Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're wasting your time, cks.

Trust me on this one. Been there, done that. Scores of times.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Where is the awesome Mormon category? Or the delusions of grandeur category? Or the inadequate accidental apologist category?

[_Mister Scratch]

Where is the awesome Mormon category? Or the delusions of grandeur category? Or the inadequate accidental apologist category?

You'll have to explain those, LoaP. Probably the "awesome Mormon" category would fit into "Righeous Warriors," as would the "delusions of grandeur." "Inadequate accidental apologist" kind of sounds like the "Wounded Nerd Theory." So, maybe you are getting the hang of this.

[_Gadianton]

In practically any field of study one will find people who disagree in a conciliatory way, some who fight, some who avoid fighting, some who enjoy fighting and seek fighting, some who simply enjoy the discussion, etc. etc. This is certainly not confined to LDS "mopologetics."

So what? I don't think Scratch believes that everyone in the world acts out of simplistic platitudes as CK proposed, save apologists, and that today's theory marks the birth of psychology. I don't think Scratch has to, for the sake of honesty or consistency, write a thesis explaining why and how everyone in the world acts the way they do. Scratch here is interested in the motives behind apologetics. The motives behind critics, bus drivers, or anyone else might be interesting and relevant, but Scratch's shall we say, specialization, is in apologetics. So that's what this thread is about. Anyone is free to start other threads to explore the motives of other groups.

Those who look for the deepest answers to what makes up human nature will look to how one might unify apologists with critics and bushmen and whoever else, but that isn't the only relevant field of study. Scottie is wrong, the list Scratch gave hardly could be "turned on" critics, I can only see two examples from that list which could apply to critics. Obviously, to point out the absurd, (secular) critics don't pray and get testimonies per theory 1.

So, what motivates apologists? It's a valid question, even if firemen, presidents, and sheep hereders also have motives.

[_Mister Scratch]

And which logical fallacy is this? Argumentum ad ignorantum?

That I don't find your typologies convincing or fundamentally explanatory does not entail that I'm appealing to ignorance. There's no logical fallacy in suggesting that I don't find your analysis unconvincing.

Do you have an explanation? Or something more specific to offer? Or are you just objecting---wholesale---to the notion of categorizing LDS apologists?

No, not really. I'm referring very specifically to your quoted statement below. You stated:

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?

You move from generality to particularity, here. If your point is meant only to apply to LDS apologetics (rather than particularly to LDS apologetics), you should've made that clear.

Let me re-phrase the question. If you believe something to be true---that bigfoot exists, for example---why would this belief necessarily need to be defended? Furthermore, why might it need to be defended via the use of gossipmongering, ad hominem attacks, and so on? Additionally, what might motivate a person to engage in this kind of "defense"?

I don't know where you are getting the sense that I am somehow saying that *nothing* that a person thinks is true should ever need to be defended. That's not at all what I am saying, nor what I'm asking about / investigating.

[_wenglund]

Why should I care about being consistent?

I think I just found a new signature line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

But, I don't have the patience to walk you through the corrections.

Only because you have no corrections to make, just the pretense of the ability to make them.

[_Mister Scratch]

Why should I care about being consistent?

I think I just found a new signature line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ha ha! That's terrific, Wade. It will be a sort of postmodern commentary on yourself:

[M]y objective (and thus my motivation) is to encourage the refocus of attention towards satisfying the basic human need to progress and gain a fulness of joy and love, as well as to profer an alternative way of looking at things that may prove more benefitial than what some have adopted.

[_Trevor]

Ha ha! That's terrific, Wade. It will be a sort of postmodern commentary on yourself:

Please! I only have two lungs here, and none to spare!

[_cksalmon]

I don't know where you are getting the sense that I am somehow saying that *nothing* that a person thinks is true should ever need to be defended. That's not at all what I am saying, nor what I'm asking about / investigating.

if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"

(1) If X is true, why would X need defending?

The apparent underlying premise is:
(2) If X is true, X does not need defending.

If you don't mean (2), then you must merely be asking:
(3) Why would X need defending?

Indeed. Why?

I have no idea what your answer to that question might be. But, it might be instructive.

cks