Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Loap: you don't know what my beliefs are. Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly why you engage in Mopologetics. Do you have an answer?

[_cksalmon]

I'm sorry, CK, but I think that vastly oversimplifies what's actually going on. (1) 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. (2) 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?

Hi Mister Scratch--

(1) You're moving from vague generalities (your typologies) to particular instantiations of apologetic encounters--with hasty abandon. "Are they simply about...?" Perhaps not. Are they better and more simply explained by the "desire to defend and argue for what one believes actually to be true?" I don't know of any reason presented thus far to assume that they would not be. So, I categorically reject your unequivocal, "No, of course not," pending further elaboration.


(2) No, if your analysis is really true, then everyone everywhere who truly believes anything actually to be true should immediately stop defending their claims and/or arguing their claims for its truthfulness.

cks

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Yes, I think it is very important to keep this in mind. A key aspect of Mopologetics is the knowledge that certain factions of the Brethren don't like what they're up to. I wonder if this helps explain a lot of the underlying hostility.

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?

Huh. Do you really think that's it, Ray? If so, then that would definitely be a tacit admission of "weakness" in the Church....

[Guest]

Loap: you don't know what my beliefs are. Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly why you engage in Mopologetics. Do you have an answer?

First, your actions say much about your beliefs.
Further, why on earth would I answer to you? You can ask repeatedly, I'll answer if and when I want. I don't recall you asking me before this thread.

[_Mister Scratch]

Loap: you don't know what my beliefs are. Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly why you engage in Mopologetics. Do you have an answer?

Why on earth would I answer to a self-righteous coward?

I'm not the only one who has asked. I am not the only one who reads the board. Are you afraid to state your reasons or something? Do you lack an adequate explanation and/or defense for your Mopologetic behavior?

[_Ray A]

(2) No, if your analysis is really true, then everyone everywhere who truly believes anything actually to be true should immediately stop defending their claims and/or arguing their claims for its truthfulness.

cks

CK, I know this was for Mister Scratch, so forgive my intrusion. There are lots of things I believe which I feel no need to defend, much less get angry when people disagree with me. In fact, I welcome vigourous criticism of some things I believe, just in case I'm wrong in my beliefs. I could, for example, be totally wrong about near death experiences, and Susan Blackmore might be right, but I don't think she's going to hell if she's wrong.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not the only one who has asked. I am not the only one who reads the board. Are you afraid to state your reasons or something? Do you lack an adequate explanation and/or defense for your Mopologetic behavior?

Nope. Apologies for calling you a "self-righteous coward" as well. I do feel I owe you nothing in terms of my own self-disclosure granted your own vast lack of doing so yourself.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm not the only one who has asked. I am not the only one who reads the board. Are you afraid to state your reasons or something? Do you lack an adequate explanation and/or defense for your Mopologetic behavior?

Nope. Apologies for calling you a "self-righteous coward" as well. I do feel I owe you nothing in terms of my own self-disclosure granted your own vast lack of doing so yourself.

I'm afraid I cannot accept your apology.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm afraid I cannot accept your apology.

As far as I'm concerned, an unaccepted apology isn't invalidated for the one offering the apology. As it stands, though, I will consistently affirm it is a cowardly act to so persistently and wrongfully malign others especially under a disguise. This makes you guilty of doing something cowardly, rather than being a "coward."

[_cksalmon]

(2) No, if your analysis is really true, then everyone everywhere who truly believes anything actually to be true should immediately stop defending their claims and/or arguing their claims for its truthfulness.

cks

CK, I know this was for Mister Scratch, so forgive my intrusion. There are lots of things I believe which I feel no need to defend, much less get angry when people disagree with me. In fact, I welcome vigourous criticism of some things I believe, just in case I'm wrong in my beliefs. I could, for example, be totally wrong about near death experiences, and Susan Blackmore might be right, but I don't think she's going to hell if she's wrong.

Hi Ray--

If one doesn't feel the need to defend a particular belief, then one is certainly under no obligation (whether internal nor external) to defend it. My point was not that one should or must defend some X that one believes to be true, but that, if Scratch's analysis is correct, one just shouldn't defend any such X just so long as one is convinced that X is actually true.

Best.

cks