Kent: microcosm of apologetics

[_beastie]

One of the reasons I’ve been interested in interacting with Kent is because, in certain ways, it becomes a microcosm of Mormon apologetics overall.

Kent, by his own admission, came here with the express purpose of defending DCP. I posit that some sort of significant emotional attachment must be present in order for someone to decide to spend as much time as he has on this project. Critical thinking can be impaired by significant emotion. Take the classic example of the cheating husband. The deceived wife almost always has suspicions. The cheater leaves clues. But some wives are so emotionally invested in their husband, their marriage, their family, their possessions, what-have-you, that is becomes impossible for her to recognize the truth. She can find lipstick on his collar, used condoms in his car, naked pictures on his cellphone, and, if the emotional risk is high enough, will believe just about any BS he peddles to explain it away. In some cases, sooner or later the deceived wife can no longer deny the truth, but in many cases, the wife continues asserting her husband’s innocence. Outsiders are amazed that she continues to defend him. Is she crazy? No, she’s just too emotionally at risk to recognize the truth. The human brain is very good at hiding information.

Another example is how often a child molester’s wife will protest his innocence. If I recall correctly, Jerry Sandusky’s wife protests his innocence. Think of all the years she turned a blind eye to how odd it was for her husband to continue to collect young male friends, and spend so much time with them in the basement. I once had a long conversation with a lawyer about this issue. He asserted that people would be shocked to discover just how common it is for the spouse of a molester to insist on his innocence, no matter how overwhelming the evidence is. He shared the case of a family with a grandfather who had not only molested his own daughters, but continued molesting his granddaughters. Finally, one of the granddaughters said NO MORE and reported him to the police. Then other female family members came forward. Despite all this, his wife, even as this man sits in jail, insists that he’s innocent. This phenomenon is so common it’s been studied. The problem is that child molestation is such a horrible crime that people just cannot accept that someone they love is secretly a monster. So their minds help them to never have to admit the truth to themselves.

These are extreme examples, but I made them extreme to demonstrate a valid point about the human capacity for self-denial.

Back to DCP. I don’t know him personally, but feel certain he is a good and decent man. He has too many loyal friends to doubt that. I do know some of his friends better, and genuinely like them. I always liked liz. After we got through a rough patch, I considered Ray a friend. I understand their disgust and dismay at the more personal, unnecessary attacks on DCP. But, in my view, DCP does deserve criticism in regards to his apologetics. He has deliberately become the most visible and accessible apologist. At the same time, he has made statements that are wildly misleading at the very least, and patently false at the worst. We’re in the middle of discussing one example on other threads, so that example will suffice. But the larger problem is that he was the editor of the organization responsible for propagating many wildly misleading and/or patently false statements. In ways, FARMS/Maxwell has always depended upon the ignorance of their target audience.

So what is the microcosm DCP apologetics has provided as a study for the larger world of Mormon apologetics? I have noticed three main approaches to DCP apologia.

1. Group one will focus only on the personal attacks and decry those. This group will completely ignore the criticism focused on the substance of DCP’s apologetics. They will continue to focus only on the personal attacks, and use those to portray all of DCP’s critics as vicious people with personal agendas, ignoring the fact that most of the people who voice criticism of DCP are, in fact, focused on his apologetics and not his weight. Compare this group to deceived wives who won’t even acknowledge the evidence against their husbands, and will be hurt if someone brings it to their attention. Compare this group to LDS defenders of the faith who act like all criticism is the equivalent of people holding up picket signs at the temple and screaming insults as passing Mormons, but ignore the real problems with LDS history and claims.

2. Group two will focus on both the personal and criticism of apologia. However, this group will accept and make any sort of excuse/alibi to cover DCP. He’s not an expert in that field. He wasn’t aware of the research. Compare this group to deceived wives who acknowledge the existence of the evidence against their husbands, but will accept any excuse or alibi, no matter how incredulous. “That lipstick on my collar is there because a woman on the subway stumbled and fell on me.” “Those condoms are from when a friend borrowed my car.” “Those naked pictures on my phone are from a crazy woman who stalks me.” Compare this group to LDS defenders of the faith who accept any possible evidence without investigating it at all, no matter how suspicious. They accept hoaxes and accept bogus footnotes for decades without bothering to investigate either. Anything as long as it helps them continue to believe.

3. Group three finally cracks under the pressure. This group lashes out towards DCP critics in personal, angry, ways. They become what they claim to hate. Compare this group to deceived wives who become viciously angry with any friend who tattles on the cheating husband, sometimes even dropping them as friends. Compare this group to the angry MAD defenders of the faith, who never miss an opportunity to portray critics as Satan inspired “dark minds”.

I’m not noting this to condemn DCP apologists or LDS apologists. The human mind is very good at this one thing – at helping us deceive ourselves when the emotional risk reality presents is just too threatening. We all do it in some way or the other. I’ve seen exmormons do it, as well. None of us are immune. But there are cases when reality is fairly clear and the evidence overwhelming on one side. And that’s when it is particularly intriguing to watch this phenomenon. As one poster on this board noted long ago – sorry I’ve forgotten which one, I think Gad – the problem with Mormonism is not only that it is not true, but that it’s obviously not true. And this reality presents problems for apologists like DCP. They’re trying to defend something that has little defense. I’m sorry, if you’re going to insist that there were horses in America during Book of Mormon times, then you are going to end up using ridiculous sources, including hoaxes and bogus footnotes. That’s because there were no horses in America during the Book of Mormon times. I won’t pretend that all beliefs are created equal. So anyone – DCP or any other apologist – who decides to make himself the most visible and accessible apologist is going to have these troubles. Hence, the drama.

[_ludwigm]

... accept any excuse or alibi, no matter how incredulous. “That lipstick on my collar is there because a woman on the subway stumbled and fell on me.”
...

I know, this is off...

Five minutes ago I listened "Lipstick On Your Collar" by Connie Francis ...

[_honorentheos]

As one poster on this board noted long ago – sorry I’ve forgotten which one, I think Gad – the problem with Mormonism is not only that it is not true, but that it’s obviously not true.

I think this was actually Sethbag. Someone used to use it as their signature. Beefcalf maybe.

[_Kent]

Thank you, thank you, thank you beastie! All these months Dan has been cheating on me and I couldn't see it until now. My Stockholm-Syndrome-chained mind has finally been freed!

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm supposed to laugh, but the earnest comparisons to the wives of cheating husbands and child molesters is way over the top and silly on its face. I got lost in the details of your taxonomy of apologists--I think I'll wait until the movie comes out to see which of the three groups I'm supposed to fall into.

In the mean time, I can't see how your post comes close to describing apologists in general or me. I have no personal ties to Dan, haven't even met him or had any personal communications with him. That drama is all in your mind.

If you want to understand apologists, or any other group, you have to use more interpretive charity than your anger at them currently allows you. Face it, this board isn't about understanding. It's about anger, revenge, getting back at people, etc.

[_Spanner]

Nice analysis, beastie. Thank you!

I had not thought of it that way before, DCP apologists, (D'pologists?). A second line of defence of the obviously untrue.

[_Maksutov]

Kent is on my ignore list. But not exactly. Because I'm going to keep on talking about Kent if I want. I can't be accused of "reading trouble" because I won't be reading. That's okay. I'll still be able to see his cyberlitter everywhere.

Kent's first objective is to disrupt the board, irrespective of individuals and their merit.
Kent's second objective is to convince us that he's doing it for reasons other than personal malice.

While he's achieved the first, he's completely failed at the second.

He's also turned me into a supporter of Scratch.

I had had a bunch of people on ignore before, but I've taken all of them off and replaced them with Kent. They deserve a second chance; Kent is done.

[_honorentheos]

I like the OP, beastie.

Big disclaimer here: I do not think Kent is actually a sockpuppet, but that he is who he says he is more or less.

That said, his behavior is almost exactly the same as Simon Belmont's during his participation. He very quickly went from the guy with an opinion and a hypothetical Masters in Philosophy to starting 10 threads a day about Dr. Scratch. He also racked up about the same number of posts in a short period of time doing so.

With Simon, understanding why he might have an emotional attachment as described in the OP was easy. He was LDS, he was on a board where LDS posters were usually out-gunned, out-maneuvered, and out-numbered. As the Sethbag quote implies, it doesn't take an extremely well-equipped critic such as EAllusion to tear most apologetics apart. I think that at least partially explains why, with time, many of the less shifty pro-LDS posters distill their participation down to MDB being composed of bullies and Scratch-supporters. Kent's motives are difficult to attach to his claimed background. I suspect there is a more personal connection to the LDS faith than just Dr. Peterson being a Facebook friend.

Now, I do think there is plenty of bullying that goes on here. Some of the more recent threads where that is questioned strikes me as disingenuous or self-delusional. But acknowledging that doesn't excuse poor allegiance to truth over one's allegiance to the LDS faith by the other side, either.

In that sense, there's probably a little of this phenomena being raised to a boil on both sides. I suspect the remedy in both cases is some self-reflection and a renewed interest in one's own knowledge building and respectful discussion.

[_honorentheos]

On an example of bullying from the board:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15952&view=previous

For Kent:

"A traveler came upon an old farmer hoeing in his field beside the road. Eager to rest his feet, the wanderer hailed the countryman, who seemed happy enough to straighten his back and talk for a moment.

"What sort of people live in the next town?" asked the stranger.

"What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer, answering the question with another question.

"They were a bad lot. Troublemakers all, and lazy too. The most selfish people in the world, and not a one of them to be trusted. I'm happy to be leaving the scoundrels."

"Is that so?" replied the old farmer. "Well, I'm afraid that you'll find the same sort in the next town. Disappointed, the traveler trudged on his way, and the farmer returned to his work.

Some time later another stranger, coming from the same direction, hailed the farmer, and they stopped to talk.

"What sort of people live in the next town?" he asked.

"What were the people like where you've come from?" replied the farmer once again."

"They were the best people in the world. Hard working, honest, and friendly. I'm sorry to be leaving them."

"Well then," said the farmer. "You'll find the same sort in the next town."

(folktale recorded by D.L. Ashliman)

[_Maksutov]

Perfect story to make the point, honor. Thanks.

[_Kent]

That said, his behavior is almost exactly the same as Simon Belmont's during his participation. He very quickly went from the guy with an opinion and a hypothetical Masters in Philosophy to starting 10 threads a day about Dr. Scratch.

Yeah, except for the fact that I haven't even come close to doing either of those things, I'm almost exactly like that.

I agree with your story to the extent that I'll find in this town what I found in the others I've been in, good and bad. It's a lot more like the other towns than it thinks it is, in my view. The focus on my supposed motives and psychology won't change that, it just averts the eye to help protect the myth.