"More Effective Apologetics" at FairMormon conference?

[_sock puppet]

We are, as Dean Robbers said elsewhere, now living in the age of post-Mopologetics,...

How do you see this new era playing out?

Do you foresee slam dunks by critics going uncontested? (as if what the OMIDs did was contesting any).

Do you see retorts from just the amateur, the hobbyist apologists?

Will the church ignore the criticisms, stressing faith and decreasing mention of JSjr and the LDS history?

The church announced that's 2017 theme for the MIA program will be James 1:5. Seems like an attempt to indoctrinate the kids to misinterpreting their self-induced emotions to be 'the Spirit'. Be that as it may, I found it interesting that it is not JSjr and James 1:5, but James 1:5 itself and standing apart from JSjr and the FV. Sure, JSJr will get mentioned, and then move right back into the behavior modification program. As a turd, JSjr only became stinkier as FARMs continued. Not cause and effect, mind you, but more and more obviously a losing cause to try to defend him against all the facts that came tumbling out of the internet and then be collated.

That's how I see it. Wondering what your perspective is.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think they are going to try many different approaches and see what sticks. However, I think ultimately, they will have to find a way de-emphasize history somehow and instead focus on the positive aspects, if any, it brings to someone today, through living the Mormon lifestyle. I don't think it'll work, though, because the authority crap and the abusive parent/spouse crap will always get in the way. These guys seem to need to pick on someone to prop themselves up.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Speaking of more effective apologetics, I have a curious recollection of Dr. Peterson delivering a paper a few years ago bearing a similar title (déjà vu?). (I believe he was speaking at an apologetics conference held at the Provo-area Frontier Pies.) If I recall correctly, he issued a call for an phalanx of Mormon apologists to overrun a new discussion board called The Training Table and transmogrify the state of online discourse. I don't hear much about The Training Table these days.

Yes, and what became of "The World Table"? They had that message board, which was an unmitigated disaster. Then it seemed that they were transitioning out of that and were developing a program that would compete with or alter something like Disqus--you would rate people in the Comments section of, say, "Sic et Non" or DesNews articles. That shift seemed to signify that the WT folks were looking to take this idea wherever the critics were stirring up the most "trouble." The key Mopologists completely abandoned / withdrew from engaging critics in open arenas--such as here on MDB--after getting their butts thoroughly and completely kicked. Even in retreat, some of the critics followed them and continued to make mincemeat out of them, hence the frequent, heavy-handed censorship, and hence the "transmogrified" goals of "The World Table."

Of course, we said all along that its real goal was to serve as a kind of adjust to the SCMC. Recall that, at one point, they were demanding that Markk use his in real life picture (he was the only one required to do this), and that, from others, they were insisting upon photo ID proof of identities. Now they are boasting that their approach will "Smash Trolls." I think that pretty much sums it all up in terms of speaking to the seriousness of their claims about "revolutionizing the way we communicate online."

[_Doctor Scratch]

We are, as Dean Robbers said elsewhere, now living in the age of post-Mopologetics,...

How do you see this new era playing out?

Very, very difficult to say. Fragmentation and chaos are the order of the day. The Mopologists are basically in hiding at the moment--unwilling to confront critics, generally speaking. This is just following the same pattern of withdrawal and retreat that has been ongoing at least since the dissolution of ZLMB. At this point, I don't recall whether the flight to the blogs came before or after the changing of the guard at the MI. Now, though, Mopologetics has basically ceased to function. When was the last time that Mormon Interpreter published something that could reasonably be described as having a "polemical edge"--let alone a "hit piece"? The bits on Runnells's work, maybe? I can't help but wonder if the Mopologists were sharply upbraided by the Brethren over the Dehlin fiasco.

Regardless, they look more like the "Mormon Studies" crowd than ever.

Do you foresee slam dunks by critics going uncontested? (as if what the OMIDs did was contesting any).

Yes. They might respond to something egregious that winds up drawing a lot of attention, but I think that the watered-down "New Era" is here to stay. One thing to keep an eye on is the upcoming publication of Quinn's 3rd Mormon Hierarchy volume. Their response to this book will function as a good measuring stick.

Do you see retorts from just the amateur, the hobbyist apologists?

Yes, perhaps--if that. Plus responses from the blogs, but I don't see them engaging in the sort of sustained, attack-oriented stuff via their main publication venture: Mormon Interpreter. They have tried to compartmentalize: they can still censor people and take personal swipes on their own blogs, but the kind of vicious apologetics that characterized the old FARMS Review will, it seems, be completely absent from Interpreter.

Will the church ignore the criticisms, stressing faith and decreasing mention of JSjr and the LDS history?

Hmm. I don't know.... tough to say.

The church announced that's 2017 theme for the MIA program will be James 1:5. Seems like an attempt to indoctrinate the kids to misinterpreting their self-induced emotions to be 'the Spirit'. Be that as it may, I found it interesting that it is not JSjr and James 1:5, but James 1:5 itself and standing apart from JSjr and the FV. Sure, JSJr will get mentioned, and then move right back into the behavior modification program. As a turd, JSjr only became stinkier as FARMs continued. Not cause and effect, mind you, but more and more obviously a losing cause to try to defend him against all the facts that came tumbling out of the internet and then be collated.

That's how I see it. Wondering what your perspective is.

The institutional Church and the Mopologists haven't necessarily ever been in strict alignment. In fact, I would say that on occasion the Mopologist were outright defying the Brethren's wishes. They (i.e., the Mopologists) have been reined in as of late, though. Really, the work of the apologists at the moment seems unmoored, like they don't have any real purpose--nothing to chase after or attack. And let's face it: they were always more interested in attacking and chewing people up than they were in defending anything.