.

Another interesting parallel is the language of “why are you being a prick?” which redefines dissent as a character flaw. “You need an attitude adjustment” and “poor judgment or tact” are common refrains that shift what was said to defining the entire character of a person on a single line.

You said this person had “embarked on a personal mission” to take on critics. Once someone adopts a mission identity (“defender,” “counter-critic,” “lone visionary among dull literalists”), tolerance for dissent drops because now you’re interfering with the mission.

.Your “better angels” comment may have been read as leadership advice that may have sounded like a junior officer saying “Sir, the way we’re handling this engagement may be creating unnecessary friction.” A risky move.

I think your model of adulting is probably closer to relationships that hold mutual regard and earned trust as values, whereas your counterpart was seeking alignment and continued “attaboy” support.

This retired officer’s assessment is you acted like a peer offering solid feedback, but they reacted like a leader protecting authority during an ongoing campaign.

Much like in the military, once someone occupies a role that requires projecting authority and defending a mission, even well intended disagreement from trusted insiders can be reinterpreted as disloyalty.

My advice?: Seek to understand the system, chalk up the lesson learned, de-escalate, and don’t internalize as a personal failure.

I think, practically, the same mindset may apply to apologetics, at least for some.

[Whiskey]

I agree that the definition of apologetics, as only applying to discussion of matters of religion and faith, is quickly disappearing. I think that's too bad. The reason religions need an apologetic defense is that they're on such thin ice empirically. Their devotees often can’t argue from evidence. They need a different approach. Apologetics.

[edited to make Whiskey's point]

The contemporary tendency to assign the concept of 'apologetics' to theories in disciplines like history, psychology, politics, economics, and (now, even) epidemiology is an attempt to dilute the legitimacy of various approaches in those disciplines. Under apologetics, every argument is deconstructed to be nothing more than a statement of opinion--the parallel of faith.

[edited to make Whiskey's point]


It’s dysfunctional.

"Apologetics" the word and apologetics the practice did not escape religion because critics diluted the term. It escaped religion because thin ideologies started needing it. Religion required apologetics because its claims sit outside empirical verification. A point you made very well, with a great example. The apologiests defend conclusions they cannot demonstrate by evidence by building narrative, coherence, and moral framing around them. That method works only when the ideology and its busy-work and BS is fragile enough to require constant defense.

Once that technique existed, it was inevitable it would be reused. Politics picked it up not because politics suddenly became religion, but because certain political positions became just as thin. When an ideology cannot survive direct engagement with facts, incentives, tradeoffs, or consequences, it does what religion has always done. It produces apologetics. It reframes objections as moral failure. It treats disagreement as heresy. It substitutes motive-reading for argument. It demands faith in conclusions rather than examination of premises.

My example here is that the ideology of DEI, open borders and hating the country more than hating genital herpes requires apologetics. It requires a funded propaganda machine and mouth. The Rob Reiner Machine out of Hollywood is no different than the Neil A. Maxwell institute and DCP. The apologetics of the status quo and moderation by some moderators at this forum is no different than the apologetics and moderation at the old Mormon Archipelago and current forums where we are mostly banned. Before you get your panties too twisted — WMD sorta changed political apologetics for a generation or more because it worked. I am sure as many folks think FOX is just apologetics. You get the point. Nobody gets the win here. Masks and social distancing and canceling school for kids required apologetics, not goddamn science for fucksakes. We made it cultural.

Calling this “political apologetics” does not cheapen religious apologetics. It exposes the same structural weakness showing up in a new domain. If an idea were robust, it would not require defenders to invent internal enemies, fabricate intent, or flatten every disagreement into evil motives (your Hitler example to the Nth degree). It would argue plainly and survive scrutiny. The spread of apologetics into politics is not an insult to politics. It is a diagnosis of ideological weakness, cheapness and shittiness.

That is why the term now applies across domains. Not because everything is apologetics, but because more and more positions have become incapable of standing without it. The discipline did not spread like a mold. The need for apologetics spread.

[Gadianton]

So from this I infer that apologetics is about trying to uphold an objective statement, as something that everyone should believe. This could include statements like, "There is nothing objectively wrong with holding the following subjective opinion." That statement itself is supposed to be an objective fact, even though it deals with opinions. So pinning down what the objective issue is could be subtle, but I think that a claim to objectivity has to be there in some form. Merely asserting a personal preference doesn't count to me as apologetics.

Right, "nobody stands in the same river twice." Apologetics has gotten really lazy, and in recent years the most likely argument will be (as Morley said) there are no objective statements, only subjective ones and Mormonism is worthy competitor among equals. Whitewashed history doesn't have to be "true" as they will point to the book "That Noble Dream", and walk away triumphant. If a whitewashed Mormon history book is good enough to sit on a shelf in a library at Oxford, then their work is done.

[Whiskey]

So from this I infer that apologetics is about trying to uphold an objective statement, as something that everyone should believe. This could include statements like, "There is nothing objectively wrong with holding the following subjective opinion." That statement itself is supposed to be an objective fact, even though it deals with opinions. So pinning down what the objective issue is could be subtle, but I think that a claim to objectivity has to be there in some form. Merely asserting a personal preference doesn't count to me as apologetics.

Right, "nobody stands in the same river twice." Apologetics has gotten really lazy, and in recent years the most likely argument will be (as Morley said) there are no objective statements, only subjective ones and Mormonism is worthy competitor among equals. Whitewashed history doesn't have to be "true" as they will point to the book "That Noble Dream", and walk away triumphant. If a whitewashed Mormon history book is good enough to sit on a shelf in a library at Oxford, then their work is done.

Apologetics is not less lazy. Perhaps more shameless. Perhaps even less factual, if that was possible. The work and expense of apologetics is going up. It takes more work and less shame to play this game today.

[Limnor]

Interesting thread.

I see a couple of lines of thought here: one in which the question of truth claims explains how apologetics defines and justifies itself, and one that looks at the effects on relationships when the presence of apologetics appears and changes conversations.

[Gadianton]

"Apologetics" the word and apologetics the practice did not escape religion because critics diluted the term. It escaped religion because thin ideologies started needing it. Religion required apologetics because its claims sit outside empirical verification. A point you made very well, with a great example. The apologiests defend conclusions they cannot demonstrate by evidence by building narrative, coherence, and moral framing around them. That method works only when the ideology and its busy-work and BS is fragile enough to require constant defense.

Once that technique existed, it was inevitable it would be reused. Politics picked it up not because politics suddenly became religion, but because certain political positions became just as thin. When an ideology cannot survive direct engagement with facts, incentives, tradeoffs, or consequences, it does what religion has always done. It produces apologetics. It reframes objections as moral failure. It treats disagreement as heresy. It substitutes motive-reading for argument. It demands faith in conclusions rather than examination of premises.

My example here is that the ideology of DEI, open borders and hating the country more than hating genital herpes requires apologetics. It requires a funded propaganda machine and mouth. The Rob Reiner Machine out of Hollywood is no different than the Neil A. Maxwell institute and DCP. The apologetics of the status quo and moderation by some moderators at this forum is no different than the apologetics and moderation at the old Mormon Archipelago and current forums where we are mostly banned. Before you get your panties too twisted — WMD sorta changed political apologetics for a generation or more because it worked. I am sure as many folks think FOX is just apologetics. You get the point. Nobody gets the win here. Masks and social distancing and canceling school for kids required apologetics, not goddamn science for fucksakes. We made it cultural.

Calling this “political apologetics” does not cheapen religious apologetics. It exposes the same structural weakness showing up in a new domain. If an idea were robust, it would not require defenders to invent internal enemies, fabricate intent, or flatten every disagreement into evil motives (your Hitler example to the Nth degree). It would argue plainly and survive scrutiny. The spread of apologetics into politics is not an insult to politics. It is a diagnosis of ideological weakness, cheapness and shittiness.

That is why the term now applies across domains. Not because everything is apologetics, but because more and more positions have become incapable of standing without it. The discipline did not spread like a mold. The need for apologetics spread.

Golf clap.

[Whiskey]

"Apologetics" the word and apologetics the practice did not escape religion because critics diluted the term. It escaped religion because thin ideologies started needing it. Religion required apologetics because its claims sit outside empirical verification. A point you made very well, with a great example. The apologiests defend conclusions they cannot demonstrate by evidence by building narrative, coherence, and moral framing around them. That method works only when the ideology and its busy-work and BS is fragile enough to require constant defense.

Once that technique existed, it was inevitable it would be reused. Politics picked it up not because politics suddenly became religion, but because certain political positions became just as thin. When an ideology cannot survive direct engagement with facts, incentives, tradeoffs, or consequences, it does what religion has always done. It produces apologetics. It reframes objections as moral failure. It treats disagreement as heresy. It substitutes motive-reading for argument. It demands faith in conclusions rather than examination of premises.

My example here is that the ideology of DEI, open borders and hating the country more than hating genital herpes requires apologetics. It requires a funded propaganda machine and mouth. The Rob Reiner Machine out of Hollywood is no different than the Neil A. Maxwell institute and DCP. The apologetics of the status quo and moderation by some moderators at this forum is no different than the apologetics and moderation at the old Mormon Archipelago and current forums where we are mostly banned. Before you get your panties too twisted — WMD sorta changed political apologetics for a generation or more because it worked. I am sure as many folks think FOX is just apologetics. You get the point. Nobody gets the win here. Masks and social distancing and canceling school for kids required apologetics, not goddamn science for fucksakes. We made it cultural.

Calling this “political apologetics” does not cheapen religious apologetics. It exposes the same structural weakness showing up in a new domain. If an idea were robust, it would not require defenders to invent internal enemies, fabricate intent, or flatten every disagreement into evil motives (your Hitler example to the Nth degree). It would argue plainly and survive scrutiny. The spread of apologetics into politics is not an insult to politics. It is a diagnosis of ideological weakness, cheapness and shittiness.

That is why the term now applies across domains. Not because everything is apologetics, but because more and more positions have become incapable of standing without it. The discipline did not spread like a mold. The need for apologetics spread.

Golf clap.

You always have a dodge when the content hits you in the face, don't you?

[canpakes]

If an idea were robust, it would not require defenders to invent internal enemies, fabricate intent, or flatten every disagreement into evil motives (your Hitler example to the Nth degree). It would argue plainly and survive scrutiny.

Dammit. There goes the whole Trump Administration and most of MAGA. : D

[Markk]

There is a consistency in the tone and content. Same dopamine hits are happening for about the same intellectual effort - on both sides.

As for me, my response to all this, the process is fascinating, the content is boring as crap. That is true for the Book of Abraham, the Epstein files, the CES letters, Climate Murder, Murder Climate and Climate Murder Murder Climate, and trans fascist fobiacism. Boring as crap. Same apologists doing the same crap for all of it, with some getting a greater dopamine hit than others. The process though, can't stop watching it. Huge interest in the process.

You’re right, my friend. It’s all about process. The real beauty is always in the process.

The act of painting the picture is more important than the picture.

My two cents here, after 30 plus years of talking to Mopologists, it is two main things. One is generally as you wrote here. They like the attention of knowing it all, and that process.

But for the LDS apologist the heart of it is protecting their testimony and everything that most of us walked away from. And doing it for the weaker minded that can’t think on their own.

The underlying motivation in all this, whether they realize it or not, is “the survival of the church”. “The church” must Survive at all costs. If the church survives, the testimony survives, and the family structure survives.

Most of the monologists know in their hearts that there are real problems with LDS truth claims, and that on an academic level can’t be defended. If they really believed otherwise they would defend some of these claims the same way they do inside….outside the Mormosphere. Especially with things like Book of Mormon geography, or the Book of Abraham.

The convenient thing with Mormonism is that it was and is designed to change. This gives the mopologist a get out of jail card for any theory they might assert. And again what dictates the changes, is the guarantee that “the church” must survive.

In my 34 years of seeing this, these guys and the church came out of the gates like gang busters…all hands on deck with an army of apologists to set things straight. However, they underestimated two things big time. The first is they would actually have to back up the talking point doctrines and truth claims we had shoved down our throats growing up in the church. And two, the internet blew those truths up in their faces where they could not spin the talking points any longer. It wasn’t the Tanners vs Nibley in some back room any longer, but anyone with a smart phone against the church.

This all exploded after GBH died, and Monson was stuck cleaning up the mess. Those that have been here a long time will remember the editorial like comic that showed the GA’s getting on a bus, with if I remember correctly DCP driving…. with the destination sign reading FARMs. Well, that has certainly changed and the GA forced the mopology experiment underground, and now as a tool for plausible deniability use only. Maybe Wang Chung can make a meme of a glass front Fire Extinguisher case with Brian Hales, Givens, DCP, and Bushman inside saying “Break Glass if Plausible Deniability is required,” hanging in the 15’s council camber.

Because of all this…. it is such a mess, and no matter what the brethren say, they can’t possibly win or make a concrete stand. “The church” is built on lie after lie, and lame opinion after lame opinions. These days it is 100% reactionary, and the days of the proactive mopologist are long gone.

The mopologists these days are nothing more than tools on stand by, standing in line ready to take a hit for the brethren and the church when required, so “the church” and testimony can survive.

Again my two cents

[Whiskey]

The underlying motivation in all this, whether they realize it or not, is “the survival of the church”. “The church” must Survive at all costs. If the church survives, the testimony survives, and the family structure survives.

The ultimate douchebaggery. Yes indeed. Shameless act of service. Complete abandonment of one's authentic soul for the good of the institution. Can't be more douchebag than that. To these apologists, that level of service deserves a cookie.