Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Ray A]

Dehlin was a self-admitted poor historian. His material certainly reflects that.

Very quickly, I'm not aware that he claimed to be a historian. But look at one example of his approach, his airing of Michael Quinn's views in a podcast, and contrast that with trying to dig up dirt on Quinn to discredit him. Even if Quinn is wrong, there should not be so much antagonism towards him, and we've previously see Hamblin's characterisation of Quinn's history as "Mark Hoffman standard" history, when no other reviewer ventured that opinion, and several offered high praise, and others noted that he's one the most significant Mormon historians of the 20th century.

This is the act of trying to discredit someone to bolster your own beliefs, and in the real world no one is going to wear that, and they see right through it, and until the aggressive apologists realise this, I believe that the animosity towards them will only worsen. And that's why many of Scratch's points cannot be dismissed.
When significant points of weaknesses are admitted and honestly addressed in your own camp, respect for you will rise. But if the fear of losing members halts those admissions and need for improvements in apologetical approaches, you're going to lose them eventually anyway.

So I'm still waiting for the definition of "humble apologetics". In the meantime, I got some work to do. I'll check back in tomorrow, not expecting any changes.

[_Scottie]

You are saying that this car is the ONLY true car and that although other cars might have 4 wheels and an engine, they don't contain the fullness of the true car.

Please look more carefully at what I said. I intentionally did not use the words "only" or "true" so as to avoid inviting this mistaken interpretation. Yet, somehow you managed it.

Fair enough, however, you were trying to link the car to the LDS church. I figured this car inherited all properties of the LDS church as well, such as being the only true car.

Except that you've never actually ridden in another car. You've just heard other people say that about other cars.

With as little as you know about me and my history, I can understand why you would jump to that false conclusion.

NOt that it is any business of yours, but for nearly a decade after my mission I made it a common practice to visit and learn about other faiths--kicking their tires and taking them for a spin, as it were.

Not you, per se. Rather a typical LDS.

But, since you bring it up, did you find that the parishoners of these other faiths were as happy in their faith as LDS members claim to be?

Those that own other cars have everything and maybe more than your car does.

That has not been my considerable experience.

For you personally, or are you speaking for everyone?

And, who knows, maybe walking is a much better fit for me. Maybe riding a bike? Which a car owner cannot fathom. Surely there can be no happiness in NOT riding in a car?!?! After all, look at how happy a car makes them.

Were my comments just about being "happy", you may have a point. It wasn't, and so you don't. Sorry.

I see where you mistakely read things into what I said, and expressed a different point of view from mine, and failed to grasp the full essense of what I said. But, I didn't see the illogic you alleged. Again, sorry.

Alright, I guess I missed this one. What were your comments about?

**Note, Shades, is A l r i g h t not a proper way to start this sentence? It appears you've word filtered me.

[_Pokatator]

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.

Mr. Plate I asked you in the 5th post of this thread

Gee, Mr. Plate, I don't think he nailed it, Scratch forgot your pen protector.

So why do you?

And I asked you nice.

If you can't answer I will just assume that you are operating under the direction of Mr. Ballard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3mzFWF6Jxk

[_Sethbag]

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.

Do note that I didn't say all mopologists are Righteous Warrior types. I was discussing the Righteous Warrior type, as described as one of several possible types in the OP. But those who are of the Righteous Warrior type I believe do have a lot of things in common with the 9/11 crew.

Take Russell McGregor (Pahoran), for example. I honestly think that the only thing that separates him from Mohamed Atta and the others is the level of violence he's been conditioned to be willing to use in promoting his side of this imagined great conflict of Mormonism against Satan and "the World". Same crap, different false religion. And there are others on the MAD board whom I would lump into the Righteous Warrior category.

For what it's worth, I don't see an easy and clear categorization of you in your own motivations for mopologetics. I'm not willing even to think that I understand your motivations completely, either.

[_cksalmon]

Anyway, you tell me CK -- [0] out of every X converts to Christianity makes their decision based on a rigorous study of Christian apologetics.

Hi Gad--

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the number is and ever more shall be 0. What does that have to do with one's conviction that a given belief B is worthy of intentional apologia?

Best.

cks

[_wenglund]

I don't have time to reply at length as I'll be hitting the road soon, Wade.

Your post tells me you are about a million miles off real understanding, and your analogy above is about two million miles off. A more appropriate analogy would be, the captain of the Titanic is a corrupt man with many wives, but the ship should be safe.

But I'll have to leave a longer reply for later.

Ray,

Please keep a couple of important points in mind while preparing your response:

1) We each are the captain of our spiritual ship, not Joseph or the even the Savior. Those good men are the material suppliers and architects assisting us in building our ships. They are, among other things, also the suppliers of our navigational tools and rescue assistance.

2) The many hazards we may face in the oft tempest-tossed waters of life, are ultimately not a test of our ship, but rather a test of us captains. Many an LDS sailor has navigated the seas without drowning from loss of faith, and this in part because they didn't mistakenly abandon the ship that was keeping them afloat and safe from the shark-infested oceans.

3) And, most important, it should all be about getting to the intended destination. The function of the restored gospel is NOT to have a controversy-free church history. In fact, the three-fold mission of the Church makes absolutely no mention of church history. Rather, the "truth" of the Church, and its intents and purpose, is to bring us to Christ, utilizing the means he has established for best enabling us to become like him.

Unless, or until, you fully grasp these important realities, you will not get it--you will not correctly understand the Church, let alone the ultimate purpose and meaning of life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Mr. Plate I asked you in the 5th post of this thread

Gee, Mr. Plate, I don't think he nailed it, Scratch forgot your pen protector.

So why do you?

And I asked you nice.

If you can't answer I will just assume that you are operating under the direction of Mr. Ballard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3mzFWF6Jxk

Do you know what scratch is referring to, that he has asked me before?

[_Some Schmo]

Hmmm… fun thread. A few thoughts in response to various comments:

- Scratch, it’s a slight peeve of mine when someone uses the word “theory” when what they really mean is “hypothesis.” Theories are established, evidence backed, rigorously tested bodies of thought. Hypotheses are untested ideas in their infancy stage. Calling this a theory, while it is compelling in many ways, is as insulting as saying that evolution is “only a theory” (from an opposing point of view).

- I believe Jersey Girl started a thread a while back asking why people do apologetics. I mentioned that thread to a friend of mine, and his first reaction was to say, “to work out their own cog dis.” I think that’s the underlying reason for all of it. Let’s face it; Mormonism has a ton of problems that would have to be addressed to make it work. That, coupled with the investment made in believing it in the first place is ample motivation to engage in mopologetics. I think Scratch’s various categories describe methods and personalities more than strict motivations.

- Wade, the problem with your car company founding president analogy is that the value and viability of a car does not hinge on the credibility of the company’s founder, whereas a religion’s truthfulness that relies heavily on truth claims is subject to the credibility of its founder, given that much of the lore and teachings surround his own account of history (the first vision, for instance, or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon). That this escapes you is… well, not that surprising, actually.

- Another thing for Wade: you said, “From considerable experience, I have found that all that is needed to envoke [sic] uncommon silence with critics, or ignite them into a flury [sic] of deflective dismissals or straw man constructions, is for me to ask them for a specific example of things the Church has done that has caused them emotional distress or some such thing.” I have no problem answering that question at all, as it has been my primary contention with the church.

It teaches that families can only be together in the afterlife if all members are righteous, which causes unfounded grief and unnecessary burdens on parents with “wayward” children, not to mention the guilt and increased difficulty in expressing honest points of view on the part of children. In other words, while the church claims to be a “family first” organization, what they teach effectively breaks families apart. And what’s worse is that often, when you bring this up with a believer, they’ll blame the family itself rather than acknowledging the church’s culpability in the situation. Recovery for Mormonism? You better believe it.

- On the need to defend what is true: I would say, no, it’s not necessary. It does make what the defender believes look weak. There may be secondary reasons for it, like the requirement in a court of law, for instance, but doing it just for the sake of doing it always makes me wonder why the person feels the need to defend whatever it is they’re defending if their position is so strong. This is why I generally have a no arguing/debating policy myself, and if I do engage in debate, invariably, it’s because I need to work out the substance of my own point of view.

[_Pokatator]

Do you know what scratch is referring to, that he has asked me before?

Sure, Mr. Naive-on-a-Plate, it's in the first two paragraphs of the thread and obviously in a previous thread.

On a separate thread, Trevor suggested that I compile all the various methods by which FARMS, and apologists more generally, launch attacks on critics (e.g., dismissing the work as amateurish, or criticizing it as an "old cash nexus," etc.) But I want to hold off on that. Instead, I have been ruminating as of late on the motivations that lead people to engage in Mopologetics. I asked this question directly to both DCP (twice, in fact), and LoaP, and neither of them was willing to supply an answer.

Certainly, I'm interested in hearing from them, and from other Mopologists, too. What is your motivation? Why engage in Mopologetics? What do you hope to accomplish?

Do you read these threads before you post?

Just curious.

[_Pokatator]

Mr. Scratch, I deliberately introduced a youtube by Russell Ballard in dialogue with Mr. Plate, I was trying to illustrate that now Mormon apologists, amateur and "pro", now have direction from on high to do this vital work of setting the record straight, confronting the critics, etc.

My question: Does your theory take into account or where does it fit into the theory that some apologists are now obeying their higher authorities and this is their motivation?

Thanx in advance.