Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_Mister Scratch]

On the now quite lengthy MMM thread, Dr. Peterson said something that caught my attention. When I mentioned that several individuals have cited him personally---specifically his online behavior---as a reason contributing to their exit from the LDS Church, he replied:

That may or may not be true. But I know of several times that many who have cited me personally as contributing to their conversions.

Obviously, this seems like a bit of sophistry. Nobody was talking about his mission, or anything of that nature. I do wonder, though: Is there a single instance of online Mopologetics leading to a conversion? Or is it far more often the case that people are driven away from the Church due to the bad behavior of apologists like DCP and Pahoran? Have the aggressive tactics of these folks ever resulted in an actual conversion? If so, I would be interested in hearing about it. Instead, I think that most questioning members go the route of Thunderchops, who was so disgusted by the way he and his wife were treated by Dr. Peterson that they both left the Church.

Further, how is this acceptable---on any level---to the Brethren? It seems to me that an operating principle of apologetics ought to be akin to the Hippocratic Oath: "Do no harm." But, obviously, that is terribly far from the truth. DCP admitted in the Kerry Shirts video that, in actuality, he would like to dole out even more harm, but his sense of...etiquette?....prevents him from doing so.

Ultimately, it makes me wonder what the fundamental purpose of apologetics actually is: Is it meant to help wavering members? Or is it more about attacking and lashing out at critics?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I do wonder, though: Is there a single instance of online Mopologetics leading to a conversion?

When it read it, I understood him to mean saving a teetering member's testimony, but I could be wrong.

Further, how is this acceptable---on any level---to the Brethren? It seems to me that an operating principle of apologetics ought to be akin to the Hippocratic Oath: "Do no harm." But, obviously, that is terribly far from the truth. DCP admitted in the Kerry Shirts video that, in actuality, he would like to dole out even more harm, but his sense of...etiquette?....prevents him from doing so.

I think we will see a change over time with DCP and other apologists. Russell Ballard was pretty clear recently that members online need to tone it down, and I imagine DCP will eventually get in line.

Ultimately, it makes me wonder what the fundamental purpose of apologetics actually is: Is it meant to help wavering members? Or is it more about attacking and lashing out at critics?

I think it's primarily (at least initially) motivated by the former, but human nature is such that the practice gravitates toward the latter, in my opinion.

[_Trevor]

What I saw of online apologetics on ZLMB, FAIR, and MA&D, very nearly convinced me that most of my co-religionists were jerks, until I pulled back and realized that it was mostly just the apologists who were giving me that impression.

[_Thama]

Ultimately, it makes me wonder what the fundamental purpose of apologetics actually is: Is it meant to help wavering members? Or is it more about attacking and lashing out at critics?

To a degree, these goals are convergent: discrediting those critics with difficult arguments is a very effective way of neutralizing those arguments. Modern politics has taught us that very few people are entirely without some sort of skeleton in their closet, and ad hominems are very effective in swaying someone who isn't trained in logic and rhetoric.

My questioning and eventual de-conversion had nothing to do with the bad behavior of members, apologists (online or not)... in fact it was the bitterness and vindictiveness of certain online critics which kept me in the fold for a while. When I finally decided to leave, one of the first decisions I made was never to be as consumed with hate as some of the others I had observed who had left the Church.

At the same time, I don't think we can discount the natural "us vs. them" mentality of this debate. When I used to read MADB to try and quiet my nagging questions, I found people like Pahoran and Will S. to be incredibly caustic on occasion, but I also found myself pulling for their arguments when there was anything positive to latch onto-- I wanted to believe and they were my handholds at the time. The mocking and attempts to discredit go both ways-- critic and apologist, and you see plenty of it both here and on MADB. Even though the weight of the evidence appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of the critics, that doesn't mean that the tactics used are all that different.

[_EAllusion]

I know of at least one person who has cited DCP online as contributing to her conversion, so yes. In that case, his role was protecting her recent conversion from "anti" arguments.

[_Some Schmo]

I know of at least one person who has cited DCP online as contributing to her conversion, so yes. In that case, his role was protecting her recent conversion from "anti" arguments.

That's pretty sad. It's difficult for me to imagine the kind of mind that would be convinced by his poor arguments. Obviously, she must have been really motivated to believe.

[_beastie]

What I saw of online apologetics on ZLMB, FAIR, and MA&D, very nearly convinced me that most of my co-religionists were jerks, until I pulled back and realized that it was mostly just the apologists who were giving me that impression.

Amen to that. I "recovered" from Mormonism a long time ago - now I'm just working on "recovering" from internet apologists. ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

I know of at least one person who has cited DCP online as contributing to her conversion, so yes. In that case, his role was protecting her recent conversion from "anti" arguments.

Huh. I'd be interested in hearing more about this, EA, if you are willing to share.

And, as per the title of my OP, I wonder, once again, if there is a kind of "balancing" going on here. That is, do the apologists say to themselves, "Ah, well, we managed to save this one person's testimony, so it's okay if our poor behavior ran off someone else."??

[_Gadianton]

A thoughtful question Scratch. One thing you will notice is that if a questioning member arrives on MAD, and asks about something the participants there believe has been answered time and time again, the entire board immediately assumes the person is a troll and swoop in like vultures.

Amen to the testimony of that poster.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know of several times that many who have cited me personally as contributing to their conversions.

Obviously, this seems like a bit of sophistry.

However it may "seem" to you, it's plainly not sophistry. Since it's not an argument but an assertion, it can't be a sophistic argument. Since it's an assertion, it's either true or not true.

Nobody was talking about his mission, or anything of that nature.

Including me.

Is there a single instance of online Mopologetics leading to a conversion?

Yes.

Or is it far more often the case that people are driven away from the Church due to the bad behavior of apologists like DCP and Pahoran?

When you've systematically assembled sufficient and representative data, I would be interested in your findings.

I think that most questioning members go the route of Thunderchops, who was so disgusted by the way he and his wife were treated by Dr. Peterson that they both left the Church.

Who is "Thunderchops"? I've never heard of anybody by that name.

DCP admitted in the Kerry Shirts video that, in actuality, he would like to dole out even more harm, but his sense of...etiquette?....prevents him from doing so.

Those familiar with Scartchian rhetoric will scarcely need to be told that I "admitted" nothing of the sort.