Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_cksalmon]

Could you just as easily apply these same labels to critics if you changed a word or two in the description?

Absolutely. Why not attribute apologetics, of any stripe, to the desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true?

Did I miss that in Scratch's list?

cks

[_Daniel Peterson]

Could you just as easily apply these same labels to critics if you changed a word or two in the description?

Absolutely. Why not attribute apologetics, of any stripe, to the desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true?

Did I miss that in Scratch's list?

cks

A shocking suggestion, cks. Simply shocking.

[_CaliforniaKid]

As an evangelical apologist, I was a cross b/w chagrin and argument addict.

[_Mister Scratch]

Could you just as easily apply these same labels to critics if you changed a word or two in the description?

Absolutely. Why not attribute apologetics, of any stripe, to the desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true?

Did I miss that in Scratch's list?

cks

I'm sorry, CK, but I think that vastly oversimplifies what's actually going on. For example, how can we honestly say that Bill Hamblin's anti-Semitic tirade on RfM was indicative of his "desire to defend and argue for what [he] believes actually to be true"? What about DCP's Quinn gossipmongering, or his attack piece on Signature Books? What about Dr. Midgley's verbal harassment of Sandra Tanner? Are these examples simply about "the desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true"? No, of course not. Also, your suggestion overlooks a very basic question: if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"---particularly the kind of "defense" that exemplifies LDS apologetics?

[_cksalmon]

Absolutely. Why not attribute apologetics, of any stripe, to the desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true?

Did I miss that in Scratch's list?

cks

A shocking suggestion, cks. Simply shocking.

And quite naïve, as well, I suppose. It seems that a prerequisite of this typology (the Believing Defender) is that one actually believes in his own worldview and consequently believes it worth defending.

The Defending Believer typology at least satisfies two of Kuhn's criteria (if I can recontextualize them): Broadness of Scope and Simplicity.

In fact, I believe that my typology might just adequately encompass LDS apologists, EV critics of Mormonism, and atheistic critics of Mormonism.

Now, it might lack the obvious, superficial trappings of depth-psychological analysis, but that might not be a bad thing.

cks

[_Trevor]

Yes.. that is quite funny, particularly when one realizes (a you apparently did not) that it was actually you who first characterized the good folks here as "flies". I intentionally put the words in quotes so as distinguish your perception of the people here from mine. I don't think of the people here as "flies".

Right, Wade. I guess the concept of metaphor escapes you.

Even more hilarious is someone misthinking it condescending to view people as having great potential.

If that is what you had done, maybe. But you didn't.

[_Mister Scratch]

Mohammed Atta thought he too was a Righteous Warrior fighting for Allah against the Great Satan. The main difference here is the level of violence the individual has been conditioned to be willing to bring to bear on their opponents. Mopologists are willing to use verbal, written violence, thank Heaven, and not guns and bombs. But the motivation is the same.

Sorry, Sethbag. You seem like a nice guy, but the statement above is, on the whole, simply ridiculous.

Why? By the way, here is your own, "official" statement on the matter, my dear Professor P.:

We who write such things engage in apologetics because we believe that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, and that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored. And, what is more, we believe that defending these and related claims against attack, misunderstanding, and distortion--very often from writers who offer a great deal more in the way of evidence and reasoned analysis (it would be difficult to offer less) than anything Alvin, Beaver, Caleb, Doogie, and Eeyore have provided thus far--is a worthwhile thing to do, and something that we're obligated to do.

(from "Apologetics by the Numbers")

So, this is really just a somewhat lengthier re-statement of what CKSalmon already said. This doesn't do much to explain your methods, though, and I still find myself questioning the basic motivation behind this. Is it a desire to utterly control interpretation and understanding? ("Some kinds of truth aren't very useful"?) Why is it such a bad thing that Quinn interprets the Smiths as having a "magical" world view, and why would that merit the sort of attack that was doled out in "That Old Black Magic"? What you guys do goes far, far beyond simple "defense"; many of the pieces are extraordinarily vicious.

Also, from whence comes the "obligation" to do Mopologetics? Did you receive a spiritual witness, or were you set apart by one of the Brethren?

[_Bond James Bond]

Huh. That is a very interesting way of looking at it. (And I recommend that you look at the revisions I have made to the taxonomy thus far). And, I like what you are doing here. It will definitely be useful to see just how and where individual Mopologists fit into this. Where, for example, would we put somebody like Juliann? Or Jan? Will we need to create another theory for them?

Juliann? Hmm...do I really want to get banned at MAD?

But I think there are numerous more categories that can be applied to apologists of all religions on internet message boards, such as:

1) Assholes who happen to be Mormon Apologists
2) Bored Housewives who want to kill the day and happen to be Mormon Apologists
3) People so ape**** they were rejected as winter maintence guy at the Overlook Hotel and happen to be Mormon Apologists

etc etc etc...

[_LifeOnaPlate]

More interestingly, what can be said of people who attack others in much the same way they accuse others of doing, only under the guise of a fake name? What can be posited of one who spends so much time attacking something they don't believe in rather than enjoying or participating in something they do believe in?

[_Ray A]

if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"---particularly the kind of "defense" that exemplifies LDS apologetics?

I think this is the fundamental stand of the majority of Church leaders, that truth needs no intellectual defence, and as Alma recommended, bearing "pure testimony" and sticking to the tenets (D&C) is all that really matters. In fact many have discouraged wasting time on critics and criticism, like Marvin J. Ashton, for example.

Organised apologetics only came into existence when it was realised that the Church was really losing people in great numbers. But the question is, is it saving them, or making them more angry at the Church?