DiscussMormonism.com

canpakes wrote:I do get this. And this is a nice synopsis of what you are explaining in greater detail in the portion of your second masters thesis that you linked to for Malkie (thank you for posting).

You do posit the alternative concept of 'encyclopedia semantics' as being more complete, and I completely agree. However, we (collectively) do seem stuck with having to rely most upon 'dictionary semantics' for reason of commonly understandable if not somewhat expedient conversation. It would seem that your own statement from p.18 hints at this: "Shared understandings can only be based on communicable concepts".

Very true. The question is what common conceptualization is shared among most here regarding the prototypical apologist.

canpakes wrote:Most folks would probably take the route that DrW did, because there isn't a very manageable alternative. When we begin to expand out to capture all encyclopedia semantics, we are going to end up with a fairly unmanageable definition that attempts to capture every nuance suggested by the word. That's why folks tend to resort to pared down (boxed-in? : ) 'dictionary semantics'.

I don't think it's necessary to capture every nuance. What I was getting at is that your prototypical apologist, according to the usage here, is unilaterally dedicated to defense at least of the faith claims of the LDS Church, if not the LDS Church in toto. If defend neither unilaterally. What I defend is an accurate, informed, and fair analysis.

In any event, I'll remove my question to you regarding a definition of 'apologist'. But I am still interested in your answer as to if you have ever, by your own definition, 'defended' the Book of Mormon/Book of Abraham. And I'm asking not to trap you into an 'apologist' box (which even an affirmative answer might not do) but to get a better handle on your personal relationship with these texts.[/quote]

I have defended them against what I believe to be uninformed or unfair rhetoric, but I have also been critical of them. I do not presuppose their inspiration in any online discussion, and when I analyze them, I do so under the assumption that they are the product of Joseph Smith's mind.

I'll offer a final thought regarding the notion that any defense of the LDS Church renders one an apologist of the LDS Church. One might to point to numerous vehement critics here who have at some time or another defended the LDS Church or some or another of its aspects or members because of this or that extenuating circumstance or special insight. That doesn't make them apologists, though, it just makes them concerned for fairness and integrity. That's what I defend as well.

maklelan wrote:What does the dictionary definition have to do with how I define myself?

It has to do with whether your self-identification is accurate or inaccurate.

If I self-identify as a multi-millionaire, but only have $50.00 in the bank and no cash or assets, liquid or otherwise, would it be sophomoric and ignorant of DrW to point out that my self-identification is inaccurate?

Dr. Shades wrote:

maklelan wrote:What does the dictionary definition have to do with how I define myself?

It has to do with whether your self-identification is accurate or inaccurate.

If I self-identify as a multi-millionaire, but only have $50.00 in the bank and no cash or assets, liquid or otherwise, would it be sophomoric and ignorant of DrW to point out that my self-identification is inaccurate?

I can't help but side with you and Dr. W. on this issue. I greatly admire maklelan. He is more honest and rational than any "apologist" I have ever encountered. I am in awe of his scholarship and depth of knowledge--but, not an apologist at all? I don't think he has made or can make a credible case for that. Dictionary definitions are not entirely irrelevant, and I think that most impartial observers would agree that it would not be an outrageous stretch of the commonly accepted, dictionary definition of "apologist" to regard him as one. Despite their inherent limitations, dictionaries do, after all, serve a very vital purpose. If everyone takes it upon oneself to define or redefine words however one prefers to define them, how can any real communication or understanding between people and groups take place?

Dr. Shades wrote:It has to do with whether your self-identification is accurate or inaccurate.

And there are categories where someone else's judgment is relevant and where someone else's judgment is not relevant.

Dr. Shades wrote:If I self-identify as a multi-millionaire, but only have $50.00 in the bank and no cash or assets, liquid or otherwise, would it be sophomoric and ignorant of DrW to point out that my self-identification is inaccurate?

That would be the former kind of category.

Gunnar wrote:I can't help but side with you and Dr. W. on this issue. I greatly admire maklelan. He is more honest and rational than any "apologist" I have ever encountered. I am in awe of his scholarship and depth of knowledge--but, not an apologist at all? I don't think he has made or can make a credible case for that. Dictionary definitions are not entirely irrelevant, and I think that most impartial observers would agree that it would not be an outrageous stretch of the commonly accepted, dictionary definition of "apologist" to regard him as one. Despite their inherent limitations, dictionaries do, after all, serve a very vital purpose. If everyone takes it upon oneself to define or redefine words however one prefers to define them, how can any real communication or understanding between people and groups take place?

Mutual agreement is how communication takes place. If you want to label me using a specific definition of a term that I reject, you're rejecting my participation in the defining of terms. You're saying you get to define terms, not me, and that's particularly problematic when you're saying that in the context of labeling me. No one here needs a dictionary to know what "apologist" means, we just have to observe it being used. The definition Dr. W asserted from the dictionary does not align with the way the word is commonly used here. If you look at the way the word is commonly used here, you see a prototypical sense that I do not fit. Dr. W asserted the dictionary definition because it was rhetorically useful and it allowed him to call me a name.

Dr. Shades wrote:

maklelan wrote:What does the dictionary definition have to do with how I define myself?

It has to do with whether your self-identification is accurate or inaccurate.

Who gets to determine wether ones self-identification (of a non-factual variety) is accurate or inaccurate?

For instance, if I self-identify as being white skinned but can be clearly seen to be black skinned then my self-identifictaion error is obvious and I am deluding myself. But that isn't (and your example isn't) akin to what is being talked about in terms of maklelan. This is about behavioural stuff. A defender is not necessarily an apologist.

I see maklelan as a vehement defender of factual, textual and documentary accuracy.

Mak's endless equivocations are a sure sign of the apologist.

Amen.

- Doc

I do not self-identify as anti-mormon, yet I feel sure that many TBMs would call me one.

Some would probably call Mak anti-mormon, and at least in their own minds could make the case, though I doubt if Mak would self-identify as such.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Mak's endless equivocations are a sure sign of the apologist.

Amen.

- Doc

Remember when I used the pronoun "they" in reference to a singular subject and you said I wasn't allowed to? Remember how I then produced a bunch of contemporary linguistic scholarship talking about how that was becoming more and more common, and was perfectly acceptable, but you still belligerently refused to concede that there was nothing wrong with my usage?

If you don't remember, it started with your attempt to condescend to me here:

I agree. I know you're just trying to patronize me, but it reflects the disgust one feels when they confront the hypocrisy and dishonesty of so many antagonistic posters on this forum.

Hello,

I am having a hard time getting past your grammar, Sir. If you would like to be taken seriously on any level I would recommend paying attention to your grammar. Thank you in advance.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I explained that it was perfectly acceptable, but you suggested I go take remedial writing courses. I then provided a list of about a dozen different academic publications supporting my position, and you replied with this:

Sir,

I will remind you that I am the doctor, and you are but a humble graduate student. Please show the proper tone and respect my office affords me when addressing me. Thank you in advance.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Then you fled the scene. It was at that moment that I realized that a rational human being has less use of your opinion than they do the toilet paper hanging in their bathroom.

malkie wrote:I do not self-identify as anti-mormon, yet I feel sure that many TBMs would call me one.

This is a good example of being rhetorically and unfairly pigeonholed. The posters on this forum have spent a lot of time and effort rejecting that label (here, for instance), and I have agreed with their position. I don't think it's too much to ask to have them return the favor and not label me for rhetorical effect.

malkie wrote:Some would probably call Mak anti-mormon, and at least in their own minds could make the case, though I doubt if Mak would self-identify as such.

I've been called worse than that by other Latter-day Saints.