Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Gadianton]

The Failed Mormon Theory was a fine addition and I had to reprint my copy. This is along the lines of the outcast gospel hobbyist. It is unfortunately true of so many of the apologists we've seen.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If one doesn't feel the need to defend a particular belief, then one is certainly under no obligation (whether internal nor external) to defend it. My point was not that one should or must defend some X that one believes to be true, but that, if Scratch's analysis is correct, one just shouldn't defend any such X just so long as one is convinced that X is actually true.

Best.

cks

Well said.

[_Mister Scratch]

(1) You're moving from vague generalities (your typologies) to particular instantiations of apologetic encounters--with hasty abandon.

What do you expect, CK? You attempt to brush everything aside with a flick of the wrist. I would be interested in seeing you explain, say, Ritnergate, or DCP's l-skinny exchanges using your aphorism. I would be interested in seeing just what it can tell us, and whether it illuminates anything. After all, I'm perfectly willing to grant that apologetics entails what you described. But is that all? No, I don't think so. And your aphorism, I think you'll admit, does an extraordinarily poor job of explaining anything. Would you like to discuss the individual theories and whether or not they can be applied to individual Mopologists, or whether they illuminate any tendencies within Mopologetics?

"Are they simply about...?" Perhaps not. Are they better and more simply explained by the "desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true?" I don't know of any reason presented thus far to assume that they would not be.

And which logical fallacy is this? Argumentum ad ignorantum?

So, I categorically reject your unequivocal, "No, of course not," pending further elaboration.

Well, I categorically reject your logical fallacy. It should be pretty obvious that the taxonomy laid out in the OP is theoretical in nature. I cannot see how your simplification of everything offers up any better explanation.

(2) No, if your analysis is really true, then everyone everywhere who truly believes anything actually to be true should immediately stop defending their claims and/or arguing their claims for its truthfulness.

Why do you say that? The schematic is meant to deal specifically with LDS apologetics. You are the one who is wanting to broaden the scope of things. Why might that be?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

To be clear, MS: are you saying if something is good, true or right it should not have to be defended in any way?

[_Ray A]

As far as I'm concerned, an unaccepted apology isn't invalidated for the one offering the apology. As it stands, though, I will consistently affirm it is a cowardly act to so persistently and wrongfully malign others especially under a disguise. This makes you guilty of doing something cowardly, rather than being a "coward."

You mean like "Wheat"?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

As far as I'm concerned, an unaccepted apology isn't invalidated for the one offering the apology. As it stands, though, I will consistently affirm it is a cowardly act to so persistently and wrongfully malign others especially under a disguise. This makes you guilty of doing something cowardly, rather than being a "coward."

You mean like "Wheat"?

It pretty much goes for anyone who makes personal attacks. The poor form of it is compounded by the shameful hiding of the accuser.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Ray--

If one doesn't feel the need to defend a particular belief, then one is certainly under no obligation (whether internal nor external) to defend it. My point was not that one should or must defend some X that one believes to be true, but that, if Scratch's analysis is correct, one just shouldn't defend any such X just so long as one is convinced that X is actually true.

Best.

cks

But that isn't exactly what I was saying, CK:

Also, your suggestion overlooks a very basic question: if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"---particularly the kind of "defense" that exemplifies LDS apologetics?

I think Ray understands a bit better what I was getting at: I don't think there is anything wrong with defending one's beliefs per se. My question is (again, along the lines of what Ray posted): why do apologists feel the need to defend these beliefs, in this particular manner?

[_Mister Scratch]

To be clear, MS: are you saying if something is good, true or right it should not have to be defended in any way?

No, that's not what I am saying.

[_Mister Scratch]

It pretty much goes for anyone who makes personal attacks. The poor form of it is compounded by the shameful hiding of the accuser.

First of all, who do you think is being "maligned"? Second, does this therefore mean you have officially condemned DCP for his personal attacks on Mike Quinn, Robert Ritner, Kevin Graham, Beastie, and whoever else?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

That is good to hear, because that is what it seemed you were saying. It seems now that you are trying to determine motives based on actions in regards to apologetic methodology.

I think Ray understands a bit better what I was getting at: I don't think there is anything wrong with defending one's beliefs per se. My question is (again, along the lines of what Ray posted): why do apologists feel the need to defend these beliefs, in this particular manner?

In practically any field of study one will find people who disagree in a conciliatory way, some who fight, some who avoid fighting, some who enjoy fighting and seek fighting, some who simply enjoy the discussion, etc. etc. This is certainly not confined to LDS "mopologetics." It would be patently absurd were anyone to think otherwise.