Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking, CK.

Indeed. Why?

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

cks

Oh, I agree, hence why I began this thread.

[_cksalmon]

Oh, I agree, hence why I began this thread.

You indicated that the thread was about the personal/psychological motivations behind apologetic endeavors:

Instead, I have been ruminating as of late on the motivations that lead people to engage in Mopologetics.

The OP doesn't at all seem to address your later question, viz. "[I]f something is 'true,' why would it need any 'defense?'"

I'm not following.

cks

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

In my view, it would be a variation on the Testimony Theory. Rather than receiving a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost, these Mopologists are lashing out because they have been ordered to do so by one of the Brethren. They believe Ballard is one of the Lord's Anointed, and so they are carrying out their orders on the basis of spiritual belief.

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh, I agree, hence why I began this thread.

You indicated that the thread was about the personal/psychological motivations behind apologetic endeavors:

Instead, I have been ruminating as of late on the motivations that lead people to engage in Mopologetics.

The OP doesn't at all seem to address your later question, viz. "[I]f something is 'true,' why would it need any 'defense?'"

I'm not following.

cks

Well, does the "later question" figure into Mopologetic motivation? I kind of think that it does. Don't you? I.e., don't you think that many Mopologists ask themselves this question at some point, and that their answer in part determines how they choose to act?

[_harmony]

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.

Joseph and Christ are not on the same level. The Savior was God before he came to this earth and is God still. Joseph has never been God and if there is any justice, never will be. To call the Savior "a good man" in the same sentence as calling Joseph "a good man" is just about as insulting as anyone could be.

Your slip is showing.

[_Droopy]

The Testimony Theory: This theory relies upon the notion that apologists' main motivation is faith and belief. DCP noted that he does Mopologetics because he "believes" that he should. Thus, the Testimony Theory posits that Mopologists received a spiritual witness that Mopologetics ought to be undertaken. In some cases--theoretically speaking, of course--it seems plausible that certain Mopologists prayed to Heavenly Father over this issue, and they were given a warm sensation, thus indicating that they should do apologetics.

This, and a overall love and respect for truth, education, intelligence, and the life of the mind, are the primary factors.

The Chagrin Theory: As much as they love the LDS Church, many apologists are no doubt embarrassed about certain aspects of it,

This is where exmos begin projecting, and as this particular "theory" is actually self referential, we'll skip it.

The Righteous Warrior Theory Similar to the Chagrin Theory, the Righteous Warrior Theory posits that Satan's forces (i.e., anti-Mormons) are seeking to destroy the Church by telling lies and luring away the members.

More projection. This actually defines a number of the core membership on this board, including the author of the OP.

On the other hand, you have the Will Schryver types: Mopologists who don't necessarily think that the Church is weak, or that it has any problems, but who feel the need to attack critics anyhow.

Could it be that the targets are just so fat and juicy that temptation gets the better of them?

And my favorite...

The Failed Mormon Theory This describes an apologist who has failed to "measure up" to the intense cultural, financial, and spiritual demands of Mormonism, and thus Mopologetics becomes a way of compensating. Whether the "failure" entails addiction, same-sex attraction, criminal convictions, or never having gotten married, the Mopologist who fits into this type uses apologetics as a psychic means of "making up" for whatever was lacking. Coggins7 would seem to be a classic example of this type.

What is the real 800 pound Gorilla in the room in all of this? Its the naked reality that the authentic "failed Mormons" are those who have apostatized from the Church and abandoned their covenants. The "failed Mormons" are precisely those who have failed as Mormons from within; those who have failed to live the Gospel, keep God's commandments, and endure to the end, and there lies the Great White Whale of failure...

[_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.

In my view, it would be a variation on the Testimony Theory. Rather than receiving a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost, these Mopologists are lashing out because they have been ordered to do so by one of the Brethren. They believe Ballard is one of the Lord's Anointed, and so they are carrying out their orders on the basis of spiritual belief.

Pretty much my thought also. Kind of like reducing the duty to the level of Home Teaching or something similar. It doesn't have to be a personal belief or personal motivation it becomes another duty, something else to obey.

[_Droopy]

Excellently done, Scratch.

Quite interesting how Ray and Scratch were at each other's throats not so much as a year ago.

You see, once within the GASB, you're now one of the cool people, one of the smart people. You're now popular, one of the group; one of the in-group. You're hip, you dig it baby...

This is what you wanted, right Ray?

[_Mister Scratch]

The Testimony Theory: This theory relies upon the notion that apologists' main motivation is faith and belief. DCP noted that he does Mopologetics because he "believes" that he should. Thus, the Testimony Theory posits that Mopologists received a spiritual witness that Mopologetics ought to be undertaken. In some cases--theoretically speaking, of course--it seems plausible that certain Mopologists prayed to Heavenly Father over this issue, and they were given a warm sensation, thus indicating that they should do apologetics.

This, and a overall love and respect for truth, education, intelligence, and the life of the mind, are the primary factors.

Loran, are you saying that you prayed for guidance on the issue of apologetics? And that Heavenly Father, or the Holy Ghost, told you to carry on?

The Chagrin Theory: As much as they love the LDS Church, many apologists are no doubt embarrassed about certain aspects of it,

This is where exmos begin projecting, and as this particular "theory" is actually self referential, we'll skip it.

We'll see whether or not you answer my first question. Certainly, you demonstrated elsewhere that you harbor a bit of embarrassment about the Temple Ceremony.

The Righteous Warrior Theory Similar to the Chagrin Theory, the Righteous Warrior Theory posits that Satan's forces (i.e., anti-Mormons) are seeking to destroy the Church by telling lies and luring away the members.

More projection. This actually defines a number of the core membership on this board, including the author of the OP.

So, then, you see yourself as "battling" all of these Church critics? And the theory is thus accurate? (I would readily state that a number of critics fit into this mode, by the way.)

On the other hand, you have the Will Schryver types: Mopologists who don't necessarily think that the Church is weak, or that it has any problems, but who feel the need to attack critics anyhow.

Could it be that the targets are just so fat and juicy that temptation gets the better of them?

That would be a combination of The Wounded Nerd Theory and the Argument Addict.

The Failed Mormon Theory This describes an apologist who has failed to "measure up" to the intense cultural, financial, and spiritual demands of Mormonism, and thus Mopologetics becomes a way of compensating. Whether the "failure" entails addiction, same-sex attraction, criminal convictions, or never having gotten married, the Mopologist who fits into this type uses apologetics as a psychic means of "making up" for whatever was lacking. Coggins7 would seem to be a classic example of this type.

What is the real 800 pound Gorilla in the room in all of this? Its the naked reality that the authentic "failed Mormons" are those who have apostatized from the Church and abandoned their covenants. The "failed Mormons" are precisely those who have failed as Mormons from within; those who have failed to live the Gospel, keep God's commandments, and endure to the end, and there lies the Great White Whale of failure...

But, Loran, your remarks don't make a lot of sense. There are lots of apologists---such as yourself---who have "failed" in some aspect of the Gospel. Is it therefore fair to say that you are motivated to do apologetics due to those failings? I.e., you are trying to make up for your "mistakes"?

[_Mister Scratch]

I think the "failed Mormon" category should have a subgrouping called "women Mormons". They haven't failed at all, they were unlucky enough to be born into an inherently unjust system and have to swim upriver their whole lives.

The OP has been edited as per your suggestion. Thank you for your insight, Mr. Bond.