Defending the Absurd takes a toll?

[Bill_Billiams]

I sometimes wonder what makes mopologists so aggressive/vitriolic. It is interesting to me that mopologists, even the ones with credentials and some credibility, seem willing to doxx, harass, and attack critics so quickly and aggressively.

This isn't some Earth shattering revelation, but one of the possible explanations for this behavior that I've been mulling over lately is that defending the absurd takes a toll on them. It must be difficult to truly believe something in the face of overwhelming evidence that it isn't true. It's probably more difficult to believe and publicly defend something in spite of overwhelming evidence that it isn't true. I thing lashing out becomes a form of catharsis and since so many of them do it, there isn't really a way to check the behavior from within. I am sure there are other causes, but I think that might be one.

[MG 2.0]

I think you would have to get inside their head. It’s sort of difficult to play armchair analyst and discern why anyone does what they do. At least fully. There will be many factors at play. I’m sure that’s true with you even though I don’t know you at all. It’s human nature to have a rather complex series of experiences at play as we become who we are at any given time.

Folks like Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, John E. Clark, John Welch, and a whole slew of others that are and/or have been known in the world of LDS apologetics have both intellectual and spiritual reasons for believing in the truth claims of the LDS Church. Of course, you’re also going to have other folks that are easier to poke at and you might find yourself wondering whether or not they truly believe.

I think, again, as I said on another thread, that it is difficult to generalize and throw everyone into the same bucket.

Many of the folks I’ve mentioned along with other thoughtful Latter-Day Saints might find it difficult to understand how critics come to the place they’re at. It works both ways.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I think you would have to get inside their head. It’s sort of difficult to play armchair analyst and discern why anyone does what they do. At least fully. There will be many factors at play. I’m sure that’s true with you even though I don’t know you at all. It’s human nature to have a rather complex series of experiences at play as we become who we are at any given time.

Folks like Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, John E. Clark, John Welch, and a whole slew of others that are and/or have been known in the world of LDS apologetics have both intellectual and spiritual reasons for believing in the truth claims of the LDS Church. Of course, you’re also going to have other folks that are easier to poke at and you might find yourself wondering whether or not they truly believe.

I think, again, as I said on another thread, that it is difficult to generalize and throw everyone into the same bucket.

Many of the folks I’ve mentioned along with other thoughtful Latter-Day Saints might find it difficult to understand how critics come to the place they’re at. It works both ways.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Do you resonate more with the apologetics of say, DCP, or the apologetics of Adam Miller?

Are you an Interpreter kind of Mormon or a Maxwell Institute kind of Mormon?

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't think it's defending the Church that makes Mopologists act the way they do. There are many who defend and/or have defended the truth claims of the Church who have generally done so with respect, grace, and a genuine goal of kindness (we all fall short at times). For example; I think anyone here who has had the pleasure of dialoging with Kevin Barney would be hard pressed to think of an instance where he was aggressive or harassing.

I don't believe it's so much that defending the Church makes them act the way they do; I think it's more-so that they feel it gives them license to do so. It's why they eagerly attack even fellow members with the same mordant disregard for civility. This is speaking partially from my own personal experience defending the Church, and the infinite echos of shame when I think of my own unkindness towards some -- I felt justified in my dismissive and rude attacks on some critics.

[malkie]

I don't think it's defending the Church that makes Mopologists act the way they do. There are many who defend and/or have defended the truth claims of the Church who have generally done so with respect, grace, and a genuine goal of kindness (we all fall short at times). For example; I think anyone here who has had the pleasure of dialoging with Kevin Barney would be hard pressed to think of an instance where he was aggressive or harassing.

I don't believe it's so much that defending the Church makes them act the way they do; I think it's more-so that they feel it gives them license to do so. It's why they eagerly attack even fellow members with the same mordant disregard for civility. This is speaking partially from my own personal experience defending the Church, and the infinite echos of shame when I think of my own unkindness towards some -- I felt justified in my dismissive and rude attacks on some critics.

I can see that.

Not that I have any room to judge, but one practice that caused me some distress was that of attacking someone, and then when called on it justifying the attack because "they deserved it". And doubling down when it was suggested that attacking someone because "they deserved it" was not a very Christian thing to do.

[MG 2.0]

I think you would have to get inside their head. It’s sort of difficult to play armchair analyst and discern why anyone does what they do. At least fully. There will be many factors at play. I’m sure that’s true with you even though I don’t know you at all. It’s human nature to have a rather complex series of experiences at play as we become who we are at any given time.

Folks like Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, Terryl and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, John E. Clark, John Welch, and a whole slew of others that are and/or have been known in the world of LDS apologetics have both intellectual and spiritual reasons for believing in the truth claims of the LDS Church. Of course, you’re also going to have other folks that are easier to poke at and you might find yourself wondering whether or not they truly believe.

I think, again, as I said on another thread, that it is difficult to generalize and throw everyone into the same bucket.

Many of the folks I’ve mentioned along with other thoughtful Latter-Day Saints might find it difficult to understand how critics come to the place they’re at. It works both ways.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Do you resonate more with the apologetics of say, DCP, or the apologetics of Adam Miller?

Are you an Interpreter kind of Mormon or a Maxwell Institute kind of Mormon?

Both. They each approach things somewhat differently. But I can glean something from whatever sources I come in contact with. In the 1990’s and for many of years I looked at everything from whatever source it came. Didn’t really matter.

At the end of the day I would not pigeon hole myself into any particular apologetic school. I do my own analysis and thinking and have my own thoughts in regards to that which I read and assimilate from wherever and whomever it comes.

That has served me well.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think anyone here who has had the pleasure of dialoging with Kevin Barney would be hard pressed to think of an instance where he was aggressive or harassing.

He was a ‘go to’ guy. I enjoyed his balanced manner in approaching various issues.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There are many who defend and/or have defended the truth claims of the Church who have generally done so with respect, grace, and a genuine goal of kindness (we all fall short at times).

Jeff Lindsay was another good egg. I’m not sure if he does much apologetics anymore. I haven’t referenced him in quite a while.

Kind and patient man.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

1 - "You be rude."
2 - "No, you be rude."
1 - "I insist. You be rude first."
3 - "Hey guy, I tell you what, let's all be rude and churlish together."

[Gadianton]

I don't think it's defending the Church that makes Mopologists act the way they do. There are many who defend and/or have defended the truth claims of the Church who have generally done so with respect

While that's true, those who aren't combative fade out from critic interaction pretty fast. Critics can be combative, but at a certain point, there just aren't any great defenses and so even if the critic is patient, nice apologists tend to fall off the edge of the earth.