DiscussMormonism.com

Quantifying the Range and Method of Attack

Some time ago, I began a thread that was interested in examining the motives which lead otherwise good-hearted Latter-day Saints to become raging, frothing-at-the-mouth Mopologists. The investigation was interesting and fruitful. Perhaps the most important discovery to arise from the collective inquiry was the notion that many apologists are fueled and motivated by negative "bashing" experiences they endured on their missions---a notion which has since been confirmed by Gazelam and Louis Midgley, among others.

Now, though, I believe it is time to redirect focus once again. On another thread, someone suggested that "Mopologetics" might be lacking in a clear definition. Here, let me clarify:

Mo-pol-o-get-ics n (c. 1997) 1 A branch of aggressive religious apologetics and polemics designed to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I believe that this pretty much sums it up. This would exempt non-bellicose apologists like Richard Bushman, while also being inclusive enough to allow for the amateurs like Allen Wyatt, Kerry Shirts, and Will Schryver.

With this clear and simple definition in place, I think we can move on to begin quantifying the range and method(s) of Mopologetic technique(s). I'd like to start by suggesting that we can quantify and classify apologists along a Kinsey-like scale. Given that the word "aggressive" is part of our working definition, it seems logical that we should begin ranking apologists on a scale of 1-10, with 10 representing that absolutely most hostile, noxious, vicious apologists (e.g., Pahoran would probably top out at a ten), whereas a 1 would be a very agreeable, nice sort of apologist---Ben McGuire or Asbestosman, perhaps.

Here is a sample of the scale in action:

William Hamblin: 7
Will Schryver: 6.5
Louis Midgley: 8
John Gee: 7
Daniel Peterson: 9
Cold Steel: 6
Mola Ram Suda Ram: 5
Deborah: 4
Gary Novak: 7
Stan Barker: 7.5
why me: 4
rcrocket: 6
juliann: 7

And so on. Now, I am concerned about the simplicity of this scale. The more I think about, the more I realize that we will need to account for more than just "aggression." We need to analyze the Mopologists' relative education, for example, and their ability to successfully carry out smear campaigns. Then, we'll be able to apply our analyses in really useful and pragmatic ways.

Let me elaborate a bit. "Aggression," I believe, can refer to multiple things. It can be something as objective as "tone," or it can be a function of sheer doggedness. Thus, whereas Pahoran has a truly appalling tone, he isn't anywhere near as psychotically obsessive as, say, LifeOnaPlate, who has written something like 13 thousand posts on MAD in less than two years. Let's extend this even further: a poster like Zakuska also has beaucoup posts, which would push him up on the Mopologetic Aggression Scale (MAS), but he's a pretty laid-back and agreeable poster. So, we would have to rate LifeOnaPlate higher (I think I would award him about an 8.5) than Zakuska (who strikes me as being more like a 5).

This raises another question: are some facets of "aggression"---e.g., "tone"---more significant than others? I would say, "yes." It seems clear that Mopologetic "aggression" needs to be broken down according to the various methods of attack. By no means is the following list inclusive, but I do believe it will help us get a good start in terms of breaking down the means and methods of attack (or "defense," as it were):

Tone: This refers to an apologist's tone. This that can raise the aggression factor for tone can include: condescension; mocking; snideness; vulgarity or profanity; excessive use of the word "anti-Mormon"; dismissiveness; pettiness; and so on. "Tone" is usually dismissed as being "too subjective," but personally, I think it is extremely significant, and any serious study of Mopologetics would be sorely lacking if it did not take tone into account.

Education: We all know that the Mopologists like to flash their credentials in an effort to "one-up" the critics. Of course, not all apologists do this. Some are quicker to parade their Ph.D.s, so, once again, it's clear that this element is in need of nuance. In terms of the MAS, Education would increase if: the apologist has a Ph.D.; if the apologist has a Ph.D. from an Ivy League institution; if the apologist boasts about or name-drops his alma mater; if the apologist constantly mentions the academic credentials of other apologists; if the apologist mentions accomplishments (publications, grants, fellowships, trips overseas, invitations to speak or debate) that are related to academe in some way; if the apologist has a weird fascination with books, rather than content and knowledge per se---i.e., if the apologist is more interested in sheer number of books read rather than the depth of understanding and comprehension; if the apologist attacks critics on the basis of education. And so on. It should be clear that these different Facets of Aggression (FA) will intersect with one another. My hope here is to establish some kind of working rubric that will allow us to quantify the Mopologists in a useful and pragmatic way.

The FARMS Review: Any association with the FROB automatically ups the Mopologist's Aggression level. This is the primary, "official" organ for attack, thus its relevance.

Power and Influence: An apologist will receive a higher rating if he or she can exert a high degree of control or influence over other apologists. Thus, juliann would get a high mark due to the fact that she essentially owns and/or controls the MADboard. She gets to make the calls as to whether or not certain critics get banned. An apologist such as Kerry Shirts would score high in this area too, but for a different reason. He is very affable and friendly, and thus he has the power of persuasion on his side. He always turns up at the various conferences, beaming his high-wattage goofball's smile at everyone, and in this sense he's able to exert a certain degree of influence. Allen Wyatt would get decent marks here because of his relative expertise in Internet technology. Some apologists seem pratcically all-powerful, due to a confluence of factors, such as their mastery of tone, their high education level, and their placement in organizations such as the Maxwell Institute.

Affiliation: Higher scores are given to those apologists who are formally affiliated with any of the key Mopologetic organizations: FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, Blacklds.org, and so on. Multiple affiliations only increasing the score.

Persistence/Peskiness: Refer to the above discussion on LoaP and Zakuska. The individual apologist's scale would have to go up if s/he is "pesky," constantly turning up to do drive-by posts, etc. This is somewhat subjective, ala "tone," but also crucial in terms of nailing down the accuracy of the MAS.

In any event, I think this is a decent start. I'm sure that others will have useful suggestions on how to perfect this scale.

I should add that I'll likely be amending the OP (as I've done above).

Doctor Scratch wrote:...
Some time ago, I began a thread that was interested in examining the motives which lead otherwise good-hearted Latter-day Saints to become raging, frothing-at-the-mouth Mopologists.
...

When frustration, hurt, anger and unfulfilled desires cannot be expressed openly
within a certain group, they find a different sort of outlet, in being directed externally.

That is why cult leaders so often focus upon outsiders as "the enemy." They know
that their followers' pent up feelings cannot be allowed to fester within the group
forever -- so the leaders condone (or promote) the outward expression of feelings.

Thus, what might otherwise have been a cool, reasoned dialog over disagreements
and controversies, becomes infused with over-reactions, name-calling, etc.

Such polemics and apologetics do not always originate and flow only from the
Mormon side of the philosophical fence, however. I've seen discussions between LDS
and JWs go bad. I can only imagine what an FLDS/LDS religious argument might look like.

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:...
Some time ago, I began a thread that was interested in examining the motives which lead otherwise good-hearted Latter-day Saints to become raging, frothing-at-the-mouth Mopologists.
...

When frustration, hurt, anger and unfulfilled desires cannot be expressed openly
within a certain group, they find a different sort of outlet, in being directed externally.

Hmm. This is fascinating. Could you elaborate on this a bit more, Uncle Dale? What is it that you think the Mopologists "cannot...express openly"?

Doctor Scratch wrote:

Uncle Dale wrote:
When frustration, hurt, anger and unfulfilled desires cannot be expressed openly
within a certain group, they find a different sort of outlet, in being directed externally.

Hmm. This is fascinating. Could you elaborate on this a bit more, Uncle Dale? What is it that you think the Mopologists "cannot...express openly"?

I can only speak from experience from inside of the Reorganized LDS camp -- which is much more
relaxed and less subject to top-down administered group-think.

But my observation is that many of the LDS apologists are intelligent people. Most are BiC LDS;
had they been born outside of the sect, they probably would not have joined.

But -- in for a penny, in for a pound. Once the commitment has been made and reaffirmed in
the acceptance of employment, advantageous professional/family/business ties, there is no
turning away. Tullidge is the last LDS apologist I recall having turned away -- decades ago.

So -- what is to be done with the cogdis of knowing that at least some of the history and some
of the current policies/programs are wrong/harmful/dishonest? Generally no meaningful dissent
can be expressed. Attend too many Sunstone symposiums and buy too many Signature Books,
and prior advantages "within the system" begin to disappear. Become an open voice for change
(like myself) and you burn your bridges behind you.

Even minor irritants are left unexpressed within the required agape of brotherhood/sisterhood --
problems that have nothing to do with doctrine. -- It is a "no-no" to speak ill of Brother Jenson or
Sister Kimball; but trashing a Gentile (especially an intractable Gentile) will probably bring no
Bishop's admonition. Hostile feelings can thus be directed outwards, and to some extent vented,
without upsetting the emotional balance within the group.

Let's say that there is something bothersome in your own behavior as an LDS -- perhaps petty
greed or hypocrisy. There is much social pressure to "obey the commandments" and thus progress
morally, becoming an ever better person. Since personal admission of the greed or hypocrisy is
not especially promoted, a person's anguish/hatred/fear of such problems can only be vented
by projecting those problems outward upon some scapegoat (deserving or undeserving).

Now, elevate these sorts of social interaction troubles upward into the thin air of academia,
Church employment, scholarship, doctrinal justification, faith-promotion, etc., and you may see
what convoluted projections outward the LDS polemicist/apologist is faced with. --- No "faced
with" is the wrong term ---- most of them probably never quite figure out the details of the
internal dynamic. They do not face up to self-hatred or milder forms of projection, so they are
probably unaware of why they get raging angry when somebody accuses Brigham Young of
masterminding the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or accuses the Church of promoting a Jesus
"different" from that of the Bible.

Then again, what do I know?
Mormon faith-promotion is a mystery wrapped in an enigma to me.

UD

Does anyone else find it funny that Scratch is with great gravitas coming up with a way to rank those people he dislikes? When did gossip become serious business around here? (hint: DAY ONE)

Doctor Scratch wrote:Quantifying the Range and Method of Attack

Some time ago, I began a thread that was interested in examining the motives which lead otherwise good-hearted Latter-day Saints to become raging, frothing-at-the-mouth Mopologists. The investigation was interesting and fruitful. Perhaps the most important discovery to arise from the collective inquiry was the notion that many apologists are fueled and motivated by negative "bashing" experiences they endured on their missions---a notion which has since been confirmed by Gazelam and Louis Midgley, among others.

Now, though, I believe it is time to redirect focus once again. On another thread, someone suggested that "Mopologetics" might be lacking in a clear definition. Here, let me clarify:

Mo-pol-o-get-ics n (c. 1997) 1 A branch of aggressive religious apologetics and polemics designed to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I believe that this pretty much sums it up. This would exempt non-bellicose apologists like Richard Bushman, while also being inclusive enough to allow for the amateurs like Allen Wyatt, Kerry Shirts, and Will Schryver.

With this clear and simple definition in place, I think we can move on to begin quantifying the range and method(s) of Mopologetic technique(s). I'd like to start by suggesting that we can quantify and classify apologists along a Kinsey-like scale. Given that the word "aggressive" is part of our working definition, it seems logical that we should begin ranking apologists on a scale of 1-10, with 10 representing that absolutely most hostile, noxious, vicious apologists (e.g., Pahoran would probably top out at a ten), whereas a 1 would be a very agreeable, nice sort of apologist---Ben McGuire or Asbestosman, perhaps.

Here is a sample of the scale in action:

William Hamblin: 8
Will Schryver: 9.5
Louis Midgley: 9
John Gee: 7
Daniel Peterson: 8.5
Cold Steel: 7
Mola Ram Suda Ram: 9
Deborah: 5
Gary Novak: 9
Stan Barker: 9
why me: 4
rcrocket: 7
juliann: 8

And so on. Now, I am concerned about the simplicity of this scale. The more I think about, the more I realize that we will need to account for more than just "aggression." We need to analyze the Mopologists' relative education, for example, and their ability to successfully carry out smear campaigns. Then, we'll be able to apply our analyses in really useful and pragmatic ways.

Let me elaborate a bit. "Aggression," I believe, can refer to multiple things. It can be something as objective as "tone," or it can be a function of sheer doggedness. Thus, whereas Pahoran has a truly appalling tone, he isn't anywhere near as psychotically obsessive as, say, LifeOnaPlate, who has written something like 13 thousand posts on MAD in less than two years. Let's extend this even further: a poster like Zakuska also has beaucoup posts, which would push him up on the Mopologetic Aggression Scale (MAS), but he's a pretty laid-back and agreeable poster. So, we would have to rate LifeOnaPlate higher (I think I would award him about an 8.5) than Zakuska (who strikes me as being more like a 5).

This raises another question: are some facets of "aggression"---e.g., "tone"---more significant than others? I would say, "yes." It seems clear that Mopologetic "aggression" needs to be broken down according to the various methods of attack. By no means is the following list inclusive, but I do believe it will help us get a good start in terms of breaking down the means and methods of attack (or "defense," as it were):

Tone: This refers to an apologist's tone. This that can raise the aggression factor for tone can include: condescension; mocking; snideness; vulgarity or profanity; excessive use of the word "anti-Mormon"; dismissiveness; pettiness; and so on. "Tone" is usually dismissed as being "too subjective," but personally, I think it is extremely significant, and any serious study of Mopologetics would be sorely lacking if it did not take tone into account.

Education: We all know that the Mopologists like to flash their credentials in an effort to "one-up" the critics. Of course, not all apologists do this. Some are quicker to parade their Ph.D.s, so, once again, it's clear that this element is in need of nuance. In terms of the MAS, Education would increase if: the apologist has a Ph.D.; if the apologist has a Ph.D. from an Ivy League institution; if the apologist boasts about or name-drops his alma mater; if the apologist constantly mentions the academic credentials of other apologists; if the apologist mentions accomplishments (publications, grants, fellowships, trips overseas, invitations to speak or debate) that are related to academe in some way; if the apologist has a weird fascination with books, rather than content and knowledge per se---i.e., if the apologist is more interested in sheer number of books read rather than the depth of understanding and comprehension; if the apologist attacks critics on the basis of education. And so on. It should be clear that these different Facets of Aggression (FA) will intersect with one another. My hope here is to establish some kind of working rubric that will allow us to quantify the Mopologists in a useful and pragmatic way.

The FARMS Review: Any association with the FROB automatically ups the Mopologist's Aggression level. This is the primary, "official" organ for attack, thus its relevance.

Power and Influence: An apologist will receive a higher rating if he or she can exert a high degree of control or influence over other apologists. Thus, juliann would get a high mark due to the fact that she essentially owns and/or controls the MADboard. She gets to make the calls as to whether or not certain critics get banned. An apologist such as Kerry Shirts would score high in this area too, but for a different reason. He is very affable and friendly, and thus he has the power of persuasion on his side. He always turns up at the various conferences, beaming his high-wattage goofball's smile at everyone, and in this sense he's able to exert a certain degree of influence. Allen Wyatt would get decent marks here because of his relative expertise in Internet technology. Some apologists seem pratcically all-powerful, due to a confluence of factors, such as their mastery of tone, their high education level, and their placement in organizations such as the Maxwell Institute.

Affiliation: Higher scores are given to those apologists who are formally affiliated with any of the key Mopologetic organizations: FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, Blacklds.org, and so on. Multiple affiliations only increasing the score.

Persistence/Peskiness: Refer to the above discussion on LoaP and Zakuska. The individual apologist's scale would have to go up if s/he is "pesky," constantly turning up to do drive-by posts, etc. This is somewhat subjective, ala "tone," but also crucial in terms of nailing down the accuracy of the MAS.

In any event, I think this is a decent start. I'm sure that others will have useful suggestions on how to perfect this scale.

After reading this classic Scrotch post tonight, my wife asked: "“Does this mean you’re now the “first chair?”

Color me honored.

Of course, I couldn't have done it without you, Scrotch Rot.

You've gone a long way in laying down the groundwork for a fascinating scholarly undertaking. I applaud the rigorous application of science here, one day, Mopologeticology will rival even the hardest of the physical sciences in its rigor.

I was curious as to Mola Ram's rating. what were the considerations that gave him a 9?

Gadianton wrote:You've gone a long way in laying down the groundwork for a fascinating scholarly undertaking. I applaud the rigorous application of science here, one day, Mopologeticology will rival even the hardest of the physical sciences in its rigor.

Yes DR. ROBBERS, just like tabloid trash that rates who is sexier will one day be counted among the most prestigious of academic journals for their unrivaled scholarship.

I was curious as to Mola Ram's rating. what were the considerations that gave him a 9?

Probably that time he pushed Scratch off a cliff.

Nehor,

you've seemed angry all day. First you bashed Nightlion's religious beliefs and now your knuckles are white as you shake your fists at a maturing science.