Scottie wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:Scottie: this is good, but I would appreciate a more specific example. I.e., can you name a specific Mopologist who does not fit into one of the categories? My goal here, in any case, is not to try and "hammer" people into the categories, as you suggest, but rather to simply explore and outline some of the different reasons why people engage in Mopologetics. Further, as I'm sure you noticed in my OP, I believe that some Mopologists can fit into multiple categories. By no means did I intend for this taxonomy to be confining.
How about Charity? Lets start with her.
Charity definitely fits the "Righteous Warrior" theory. And, I would say that she is a Righteous Warrior of the Second Kind, meaning that she is either oblivious to or ignorant of any of the actual problems in Mormonism (contra, say, DCP), and that she goes after critics merely because she doesn't like them. I also believe there is an element of the Testimony Theory at work with her.
Steuss? I'm not quite sure if he's an apologist or not??
I don't consider Steuss an apologist.
There is a difference between "debating" and "arguing". I think I am addicted to debate. A back and forth where points can, and often are, conceded. An argument is a dialog where you have one goal...to win at all costs.
Fair enough. I have adjusted the taxonomy to reflect this.