Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Mister Scratch]

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).

My dear old friend Some Schmo: Yes, I see what your are saying in terms of the semantics of this. That said, I was sort of hoping to invite the sort of "insult" you describe---i.e., I was kind of anticipating that some Mopologist would say, "But this is all just a theory!" That way, I could draw on my pipe, adjust my monocle, and say, "Precisely. Precisely."

[_Scottie]

Scratch, this is all just a theory!!!

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, this is all just a theory!!!

Precisely, my dear Scottie, precisely.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Hypothesis, actually. and not a very good one. A funny one, though.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hypothesis, actually. and not a very good one. A funny one, though.

Actually, I find the "theories" or "hypotheses" to be quite useful. You, for example, seem to be a combination of Righteous Warrior, Perpetual Missionary, and Wounded Nerd. Feel free to clarify, though. You seem intent on dodging the question of why you engage in Mopologetics. Could this be evidence of the Chagrin Theory in action?

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi Mister Scratch,

KUDOS for a very interesting, thought-provoking opening post! I echo Gadianton's observations; it's an excellent addition to the literature and worth pondering further, even memorizing.

Why, you (and others) may ask? For the simple reason that contributors to the FARMS Review have been hammering the point home for the better part of two decades that the motives of critics must be taken into account whenever one evaluates their literature. Therefore, it's about time someone put the shoe on the other foot. It's been a long time coming.

Now, moving on to your psychographical categories themselves, there isn't much I can add. Congratulations on getting it pretty much right from the start.

I do, however, have a couple of questions about some of the individual theories:

The Testimony Theory: Is it possible that this applies more to Chapel Mormon Mopologists, like Rodney Meldrum, than your run-of-the-mill, standard Internet Mormon Mopologists?

The Righteous Warrior Theory: You broke it down into two categories. For the first one, you commented:

[O]n the one hand, there are the well-educated, intellectual apologists who cannot help but recognize that there are serious problems and flaws within the Church, and thus they are functioning like the little Dutch boy who uses his finger to prevent the dam from cracking.

If that's the case, wouldn't they then qualify for The Chagrin Theory?

For the second one, you commented:

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. Pahoran is a classic example of this type.

I personally feel that this should comprise the entire Righteous Warrior Theory in and of itself (since acknowledging weaknesses would, I think, put them into The Chagrin Theory, as I outlined above). Let's elaborate: The Wheat/Pahoran types most likely feel the need to attack critics, as you said, simply because critics have the temerity to criticize their beloved religious sect (not because their sect has any weaknesses, mind you; but merely because their particular religious sect is so awesome that none dare insinuate otherwise).

The Perpetual Missionary Theory: What is the difference between this theory and The Testimony Theory, again?

The Failed Mormon Theory: I've been putting a lot of thought into this, especially regarding where Juliann fits in. Forgive me, but I'm not entirely certain that the Feminist Female is the best way to describe her motivations--although it perhaps describes the motives of other female Mopologists.

After having pondered this at length, I'd like to run an idea for a new Theory by you. If it doesn't merit its own category, under which category do you think it falls? The Failed Mormon Theory, perhaps?

Anyway, here goes:

The Overcompensating Wannabe Theory: This category consists of lesser-ranked defenders who are so enthralled with the likes of DCP and William Hamblin, especially their academic achievements, that they'll do anything to make it appear as though they're in the same league. In some cases this leads them to glaze their arguments with a desperate veneer of academic jargon. In most other cases, however, it leads them to being particularly insulting or abrasive as a (subconscious or otherwise) ploy to get as much attention as they resent the big league-ers for getting or to draw the attention--and hopefully accolades--of their FARMSish idols.

(The Overcompensating Wannabe Theory may explain the tactics of people already engaging in Mopologetics, but it might not adequately explain why someone gets involved with Mopologetics in the first place, which is what you were trying to identify. Hence the reason I feel it needs to be run by you first.)

Your thoughts on all this?

[_Droopy]

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?

I've prayed for guidance on the issue on the claims of the retored gospel and the chruch, and discovered, through the power of the Holy Ghost, that they are true.

Hence, I defend them when possible, against criticism, especially of the uninformed and tendentious sort.

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.

[Mod Scottie: Personal attack deleted.]

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.)

So then, its as I said: projection of your (and other exmos) internal motivations and desires upon apologists, but reversed so that the apologists are reacting to you rather than you reacting to the Gospel and the presence of apologetics as a movement.

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

No, they would just be...fat juicy targets. This entire forum is just a big scintillating bullseye.

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"?

I haven't failed anything (yet). I'm an imperfect person with weaknesses. The Gospel exists to remedy that state of affairs. I continue my life within a Gospel context. The failures are those who have left the Gospel, who have given up, quit, and fled the field of spiritual battle. It is they who have failed to live the Gospel as an idea, concept, and focus of life, not I, who have weaknesses amenable to the healing power of The Master and who remain in his Kingdom struggling onward with those weaknesses.

That's right, so let me make it explicit: ex-Mormonism, as a self conscious movement against the Church and in hostility to Gospel principles and teachings, is nothing more than a displaced excuse for failure.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Mister Scratch,

KUDOS for a very interesting, thought-provoking opening post! I echo Gadianton's observations; it's an excellent addition to the literature and worth pondering further, even memorizing.

Thank you very much, Dr. Shades.

I do, however, have a couple of questions about some of the individual theories:

The Testimony Theory: Is it possible that this applies more to Chapel Mormon Mopologists, like Rodney Meldrum, than your run-of-the-mill, standard Internet Mormon Mopologists?

I don't really think so. You'll notice that Loran has just stated that, in fact, part of the reason why he does Mopologetics is because he has prayed about it, and thus believes that Heavenly Father wants him to do apologetics. DCP also said something similar, in the passage I quoted from "Apologetics by the Numbers." In a sense (and surprisingly), I think that this theory applies even more to Internet Mormons. A Chapel Mormon can rely on the teachings and doctrines of the Church; Mopologists, on the other hand, are in the process of redefining Church doctrine, and thus I would imagine that they have to rely a bit more on faith.

The Righteous Warrior Theory: You broke it down into two categories. For the first one, you commented:

[O]n the one hand, there are the well-educated, intellectual apologists who cannot help but recognize that there are serious problems and flaws within the Church, and thus they are functioning like the little Dutch boy who uses his finger to prevent the dam from cracking.

If that's the case, wouldn't they then qualify for The Chagrin Theory?

Sort of, except that I don't really see the underlying emotion here as being "embarrassment," per se. If there is a crack in the windshield of your car, for example, you would mainly be concerned about getting it fixed. Sure, it *might* be a bit embarrassing to be seen in this car, but the real concern is just about getting it fixed.

In the Chagrin Theory, though, the emotion is definitely embarrassment. The Mopologist in question knows that average folks would laugh at and ridicule certain aspects of the Gospel (Kolob, for example), and thus the engagement in Mopologetics is a means of working through these feelings. By way of illustration, think of the Adam Sandler character from The Waterboy. Remember that scene where he is quaking with anger, his lips trembling, as he growls, "Stop makin' fun of me!" While this is a caricature, to be sure, I think it adequately sums up what I'm getting at.

For the second one, you commented:

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. Pahoran is a classic example of this type.

I personally feel that this should comprise the entire Righteous Warrior Theory in and of itself (since acknowledging weaknesses would, I think, put them into The Chagrin Theory, as I outlined above). Let's elaborate: The Wheat/Pahoran types most likely feel the need to attack critics, as you said, simply because critics have the temerity to criticize their beloved religious sect (not because their sect has any weaknesses, mind you; but merely because their particular religious sect is so awesome that none dare insinuate otherwise).

Hmm. I don't know. Certainly, I think that the type of Righteous Warrior you're describing is far more prevalent, but I suppose I want to continue to believe that the more good-natured kind of Righteous Warrior also exists. For example, I think we might be able to categorize Richard Bushman as a Righteous Warrior of the First Kind. Here is a guy who recognizes the problems in the Church (abandonment of Joseph Smith, e.g.) and yet he doesn't stoop to the kind of vicious attacks that characterize Righteous Warriors of the Second Kind.

The Perpetual Missionary Theory: What is the difference between this theory and The Testimony Theory, again?

The key distinction here is that Mopologetics is an extension of the mission experience. The Chagrin Theory can be applies to any Mopologist, but the Perpetual Mission Theory really only pertains to former missionaries.

The Failed Mormon Theory: I've been putting a lot of thought into this, especially regarding where Juliann fits in. Forgive me, but I'm not entirely certain that the Feminist Female is the best way to describe her motivations--although it perhaps describes the motives of other female Mopologists.

Lol. Yes, you no doubt have a point here. In juliann's case, I would say that the Chagrin Theory seems to apply, as does the Righteous Warrior of the Second Kind.

After having pondered this at length, I'd like to run an idea for a new Theory by you. If it doesn't merit its own category, under which category do you think it falls? The Failed Mormon Theory, perhaps?

Anyway, here goes:

The Overcompensating Wannabe Theory: This category consists of lesser-ranked defenders who are so enthralled with the likes of DCP and William Hamblin, especially their academic achievements, that they'll do anything to make it appear as though they're in the same league. In some cases this leads them to glaze their arguments with a desperate veneer of academic jargon. In most other cases, however, it leads them to being particularly insulting or abrasive as a (subconscious or otherwise) ploy to get as much attention as they resent the big league-ers for getting or to draw the attention--and hopefully accolades--of their FARMSish idols.

(The Overcompensating Wannabe Theory may explain the tactics of people already engaging in Mopologetics, but it might not adequately explain why someone gets involved with Mopologetics in the first place, which is what you were trying to identify. Hence the reason I feel it needs to be run by you first.)

Your thoughts on all this?

Ah! This is very interesting! I do agree that it seems to be an extension of the Failed Mormon theory. And indeed, one sees evidence for this behavior/attitude all the time: it is evidenced in the way that many Mopologists boast about how many books they've read (cf. Droopy; LoaP), and in the weird, fetishistic way that Kerry Shirts talked about Bill Hamblin, and BYU's book collection. This is very intriguing, Dr. Shades. I will think about means of working it in to the OP.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

I've prayed for guidance on the issue on the claims of the retored gospel and the chruch, and discovered, through the power of the Holy Ghost, that they are true.

Hence, I defend them when possible, against criticism, especially of the uninformed and tendentious sort.

There seems to be a step missing in your logic, Loran. I learned, through study, that the theory of gravity is true, but I don't feel any need to defend it against any criticism. So I think you can see that your explanation here is quite inadequate.

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.

[Mod Scottie: Personal attack deleted.]

So, you weren't embarrassed that a portion of the ceremony includes something which could be described as "chanting"?

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.)

So then, its as I said: projection of your (and other exmos) internal motivations and desires upon apologists, but reversed so that the apologists are reacting to you rather than you reacting to the Gospel and the presence of apologetics as a movement.

This latter portion of your post doesn't make any sense. Would you care to elaborate?

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

No, they would just be...fat juicy targets. This entire forum is just a big scintillating bullseye.

Ah, I see: Righteous Warrior of the Second Kind, coupled with Argument Addict. Thank you for helping to refine the precision of the taxonomy, Loran.

I haven't failed anything (yet). I'm an imperfect person with weaknesses. The Gospel exists to remedy that state of affairs. I continue my life within a Gospel context. The failures are those who have left the Gospel, who have given up, quit, and fled the field of spiritual battle. It is they who have failed to live the Gospel as an idea, concept, and focus of life, not I, who have weaknesses amenable to the healing power of The Master and who remain in his Kingdom struggling onward with those weaknesses.

Would you say that this relates to your desire to engage in Mopologetics? I.e., your sense of "struggling onward with those weaknesses"?

[_Droopy]

So, you weren't embarrassed that a portion of the ceremony includes something which could be described as "chanting"?

Not at all, depending upon what you mean by "chanting". The words were spoken. Chanted? Is to repeat them to chant them?

In sum, you can go over this issue since it began and you will see that I've never denied speaking certain words, only the "pay lay ale" claim, which I never encountered in the Temple.