Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_John Larsen]

Like you're unsuccessful attempt to avoid vegetables, I ran into them incidentally. But mostly, I read them before I began to question seriously. But they always left me with more questions. It was when I was struggling that I avoided them because they made me feel distant from the apologists and thus distant from Mormonism. In short, apologetics didn't help me at all.

*waiting for examples*

Not all apologetic arguments are created equal.

I've discussed this before, but the first piece of Mormon apologeia was a Evolution: "A Convenient Fiction" by the venerable Hugh Nibley. What a piece of trash. I was a BYU student at the time and struggling with my understanding of Human evolution. I was reading everything I could get my hands on both pro and con. I read quite a bit of Christian responses, some better than others. But this work by Nibley and published by FARMs showed my that FARMS had their head up their ass. (By the way, they claim it was "unpublished" but I bought mine at the BYU bookstore. I recently found my copy to prove that).

I also read some of the review of books which were laced with ad hominem-- Metcalfe is butthead anyone? That one made the newspapers. Bill Hamblin should have been fired for that juvenile prank.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I also read some of the review of books which were laced with ad hominem-- Metcalfe is butthead anyone? That one made the newspapers. Bill Hamblin should have been fired for that juvenile prank.

So you had a copy of the "Metcalfe is butthead" review, then? Can I ask where you got it and where it is now?

[_Gadianton]

I also read some of the review of books which were laced with ad hominem-- Metcalfe is butthead anyone? That one made the newspapers. Bill Hamblin should have been fired for that juvenile prank.

So you had a copy of the "Metcalfe is butthead" review, then? Can I ask where you got it and where it is now?

Funny, you don't believe him. If John Larson says something, he can either back it up well or is very, very sincerely wrong.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Funny, you don't believe him. If John Larson says something, he can either back it up well or is very, very sincerely wrong.

It's just that it would be nigh unto impossible for John Larsen to have actually seen the review, seeing as how there were about a total of 5 copies printed before the review (which was an inside joke that unfortunately went overlooked) was corrected. While I am familiar with Sig. Books trying to make a huge deal about it, I find it strange that JL would make it seem as though he had read the review. My guess is he will clarify that he only heard about it in the news.

[_Gadianton]

Just an "inside joke" huh? Let me ask you this, was Brent Metcalfe on the "inside"?

The fact that the apologist culture is so permeated by contempt for critics that a mere look, gesture, or phrase triggers an "inside joke" everyone gets which ruthlessly denigrating a critic I think tells us a lot about what current apologetics is all about.

More than ever, I'd like the see a guy with some principles like Meldrum take helm of apologetics.

[_collegeterrace]

But, the fact that you don't remember him ought to tell you something. Namely, that there are undoubtedly countless faceless and nameless individuals who've been driven away from the Church by your silly apologetic crusade to besmirch and assault critics.

So, if you want to carry on with your name-calling, your "Master Scartch"-this, or your "you are an idiot that," you'll just be aiding my effort to combat apologetics. It actually pleases me very much when you stoop to such tactics. You are undermining apologetics, and you are (inadvertently, I guess) helping to destroy the LDS Church. When people investigating the Church log onto the Internet and type in "Mormon discussions," guess what they'll see? They will see a certain "Daniel Peterson" saying things like, "you are a buffoon!" and "you are a goofball!" and "The though of Scratch makes me wish I had my assault rifle on hand." Needless to say, this brings a wide smile to my lips.

Carry on, Professor Peterson! These apostates are "disposable"! The destroyed testimonies are unfortunate casualties in the grand war against critics!

*Porter's right eyebrow raise up as he rubs his chin*

Ahhh ha... I wonder if this has anything to do with his current calling?

Oh and uh, nice work again Scratch!

Danno was one of the first angry mopologists that I traded posts with on the previously named Fair board.

His thrust on me was that all of it was my fault for not studying this history that had just shocked my adult mind --as a child! Why, he KNEW ABOUT IT ALL when he was young!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Who is "Thunderchops"? I've never heard of anybody by that name.

He posts over at FLAK.

I've never heard of FLAK, either.

But, the fact that you don't remember him ought to tell you something. Namely, that there are undoubtedly countless faceless and nameless individuals who've been driven away from the Church by your silly apologetic crusade to besmirch and assault critics.

It's rather like the time you ran over poor little Billy Smith.

Oh? You don't remember running over poor little Billy?

Well that just goes to show that you must have run over innumerable little waifs like poor innocent Billy.

You heartless cad!

So, if you want to carry on with your name-calling, your "Master Scartch"-this, or your "you are an idiot that," you'll just be aiding my effort to combat apologetics. It actually pleases me very much when you stoop to such tactics. You are undermining apologetics, and you are (inadvertently, I guess) helping to destroy the LDS Church.

And the thought of the destruction of the LDS Church pleases you?

I seem to recall that you've often pretended to be dreaming of an improved LDS Church. It's hard to keep the story straight sometimes, I guess.

When people investigating the Church log onto the Internet and type in "Mormon discussions," guess what they'll see? They will see a certain "Daniel Peterson" saying things like, "you are a buffoon!" and "you are a goofball!" and "The though of Scratch makes me wish I had my assault rifle on hand." Needless to say, this brings a wide smile to my lips.

So we're both happy! I have to admit that I didn't really think the situation would work out so completely to our mutual satisfaction.

Carry on, Professor Peterson! These apostates are "disposable"! The destroyed testimonies are unfortunate casualties in the grand war against critics!

I'm sorry. I can't agree. We'll have to part company on this matter, it seems.

[_John Larsen]

I also read some of the review of books which were laced with ad hominem-- Metcalfe is butthead anyone? That one made the newspapers. Bill Hamblin should have been fired for that juvenile prank.

So you had a copy of the "Metcalfe is butthead" review, then? Can I ask where you got it and where it is now?

I don't know why you guys are always asking me to prove stuff that can be had with a simple google search, but here it is anyway. :)

As you well know, he was forced to rewrite it after--if I recall correctly, he got caught bragging about about it. You can still see put the pieces together if you look at the rewritten review. Nevertheless, I don't see how having only 5 copies somehow makes it alright.

You can read about it here. This Sunstone article by John-Charles Duffy should be required reading for anyone engaging in Mormon apologetics or dealing with apologists. In particular, read the side bar "Hostility and Contempt in LDS Apologetics" by Neal Lambert. Here is a portion:

Though they complain when detractors
use epithets such as Morg or FARMSboys,
42 apologists have developed a rich
satirical vocabulary of their own: antimormonoids,
43 Deckerites,44
Signaturi,45 Quinnspeak,46 and B.S. (for
“Big Scholars”).47 Michael Ash has compiled
a whole glossary of satirical
coinages, including Metcalferrhea, Quinnosis Syndrome,
Tannerexia, and Tannertantrium.48 Peterson waggishly calls
Dialogue “a journal of allegedly Mormon thought,”49 and there
may be witty intent in D. Michael Quinn’s having been dubbed
“a former Mormon historian” (former Mormon? or former historian?).
50
Another way that apologists ridicule opponents is highlighting
trivial errors in their writing—through the apparently
malicious use of “sic,” for example,51 or by caviling about the
misuse of words like evince or apocrypha.52 Obviously intended
to undermine opponents’ credibility, such moves also
let apologists revel in scorn: John Gee once offered a list of errors
in a book he was reviewing for the “amusement,” so he
said, of his readers.53
Finally, apologists have a penchant for describing their work
with metaphors of violence: blowing away zombies;54 forcefeeding
countercultists;55 stomping out weeds;56 dropping a
hydrogen bomb.57 FARMS recently published a polemic review
under the pseudonym Rockwell D. Porter, an allusion to the
legendary Mormon gunslinger Porter Rockwell.58 Apologists
implicitly invoke the threat of divine destruction for their enemies
when they compare detractors to Book of Mormon apostates
Nehor or Korihor, or to New Testament dissemblers
Ananias and Sapphira,59 all of whom met violent ends.
As I read the more hostile apologists, I am reminded of literary
critic Jane Tompkins’s reflections on the “bloodless violence”
that academics perpetrate on one another through
words. Tompkins proposes that “although it’s not the same
thing to savage a person’s book as it is to kill them with a machine
gun, . . . the nature of the feelings that motivate both acts
is qualitatively the same.”60

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Just an "inside joke" huh? Let me ask you this, was Brent Metcalfe on the "inside"?

The fact that the apologist culture is so permeated by contempt for critics that a mere look, gesture, or phrase triggers an "inside joke" everyone gets which ruthlessly denigrating a critic I think tells us a lot about what current apologetics is all about.

More than ever, I'd like the see a guy with some principles like Meldrum take helm of apologetics.

I don't think you know much about Meldrum, either way. Anyone can "take the helm" of apologetics in their own way simply by participating.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

That was my point. I was just trying to be clear on what you said, which was:

I also read some of the review of books which were laced with ad hominem-- Metcalfe is butthead anyone? That one made the newspapers. Bill Hamblin should have been fired for that juvenile prank.

That made it seem as though you had read the review in question and saw the butthead thing. As you pointed out, you saw it discussed elsewhere, as I suspected and noted to Gad above.

As you well know, he was forced to rewrite it after--if I recall correctly, he got caught bragging about about it. You can still see put the pieces together if you look at the rewritten review. Nevertheless, I don't see how having only 5 copies somehow makes it alright.

I've been known to do silly and juvenile things, too. Were any of these things loudly broadcast as a way to poison the well against an entire organization I would regret it.