DiscussMormonism.com

On a separate thread, Trevor suggested that I compile all the various methods by which FARMS, and apologists more generally, launch attacks on critics (e.g., dismissing the work as amateurish, or criticizing it as an "old cash nexus," etc.) But I want to hold off on that. Instead, I have been ruminating as of late on the motivations that lead people to engage in Mopologetics. I asked this question directly to both DCP (twice, in fact), and LoaP, and neither of them was willing to supply an answer.

Certainly, I'm interested in hearing from them, and from other Mopologists, too. What is your motivation? Why engage in Mopologetics? What do you hope to accomplish?

Obviously, I have ideas of my own---notions and theories which I have developed in my time observing and interacting with Mopologists. So, here they are, in no particular order:

The Testimony Theory: This theory relies upon the notion that apologists' main motivation is faith and belief. DCP noted that he does Mopologetics because he "believes" that he should. Thus, the Testimony Theory posits that Mopologists received a spiritual witness that Mopologetics ought to be undertaken. In some cases--theoretically speaking, of course--it seems plausible that certain Mopologists prayed to Heavenly Father over this issue, and they were given a warm sensation, thus indicating that they should do apologetics.

Obviously, this theory is difficult to substantiate and/or test. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that this is ever the sole reason why a given individual undertakes LDS apologetics.

The Wounded Nerd Theory: Many Mopologists are clearly very nerdy. Probably, many of them were gawky, lurpy, horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing dweebs in high school, and they resented the teasing and ridicule they were forced to endure. Now, however, they get to enact their revenge via Mopologetics. Here, it is easy for them to play their Trump card (i.e., their general egg-headedness) and to feel glad about stomping out "amateurish" Chapel Mormons who don't display the same intellectual bravado that they do.

Again, this theory is problematic due to the amount of mind-reading and psychoanalysis that it would entail. That said, the number of individuals doing Mopologetics who fit this basic model are too numerous to mention.

The Chagrin Theory: As much as they love the LDS Church, many apologists are no doubt embarrassed about certain aspects of it, and thus, according to this theory, apologists are trying to remedy their chagrin by engaging in Mopologetics.

There does seem to be a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting this. For one thing, there are very obvious "embarrassing" parts of Church history and doctrine which are virtually guaranteed to send the apologists into action: Joseph Smith's polygamy; blacks and the priesthood; baptisms of holocaust victims; Joseph Smith's firing of the pistol at Carthage; etc., etc., etc. So, it seems clear that, at the very least, Mopologists feel very defensive about certain parts of Church history. Is their "embarrassment" over these things, though, sufficient as motivation? Does it help us to better understand why apologists so often utilize ad hominem attack and character assassination?

The Righteous Warrior Theory Similar to the Chagrin Theory, the Righteous Warrior Theory posits that Satan's forces (i.e., anti-Mormons) are seeking to destroy the Church by telling lies and luring away the members. Thus, the Mopologists see themselves as warriors looking to smite these enemies with "superior" arguments.

This paradigm can be further broken down: on the one hand, there are the well-educated, intellectual apologists who cannot help but recognize that there are serious problems and flaws within the Church, and thus they are functioning like the little Dutch boy who uses his finger to prevent the dam from cracking. DCP would fit into this category, since, for example, he refuses to discuss Adam-God on the messageboards, or anywhere else where he could be placed under critical scrutiny.

On the other hand, you have the Will Schryver types: Mopologists who don't necessarily think that the Church is weak, or that it has any problems, but who feel the need to attack critics anyhow. Pahoran is a classic example of this type.

Personally, I think that this theory probably comes closest to accurately summarizing the motives of the typical Mopologist. But this, too, is problematic: it entails an implicit admission that the Church is weak, and that it is in need of a stout defense. Mopologists who subscribe to this theory are essentially admitting that the Church and the Gospel are incapable of defending themselves.

The Argument Addict Theory: As the name would suggest, in this theory, the Mopologist is just someone who is addicted to debate, plain and simple. The person enjoys the nasty, aggressive back-and-forth, and thus engages in Mopologetics. The fact that the debate happens to center on Mormonism is merely incidental.

The Perpetual Missionary Theory Something of a combination between the Debate Addict Theory and the Wounded Nerd Theory, this one surmises that the mission experience of "bashing" has carried over into the person's post-mission life. The apologist still seems himself as a white-shirt wearing missionary, doing the Lord's work, albeit with no supervision and with the goal being to destroy critics rather than win converts.

The Failed Mormon Theory This describes an apologist who has failed to "measure up" to the intense cultural, financial, and spiritual demands of Mormonism, and thus Mopologetics becomes a way of compensating. Whether the "failure" entails addiction, same-sex attraction, criminal convictions, or never having gotten married, the Mopologist who fits into this type uses apologetics as a psychic means of "making up" for whatever was lacking. Coggins7 would seem to be a classic example of this type.

Within this category is a subset of female apologists with feminist inclinations. From a certain perspective, these female apologists can be seen as "failed Mormons" in the sense that they do not possess the priesthood---a fact which weighs heavily upon them, as evidenced in the postings of juliann and Calmoriah, among others. Thus, they turn to apologetics as a means of gaining comradery, and as a means of feeling more productive. Mopologetics here can also be seen as a feminist tool---i.e., a means of achieving things like totally female wards, and sacrament passing assignments.

* * * * * * *

I'm sure there are more ways of looking at this, more ways of theorizing the apologist. I think, further, that many individual Mopologists very likely can be explained using more than just one of these theories. In any event, I would be interested in expanding and refining this basic taxonomy. Perhaps it can be seen as a kind of work-in-progress addendum to Dr. Shades's invaluable Chapel Mormon / Internet Mormon distinction.

Note: I will be editing this as the taxonomy evolves.

Mister Scratch wrote:The Wounded Nerd Theory: Many Mopologists are clearly very nerdy. Probably, many of them were gawky, lurpy, horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing dweebs in high school, and they resented the teasing and ridicule they were forced to endure. Now, however, they get to enact their revenge via Mopologetics. Here, it is easy for them to play their Trump card (i.e., their general egg-headedness) and to feel glad about stomping out "amateurish" Chapel Mormons who don't display the same intellectual bravado that they do.

Geez I don't even have to read any further. You've nailed it!

for what it's worth I don't remember you asking me why I "engage" in apologetics.

I'm not sure I agree that the The Righteous Warrior Theory entails the presupposition that the church is weak. Rather, the church is strong, but it's under attack by the forces of Satan.

This is similar in concept to the idea that a testimony is hard to hold onto without constant work being performed to maintain it. It logically makes no sense at all - if something is really true, then once a person knows this, how can they simply unknow it over time, simply because they don't repeat their beliefs all the time, and bury their minds in constant scripture reading and prayer? But it does make sense to someone who believes that there is some invisible bogeyman out there named Satan, who has real power to change our thoughts, alter our circumstances to lead us to bad decisions, etc., and that this invisible bogeyman is actively working hard, in ways we cannot even possibly fathom, to short-circuit our testimonies.

Thus, the maintenance of the testimony is not so much that it's hard for the mind to hold onto a realization of truth on a given topic, but rather a defense against an active, and powerful, aggressor, who is powerful enough to undermine these testimonies if we don't work to defend them.

So I don't think that the Righteous Warrior really believes that the church is weak. But they believe that there is a real, actual struggle between the Forces of Elohim the Sky Daddy, and the Forces of the Bogeyman known as Satan, The Devil.

In a very real sense, the calling of a Righteous Warrior mopologist is very much like the kind of motivation that gets people to fly airplanes into buildings. Mohammed Atta thought he too was a Righteous Warrior fighting for Allah against the Great Satan. The main difference here is the level of violence the individual has been conditioned to be willing to bring to bear on their opponents. Mopologists are willing to use verbal, written violence, thank Heaven, and not guns and bombs. But the motivation is the same.

And who knows, there are always people like Gazelam who would like nothing more than to hang a few adulterers and fags in the public square just to show the Bogeyman who's really in charge.

I'm assuming the Righteous Warrior stands in opposition to the Nerd. The Nerd wants to win by beating down critics with degrees while the Righteous Warrior is that meathead from high school who would have no problem seeing the streets run red with the blood of apostates.

Righteous Warrior example: Will Schryver in his "Wheat" persona

Mister Scratch wrote: The Perpetual Missionary Theory Something of a combination between the Debate Addict Theory and the Wounded Nerd Theory, this one surmises that the mission experience of "bashing" has carried over into the person's post-mission life. The apologist still seems himself as a white-shirt wearing missionary, doing the Lord's work, albeit with no supervision and with the goal being to destroy critics rather than win converts.

This is squarely where I fit in. I was brought in on the tough cases where missionaries had encountered bashers and ministers or investigators had encountered anti material. I agreed to do this a couple of times for local missionaries when I got home. I went to BYU to take classes with Nibley. He recommended the study of Greek and Latin, so I became a Classics major. In my later years at BYU, I discovered a.r.m., and the rest is history.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:The Wounded Nerd Theory: Many Mopologists are clearly very nerdy. Probably, many of them were gawky, lurpy, horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing dweebs in high school, and they resented the teasing and ridicule they were forced to endure. Now, however, they get to enact their revenge via Mopologetics. Here, it is easy for them to play their Trump card (i.e., their general egg-headedness) and to feel glad about stomping out "amateurish" Chapel Mormons who don't display the same intellectual bravado that they do.

Geez I don't even have to read any further. You've nailed it!

for what it's worth I don't remember you asking me why I "engage" in apologetics.

Gee, Mr. Plate, I don't think he nailed it, Scratch forgot your pen protector.

So why do you?

Mister Scratch wrote:What is your motivation? Why engage in Mopologetics? What do you hope to accomplish?

I am not sure if what I do here can accurately be called "mopologetics", but my objective (and thus my motivation) is to encourage the refocus of attention towards satisfying the basic human need to progress and gain a fulness of joy and love, as well as to profer an alternative way of looking at things that may prove more benefitial than what some have adopted.

If this refocusing and alternative views returns some to the restored gospel of Christ, then I will be pleased to hear it, though that is not my intent. I simply want what is best for people, and to assist them in doing what works and what matter, and moving them ahead.

Sadly, the vast majority of topics engaged here, and the prevailing approach used when engaging here, are either a stupifying waste of time or delitarious to meeting the basic human need mentioned above--and at times I am as guilty as others for my counterproductive contributions.

Either way, much of this enterprise engenders outcomes that tend too often to foment strife and personal and interpersonal degradation. They leave some or all parties less well of for the effort. And, to me, that is sad.

I don't know how this fits your "theory", Scratch, but there my answer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:Sadly, the vast majority of topics engaged here, and the prevailing approach used when engaging here, are either a stupifying waste of time or delitarious to meeting the basic human need mentioned above--and at times I am as guilty as others for my counterproductive contributions.

Trying to catch flies with vinegar, I see.

Sethbag wrote:So I don't think that the Righteous Warrior really believes that the church is weak. But they believe that there is a real, actual struggle between the Forces of Elohim the Sky Daddy, and the Forces of the Bogeyman known as Satan, The Devil.

In a very real sense, the calling of a Righteous Warrior mopologist is very much like the kind of motivation that gets people to fly airplanes into buildings. Mohammed Atta thought he too was a Righteous Warrior fighting for Allah against the Great Satan. The main difference here is the level of violence the individual has been conditioned to be willing to bring to bear on their opponents. Mopologists are willing to use verbal, written violence, thank Heaven, and not guns and bombs. But the motivation is the same.

That's an intriguing and provocative way of looking at it, Sethbag. Still, don't you think that your Atta example still needs to factor in the notion of weakness, or desperation? I.e., don't you think the hijackers felt "threatened," and felt that they were under attack? Don't you think that there has to be a basic, underlying fear behind this very intense need to defend, or "engage in apologetics"?

wenglund wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:What is your motivation? Why engage in Mopologetics? What do you hope to accomplish?

I am not sure if what I do here can accurately be called "mopologetics", but my objective (and thus my motivation) is to encourage the refocus of attention towards satisfying the basic human need to progress and gain a fulness of joy and love, as well as to profer an alternative way of looking at things that may prove more benefitial than what some have adopted.

Thanks for your honest reply, Wade. I think that you often tend to operate outside the typical "Mopologetic" paradigm. Still, wouldn't it be fair to say that your attempts to refocus attention stems from a sense that the Church is threatened somehow?

If this refocusing and alternative views returns some to the restored gospel of Christ, then I will be pleased to hear it, though that is not my intent. I simply want what is best for people, and to assist them in doing what works and what matter, and moving them ahead.

Suppose that criticism of the Church brings joy and progress to people? I'm sure you know that many of the posters on RfM view what they are doing as "recovery," which (one would think) is a kind of progress, right?

Either way, much of this enterprise engenders outcomes that tend too often to foment strife and personal and interpersonal degradation. They leave some or all parties less well of for the effort. And, to me, that is sad.

I don't know how this fits your "theory", Scratch, but there my answer.

Well, thank you again for replying, Wade. I would say that you fit into the Righteous Warrior theory, but you have some quirks that set you apart from it somewhat. I also wonder if there is a bit of the so-called "Chagrin Theory" in you, since I know it pains you on a rather personal level to hear criticism of the Church.