The Mopologetic Playbook
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:57 pm
In the interest of reaching out to our esteemed colleagues over at Mormon Interpreter, I am pleased to offer a guide for newly minted mopologists.
With the advent of the Internet, mopologetics moved from an esoteric corner of pseudoscience into a more public, high-profile spot at the center of the debate over Mormonism. Since the passing of the MI/FARMS old guard, a new generation of mopologists must be ready to shine forth as defenders of truth, justice, and the LGT. With that in mind, I offer a simple list of mopologetic tactics to help these young guns take their rightful place at the front line.
1. The Wounded Scholar(a.k.a. the DCP): Generally, this play involves ignoring any substantive points a critic might have in favor of focusing on the perceived insulting or mean-spirited nature of the criticism. Note: it's important that the mopologist remind readers that he or she responds to substance, but not here. Thus the Wounded Scholar successfully avoids discussing anything, while simultaneously painting critics as a gaggle of hateful morons. Bonus points are awarded for those posts that treat criticism of a mopologist's apologia as attacks on their academic credentials. A classic example of this technique is this priceless post from its namesake:
2. Niblesse Oblige, or the Spaghetti Gambit: This technique, perfected by the late Dr. Hugh Nibley, involves grasping for parallels and connections, no matter how disparate in space and time, in order to show some compatibility between LDS scriptures and genuine ancient texts. No time period is too early or too late, no geographical area too remote, and no language or culture is too disconnected, as long as the thinnest of threads can be strung amongst them, like a bowl of spaghetti thrown against the wall in hopes that one or two strands stick. A textbook example comes from Dr. Nibley's "Abraham's Temple Drama," wherein he links modern Mormon temple worship (itself derived from Masonry) to the Book of Abraham and pretty much every culture in between (the entire article must be read to grasp its genius). Here, for example, in the midst of a hilarious attempt to transform a temple prayer circle into a "dance" or "ballet," Nibley makes a rather humorous connection between Greek water maidens, the account of Enoch in the Book of Moses, and a depiction of the Nile in an ancient Egyptian tomb. Sadly, he stops short of tying up the loose ends with Esther Williams and SpongeBob SquarePants.
3. The Law of Anti-Parsimony, or How Else Can You Explain My Haircut?: Briefly, this is the argument that, unless a critic can explain in minute detail to the apologist's satisfaction an alternate theory to a given phenomenon, the most reasonable explanation is the one involving seer stones and angels. This is the logical equivalent of insisting that, unless we explain exactly how he did it, we must acknowledge that GOB Bluth really did make that yacht disappear by magic. The standard for this type of argument comes from William Hamblin's attempt to make the supernatural explanation of the Book of Mormon the most reasonable one:
4. Can't We All Just Get Along? or the Stemwinder: Closely related to the Wounded Scholar, this approach deflects all substance and recasts the discussion as a referendum on the hypocrisy and bad form exhibited by critics. This technique has successfully derailed scores of threads into meandering ruminations on how mean critics are (pointing that out is for their own good, naturally). Bonus points can be earned by adding "Regards" or "Love ya tons" as a benediction. A variation on this approach is called "Belmonting," but it involves a greater waste of bandwidth. Here's a near-perfect example of the genre:
5. The Salieri, a.k.a. Lie Back and Think of Englund: Almost indistinguishable from the Stemwinder, this approach insists that there is something inherently wrong with critics mentally or spiritually, and if we can get to the root problem, the critic can return to full faith and fellowship in the LDS church. However, budding apologists must understand that the goal is not to help the critic but to marginalize him or her by pointing out their defects; by contrast, normal people--meaning believers--don't have these problems and thus are able to enjoy faith and testimony in ways the psychologically damaged cannot. Bonus points are awarded for linking apostates to other cognitively distorted groups, such as the KKK.The template for this tactic is this thread on the old ZLMB list., but it has made occasional appearances in other places, most recently with the "Helping Kevin Graham's Unbelief" thread on MDB. Here's a stellar example from Wade Englund:
6. The Acid Queen, or Attack of the Killer Kiwi: Sometimes referred to as "the nuclear option," this tactic involves attempting, through vituperative rhetoric and character assassination, to destroy the critic. Critics are not to be treated as merely wrong; they are willfully deceptive, intent on destroying testimonies, and ignorant of the facts. Bonus points are awarded for creatively accusing critics of lying, creating mocking nicknames for them, and revealing their real identities. A particularly sharp Acid Queen event was directed at mild-mannered poster LDSToronto:
7. Diabolus Ex Machina, or Let's Make Stuff Up: When facts don't agree with your apologetics, just invent evidence. If the subject is esoteric enough, most people won't notice. This seems to have been John Gee's bet when he published his bogus "two inks" argument based on apparently faked photos. Note: If you get caught, just say your critics are evil or mean-spirited (see #1 above) and hope that believers take your word for it. Gee's photos remain the gold standard for this technique.
8. The Celestial Parachute, or Testimony of Last Resort: When all else fails, the Trump card is "God told me so." There is no possible response for this tactic, though very few people will be swayed by its deployment. It may, however, allow you to extricate yourself from a dangerous encounter with critics. Note: this is not to be used in a serious academic setting. This works best when combined with the insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a lazy atheist, as in the following example:
With the advent of the Internet, mopologetics moved from an esoteric corner of pseudoscience into a more public, high-profile spot at the center of the debate over Mormonism. Since the passing of the MI/FARMS old guard, a new generation of mopologists must be ready to shine forth as defenders of truth, justice, and the LGT. With that in mind, I offer a simple list of mopologetic tactics to help these young guns take their rightful place at the front line.
1. The Wounded Scholar(a.k.a. the DCP): Generally, this play involves ignoring any substantive points a critic might have in favor of focusing on the perceived insulting or mean-spirited nature of the criticism. Note: it's important that the mopologist remind readers that he or she responds to substance, but not here. Thus the Wounded Scholar successfully avoids discussing anything, while simultaneously painting critics as a gaggle of hateful morons. Bonus points are awarded for those posts that treat criticism of a mopologist's apologia as attacks on their academic credentials. A classic example of this technique is this priceless post from its namesake:
Here's the form, incidentally, that exchanges like this typically take here:
Critic: "John Gee (or Dan Peterson, or ___________) is a cipher among real scholars!"
Chorus of Fellow Critics: "Huzzah! How true! Couldn't have said it better ourselves! What a nothing he is! Totally unknown outside Mormondumb!"
Person Who Actually Knows Something About It: "Well, actually, that's not true. Here are some indicators of his real status in his field."
Critic and Chorus: "What a show-off! Name-dropper! Pretentious egomaniac!"
And then, after some time has passed:
Critic: "John Gee (or Dan Peterson, or ___________) is a cipher among real scholars!"
Chorus of Fellow Critics: "Huzzah! How true! Couldn't have said it better ourselves! What a nothing he is! Totally unknown outside Mormondumb!"
2. Niblesse Oblige, or the Spaghetti Gambit: This technique, perfected by the late Dr. Hugh Nibley, involves grasping for parallels and connections, no matter how disparate in space and time, in order to show some compatibility between LDS scriptures and genuine ancient texts. No time period is too early or too late, no geographical area too remote, and no language or culture is too disconnected, as long as the thinnest of threads can be strung amongst them, like a bowl of spaghetti thrown against the wall in hopes that one or two strands stick. A textbook example comes from Dr. Nibley's "Abraham's Temple Drama," wherein he links modern Mormon temple worship (itself derived from Masonry) to the Book of Abraham and pretty much every culture in between (the entire article must be read to grasp its genius). Here, for example, in the midst of a hilarious attempt to transform a temple prayer circle into a "dance" or "ballet," Nibley makes a rather humorous connection between Greek water maidens, the account of Enoch in the Book of Moses, and a depiction of the Nile in an ancient Egyptian tomb. Sadly, he stops short of tying up the loose ends with Esther Williams and SpongeBob SquarePants.
Next the Dance of the Waters, always a favorite. In the oldest Greek play the chorus is made up of water maidens, the Oceanids; they sail above the stage weeping for poor Prometheus and shedding their tears over the Caucasus.79 The episode is reflected in the Enoch drama of the Pearl of Great Price, where the hero asks, "How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as rain upon the mountains?" (Moses 7:28). It is an equally poetic and dramatic passage from the same antediluvian milieu—for both tales are an immediate preparation for the flood. There is a stunning bas-relief from the Theban tomb of Kheruef depicting the water maidens imitating the waves of the Nile, though quite unaware of the parallel with the Rhine Daughters.
3. The Law of Anti-Parsimony, or How Else Can You Explain My Haircut?: Briefly, this is the argument that, unless a critic can explain in minute detail to the apologist's satisfaction an alternate theory to a given phenomenon, the most reasonable explanation is the one involving seer stones and angels. This is the logical equivalent of insisting that, unless we explain exactly how he did it, we must acknowledge that GOB Bluth really did make that yacht disappear by magic. The standard for this type of argument comes from William Hamblin's attempt to make the supernatural explanation of the Book of Mormon the most reasonable one:
But unfortunately, Metcalfe never provides us the details of a concrete counterproposal as to what either the "visionary" or the non-"visionary" experiences of the plates really were; he is satisfied simply to proclaim that they were "visions." This is because, unlike a genuine historian, he is not attempting to formulate an explanatory model of Joseph Smith, but merely wishes to demonstrate that the traditional interpretation is wrong, and that Joseph was therefore not a prophet. This, indeed, is one of the flaws of the entire naturalist enterprise—they fail to develop a coherent explanation for the writing of the Book of Mormon. Few, if any, even deal with the most basic issue of whether they believe Joseph was consciously or subconsciously creating his piece of pious frontier fantasy. For example, did Joseph have the actual text of the King James Version Isaiah or Matthew in front of him as he wrote the Book of Mormon, consciously copying it word for word? Or had he memorized the entire book of Isaiah, thereby enabling him to produce it subconsciously? I suspect that no naturalist has ever attempted to develop a complete and coherent counterexplanation, because when they do, they find themselves in a causal and explanatory morass from which it is impossible to escape. Whether one believes Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon as a conscious fraud, or was in some psychologically dissociative state which allowed him to believe he had plates when he really did not, numerous explanatory problems arise. The naturalists therefore remain content with attempting to show that the traditional understanding of the origin of the Book of Mormon is unsatisfactory, ignoring their own causal problems by refusing to develop complete and coherent counterexplanations beyond simply asserting that Joseph simply wrote the Book of Mormon. This is rather like explaining that birds fly south for the winter by "instinct." In reality, unless the complex nature of "instinct" is explained, it is rather like saying birds fly south "by magic." Likewise, unless the naturalists can provide a complete and coherent explanation of the myriad of causal factors behind Joseph's supposed forging of the Book of Mormon, they are essentially asserting that Joseph wrote it "by instinct," or "magic." Should we tolerate such shoddy pseudoscholarship? If naturalists want their explanations of the origin of the Book of Mormon to be taken seriously, they must provide explicit, specific, detailed, and coherent explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon.
4. Can't We All Just Get Along? or the Stemwinder: Closely related to the Wounded Scholar, this approach deflects all substance and recasts the discussion as a referendum on the hypocrisy and bad form exhibited by critics. This technique has successfully derailed scores of threads into meandering ruminations on how mean critics are (pointing that out is for their own good, naturally). Bonus points can be earned by adding "Regards" or "Love ya tons" as a benediction. A variation on this approach is called "Belmonting," but it involves a greater waste of bandwidth. Here's a near-perfect example of the genre:
Sheesh guys, all I did was open this thread and got such a chuckle, in a sad sort of way, out of what I saw as hypocrisy from Kish. I posted an lol. When he asked for clarification I gave it to him, and he took exception. My apologies for trying to help the guy out.
I'm sure many of you find yourselves in the same predicament--"can't stand how some LDS folks behave, even though I behave the same way. It makes me angry and forces me onto a board which largely houses other like-minded folks wherein we complain forever about how some LDS guy said something a little harsh. While I'm equally impolite and uncivil I am only that way on this discussion board so I give myself a pass, but them Mormon folks who are uncivil and impolite will feel my wrath anywho. I can't wait their utter demise. It'll make me so happy. Then I won't come off as such a hostile person on MDB. Oh, and any LDS person who points out my hypocrisy will receive some bitter language in return as I grasp at any explanation I can to give myself a pass."
Please give it up...you are only hurting yourselves and those who enjoy the idea of venting their frustrations on places like this. I say this for your own good.
5. The Salieri, a.k.a. Lie Back and Think of Englund: Almost indistinguishable from the Stemwinder, this approach insists that there is something inherently wrong with critics mentally or spiritually, and if we can get to the root problem, the critic can return to full faith and fellowship in the LDS church. However, budding apologists must understand that the goal is not to help the critic but to marginalize him or her by pointing out their defects; by contrast, normal people--meaning believers--don't have these problems and thus are able to enjoy faith and testimony in ways the psychologically damaged cannot. Bonus points are awarded for linking apostates to other cognitively distorted groups, such as the KKK.The template for this tactic is this thread on the old ZLMB list., but it has made occasional appearances in other places, most recently with the "Helping Kevin Graham's Unbelief" thread on MDB. Here's a stellar example from Wade Englund:
Yes, I do feel qualified to determine if they are suffering from a variety of cognitive distortions (not to be confused with "the same" unhealthy cognitive distortion) given the nature of the "venting" and "grieving" at places like RFM.
And, you may ask: "how am I able to do that without knowing them personally nor having met them face to face"? Well, I can do so simply because their "venting" and "grieving" contain all the information I need to know in making that determination.
The same is true were I to visit some online anti-Semite websites. Given what is stated in their "venting", I, as a perfect stranger to them, and anyone else who has a modicum of common sense and familiarity with the cause of anger, hatred, prejudice, and bigotry, could surmize the cognitive distortions behind their "venting".
I hope this helps.
6. The Acid Queen, or Attack of the Killer Kiwi: Sometimes referred to as "the nuclear option," this tactic involves attempting, through vituperative rhetoric and character assassination, to destroy the critic. Critics are not to be treated as merely wrong; they are willfully deceptive, intent on destroying testimonies, and ignorant of the facts. Bonus points are awarded for creatively accusing critics of lying, creating mocking nicknames for them, and revealing their real identities. A particularly sharp Acid Queen event was directed at mild-mannered poster LDSToronto:
And your melodramatic misrepresentations continue. No, it was nothing like a "murder." Your apostasy was much more like a suicide, and the suicide note said "It's YOUR fault!!! You FORCED me to do this!!!"
Or perhaps it's more like a criminal going on a hunger strike to try to manipulate public opinion in his favour.
Which is really just a slightly age-enhanced -- but no more adult -- version of, "I'm going to kick and scream and hold my breath until I turn blue!!!"
Contrary to your lies, I did not drive you out of the Church; you did that entirely yourself. Contrary to your lies, I did not weaken your faith; it is impossible for me to weaken something that does not exist. Contrary to your lies, I had no impact on your relationships with any of your LDS friends and/or relatives; I don't know any of them, and none of them know me. Your attempt to hang your apostasy on me is just a tired, shopworn anti-Mormon mind game.
You uttered the following slogan: "each time you tear down instead of building up."
Just this once, try to be honest: is there anything at all that I could have said that you would have construed as "building up" instead of "tearing down?"
Anything, that is, apart from affirming and encouraging your apostasy?
7. Diabolus Ex Machina, or Let's Make Stuff Up: When facts don't agree with your apologetics, just invent evidence. If the subject is esoteric enough, most people won't notice. This seems to have been John Gee's bet when he published his bogus "two inks" argument based on apparently faked photos. Note: If you get caught, just say your critics are evil or mean-spirited (see #1 above) and hope that believers take your word for it. Gee's photos remain the gold standard for this technique.
8. The Celestial Parachute, or Testimony of Last Resort: When all else fails, the Trump card is "God told me so." There is no possible response for this tactic, though very few people will be swayed by its deployment. It may, however, allow you to extricate yourself from a dangerous encounter with critics. Note: this is not to be used in a serious academic setting. This works best when combined with the insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a lazy atheist, as in the following example:
The fact is, there is a much easier way to prove the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Pray to God and if you don't feel it is true, then it is a hoax. Seems like a stupid way to perpetrate a fraud to me. Or let's get to the "classic" ex-mormon excuse: I felt it was true, but I was deluding myself. Well DUH. You seriously just stopped at feelings? You went to all the trouble of being baptised and wearing funny looking underwear and you never bothered to actually speak with God yourself? There is no point of believing in Mormonism or any religion for that matter if God isn't real and if you can't be bothered to go there, you should just remain an atheist and go on your merry way.