Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Trevor]

Not in the same you do, it seems. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you've merely constructed some psychological categories (all but one of which are negative) in order to place Mormon defenders in a poor light.

I have been on the verge of proposing a category, and since you posted this comment, I feel the time is right.

Student of the Mysteries: This person has always thirsted to learn everything there is to know about the Gospel. While there has always been some concern about delving into the "mysteries" in mainstream, Chapel Mormonism, Nibley showed others a way one could delve into these mysteries without stepping off of the straight and narrow. Apologists seem to have so many of the "answers" for those members who are curious to know more, and they show you can acquire these answers while fending off criticisms of the Church and staying away from apostasy yourself.

[_cksalmon]

Shade's categories are intended to describe general phenomena. Yours seem intended to label particular people.

CK, that's not generally how TBMs define Shades' categories. Most of them find it superficial, and some even offensive. They would put this in the same category of Scratch's definitions.

I think it can have a broad application (chapel/Internet Mormon), but I prefer the "Iron Rod", "Liahona" definitions because I think they're more accurate.

Hi Ray--

Yeah, I've seen LDS defenders routinely mock Shades's distinction. The Iron Rod-Liahona dichotomy rings a bell, faintly.

Is this the general idea (from Richard Poll)?

The Iron Rod, as the hymn reminds us, was the word of God. To the person with a hand on the rod, each step of the journey to the tree of life was plainly defined; one had only to hold on while moving forward. In Lehi's dream the way was not easy, but it was clear.

The Liahona, in contrast, was a compass. It pointed to the destination but did not fully mark the path; indeed, the clarity of its directions varied with the circumstances of the user. For the members of Lehi's family the sacred instrument was a reminder of their temporal and eternal goals, but it was not an infallible delineator of their course.

Even as the Iron Rod and the Liahona were both approaches to the word and kingdom of God, so our two types of church members seek the word and the kingdom. The fundamental difference between them lies in their concept of the relation of men and women to the "word of God." Put another way, it is a difference in the meaning assigned to the concept "the fullness of the gospel." Do the revelations of our Heavenly Father give us a handrail to the kingdom or a compass only?

The Iron Rod Saint does not look for questions but for answers and in the gospel—as he or she understands it—finds or is confident that the answer to every important question can be found. The Liahona Saint, on the other hand, is preoccupied with questions and skeptical of answers, finding in the gospel—as he or she understands it—answers to enough important questions so as to function purposefully without answers to the rest. This last sentence holds the key to the [p.3] question posed by my title, but before pursuing its implications let us explore this scheme of classification more fully.

[_Ray A]

Yeah, I've seen LDS defenders routinely mock Shades's distinction. The Iron Rod-Liahona dichotomy rings a bell, faintly.

Yes Poll was the one to devise this, and also later revise it (not change it). I think "chapel/Internet Mormons" can have a current definition, but it doesn't capture the categories historically. I think it would be stretching it to define B.H.Roberts as an "Internet Mormon", for example. Or Hugh B. Brown.

[_Gadianton]

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

To me that's kind of like asking about one's conviction that a given job is worthy of a full day's work independent of the fact that the employer has historically never paid anyone and has no plans on doing so.

Maybe you mean that there are other material possibilities like retaining members or getting blessings in heavn, and I'd augment what I said to include that.

I think you may be wanting to point out that there isn't a strictly logical connection between the effectiveness of doing something and feeling that one needs to do it, that we can be duty bound independent of consequences. I think very few people, including LDS, see things that way, and in fact, that's why LDS have all these odd contradictions about Eden where laws can be transgressed to fulfill higher purposes etc., something I think most people who present duty for its own sake resist. So if you're trying to make the point that feeling that one should defend via apologetics doesn't logically entailproductiveness by any consequential measure I have no problem conceding that, I just think it makes for a thin conversation about reality.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Not in the same you do, it seems.

Please feel free to elaborate.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you've merely constructed some psychological categories (all but one of which are negative) in order to place Mormon defenders in a poor light.

Well, CK, I believe that most LDS apologists do, in fact, behave in a negative light. There are the more pious, respectful ones---Bushman and Ben McGuire, for example---and I would say that they fit into the Righteous Warrior of the First Kind category. What's negative about that?

Again, I am sensing that you simply dislike categorization, period. That would probably help explain why you have not provided any specific examples or illustrations in support of your position. (Then again, you are arguing from a rather tricky position.)

Speaking of the only neutral/neutral-positive category you propose, you wrote:

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that this is ever the sole reason why a given individual undertakes LDS apologetics.

I don't know why it seems unlikely. You haven't provided any reasons for assuming it to be unlikely.

Sure I have: all of the other categories. Let me point out once again, CK, that this is a work in progress. I would never claim that these "theories" are one hundred percent accurate. If you have any advice as to how to make them better, then I am all ears. On the other hand, your alternative, which seems to be brushing everything aside and simply assuming that all LDS apologetics is done simply because the person in question believes that what they are defending is true, seems very sorely lacking.

Think about this: How does your hypothesis explain the apologetics of, say, Pahoran? Or J. Tvedtnes? Or Bill Hamblin? Or Hammer? Sure, you could chalk up all of their behavior to a desire to "defend that which they believe is true," but so what? How does that help us to understand their differences? How does that help us understand why some of them are so much more vile than the others? Why is a "one size fits all category" preferable to something more finely tuned?

You see what I mean?

My guess is that you subjectively constructed your categories specifically to apply to certain individual LDS defenders, rather than that certain LDS defenders just happen to fit in your "objective" categories.

Well, then, my dear CK, you guessed wrong! The categories stem from observations I have made of Mopologists over the years. Obviously, some of the categories are going to apply to certain LDS defenders, and obviously, certain LDS defenders will "just happen" to fit into the categories. That's sort of the point, you know?

Shade's categories are intended to describe general phenomena. Yours seem intended to label particular people.

That's my take, at any rate.

cks

They are intended to label particular people---i.e., Mopologists. What's wrong about that? Again: do you have some sort of general objection to categorization of people?

[_cksalmon]

To me that's kind of like asking about one's conviction that a given job is worthy of a full day's work independent of the fact that the employer has historically never paid anyone and has no plans on doing so.

Maybe you mean that there are other material possibilities like retaining members or getting blessings in heavn, and I'd augment what I said to include that.

I think you may be wanting to point out that there isn't a strictly logical connection between the effectiveness of doing something and feeling that one needs to do it, that we can be duty bound independent of consequences. I think very few people, including LDS, see things that way, and in fact, that's why LDS have all these odd contradictions about Eden where laws can be transgressed to fulfill higher purposes etc., something I think most people who present duty for its own sake resist. So if you're trying to make the point that feeling that one should defend via apologetics doesn't logically entailproductiveness by any consequential measure I have no problem conceding that, I just think it makes for a thin conversation about reality.

One man's thin is another's plump seductress, I suppose. I certainly subscribe to no man's utilitarianism. And, you've read me completely wrongly if you think I believe in duty merely for duty's sake. Goodness, I'm actually a hedonist, Gad. I certainly can't speak for LDS defenders in that regard.

cks

[_Gadianton]

Well then CKS, I must have missed the point of your question. I did my best to try and understand your point, did you do yours to explain it?

[_Trevor]

Think about this: How does your hypothesis explain the apologetics of, say, Pahoran? Or J. Tvedtnes? Or Bill Hamblin? Or Hammer? Sure, you could chalk up all of their behavior to a desire to "defend that which they believe is true," but so what? How does that help us to understand their differences? How does that help us understand why some of them are so much more vile than the others? Why is a "one size fits all category" preferable to something more finely tuned?

You see what I mean?

I think I do, and I am anxious to see how the system might be refined. What did you think of my "student of the mysteries" suggestion?
.
.
.
.
.
.

[_cksalmon]

Well then CKS, I must have missed the point of your question. I did my best to try and understand your point, did you do yours to explain it?

I conceded, for the sake of argument that:

[0] out of every [0 persons who converts] to Christianity makes their decision [to convert] based on a rigorous study of Christian apologetics.

Then, I asked a question:

What does that have to do with one's conviction that a given belief B is worthy of intentional apologia?

The obvious answer, to my mind, is "nothing at all." There is no logical entailment here.

You assumed that, therefore, I was advocating duty for duty's sake, regardless of result.

I merely intended to correct your misapprehension about my personal stance on that point.

And that was, yes, the point that I did my best to make, Gad.

cks

[_Gadianton]

Ok CK, since you've clarified that Mormons must be doing apologetics because they hope to acheive some kind of result, what results do you have in mind?